http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/ RSS feed of mnpACT! Progressive Political Blog en-us sBLOG 0.5.0 Beta (Build 20050313) Thu, 17 May 2012 04:36:17 GMT Thu, 17 May 2012 04:36:17 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3330
On Saturday the Minnesota Republicans hold their convention in St. Cloud and the atmosphere would seem to be a bit apprehensive.

I was at the GOP convention 4 years ago and got to sit in on the "outside" the convention speech from Ron Paul at the Mayo Civic Center. Forced to the convention grounds because Ron Carey told them no speeches without endorsing McCain. I remember thinking at the time that these characters aren't going to just go away quietly.

And if you think about the 4 years that followed....Ron Carey is gone, Michael Brodkorb is gone, Tony Sutton is gone. John McCain is an after thought and the delegate talk centers around....Ron Paul, instead of Mitt Romney.

Oh, true,....the Republican Party has had success in those 4 ensuing years. They managed to take control of both Houses of the Legislature. But they saw Al Franken become Senator, Mark Dayton become Governor, and all the Constitutional offices stay Democratic. And although Chip Cravaack pulled off a huge upset in Congress, the Congressional personalities have held to a status quo.

What has changed is that the MN Republicans are deep in debt; could do little with their legislative majorities; and seem to be dissatisfied with their own leadership. Not to mention a seriously spendy Vikings stadium passed through their midst with token resistance and a bonding bill got passed against the majority GOP wishes via a Democratic push.

When Pat Shortridge heads to the podium, will he actually give an honest assessment of the state of his Party, or will he try to get a high five on his negotiated non-eviction status for GOP digs?

The other main curiousity will be the endorsement for a Senate opponent against Amy Klobuchar. The strength of the Ron Paul faction in the party will center around what happens with Kurt Bills. Has the traditional MN GOP retained enough of its power to ward off a Paulite endorsement? Probably not.

Not that it really matters. It is hard to imagine any of the 3 candidates for Senate endorsement making a serious race against a popular and well funded candidate like Klobuchar.

Still, they need to at least keep up appearances. And how the Republicans make this all work will say a lot about the progress they are making to keep the elephants happy.

Forget any idea of a "big tent" for the MN GOP. They'll be lucky to get a few covering blankets to ride out the storm.]]> Thu, 17 May 2012 04:36:17 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3330 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3330 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3329
Norm Coleman's American Action Network doesn't have a big donor base. They don't have to. It helps when one person writes out a check for $7 million. That's a lot of $200 and under donations.

We don't know who wrote that check and we never will. Norm's big polticial financing project was set up to take in those super secret donations. A pact for free anonymous speech.

Norm raises millions but as to numbers of people....

That single donation accounts for 25% of the nearly $27.5 million raised by the group between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. The organization, which touts its grass-roots advocacy efforts, showed contributions from just 34 donors during that period. Eight contributors accounted for nearly 90% of the group's revenue.

Grass roots advocacy? When its 34 people that's more like an unwanted dandelion patch.

But hey, free speech is free speech. If somebody wants to toss in $7 million in pocket change to promote Norm's right wing friends, its certainly their choice.

But why anonymously? If you feel strongly enough about an issue to spend $7 million on it, why not be up front about it? Show your feelings publicly. When you withhold your name, it raises suspicions and puts a cloud over everything.

Norm, and Karl Rove for that matter, set up their money funnelling PACs to allow for anonymity. They deal in the shadows. It is political money laundering and its ridiculous to call this grass roots advocacy.

And the money gets shuffled around where its needed...

The group also distributed money to six other conservative groups, including nearly $500,000 to American Crossroads, a super PAC linked to Republican strategist Karl Rove.

Legitimate groups and campaigns are not allowed to coordinate but these shadow groups can distribute money anywhere they want in a massive coordination of big money national lobbying.

If I want to write a letter to the editor at a newsapaper, they require my name and address. Blogs that write anonymously are derided and ultimately exposed. Newspaper reporters sign their bylines and editorial boards are clear about where they stand.

Yet, big money can advocate in secret. They can buy advertising, pay for issue ads, and essentially threaten candidates with huge media buys. All in the dark. All without consequence.

Money buys off accountability and the US Supreme Court has signed off on elections for sale.

Norm Coleman has always been a sellout, but the price tag has never been so high.
]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 18:51:30 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3329 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3329 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3328
I guess when you are a governor in the throes of a recall election you can do this sort of thing.....

Wisconsin lost 23,900 jobs between March 2011 and March 2012. Of this, 17,800 were government jobs. The 23,900 loss was the largest among all states. No other state lost more than 3,500 for the period. But the plan to focus on a different set of numbers shows Walker is seeking a new way to look at the economy. He has agreed in the past that the monthly jobs numbers are an appropriate yardstick to judge his success at job creation.

So Walker's dismal jobs record is apparently an accounting error. Just not using the right data...

Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, said state officials will use more detailed data - actual job counts from about 160,000 employers provided to the state Department of Workforce Development.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who is Walker's opponent in the recall election, indicates what is really going on:

"Scott Walker cannot defend his record on jobs, using the same measure that is being used by every state in the country," Barrett said. "So they are going to write their own report and he hopes that the media and the state will believe his numbers."

Maybe President Obama should take note here. It is an old Republican trick anyway....when the data doesn't show what you want...change the data.

You would think Wisconsin voters would be a little skeptical. After all, Walker has a history of changing things around to suit his purposes.

The unchangable fact is that Scott Walker's Wisconsin economy, when compared with the same data of other states, is the worst performing economy for jobs in the entire nation.

Numbers can be changed....but facts are still facts.

]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 03:36:48 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3328 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3328 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3327
On WCCO This Morning with Esme Murphy, both sides of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment had spokespersons. You should look at this video depicting the segment with Jason Atkins, Vice President of Minnesotans for Marriage.

About one minute into the interview, he makes one of the most ridiculous arguments for favoring the amendment I have heard yet.

Look at it here.

A few of the quotes he made....

"(marriage) is the only institution that connects children to their parents."

and....

"..separating marriage's role in bringing men and women together or severing that connection between marriage and children...and children with their biological parents."

Now wait a minute. Marriage isn't THE method of connecting children to their parents. After all, we have a lot of out of wedlock births in this country. Parents and children are not connected by the Marriage Certificate but rather the Birth Certificate. A birth certificate names the biological parents and the courts recognize that. Really, marriage is an incidental in this case. People marry that have had children from previous marriages....they marry after they have already had children.

Quite frankly, in this argument, Mr. Atkins doesn't have a clue.

But he continued with additional assertions. You can listen to the video to verify this, but here is my best guess transcript of what he said after that:

"The polls show that people are not against....in fact, they are in favor..of not preventing people from forming relationships....forming families...going into their own place of worship and having their relationship recognized. They want people (because they have compassion) to hand down property, to visit loved ones in the hospital and they don't want people interfering with that---(and I'm for that, too, by the way). I think they should be able to hand down property, go into any house of worship they choose and to have that recognized as marriage..........
But what voters are against, and what voters are against strongly....and this is the relevant issue for voters....is redefining marriage for everybody.... and forcing everyone as a state, to have their state, recognize and affirm same sex unions as marriage. That's what voters are against. The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment doesn't take away anyone's rights---doesn't prevent any people from going to their church and having their union recognized as marriage; so what Mr. Carlblom (Chair of Minnesotans United for All Families) said earlier 'that this mandates something on religions and churches from marrying people' is completely false. I would stand with any minister who wanted to marry anyone he or she chose.....that's not the issue.
This amendment simply affirms the definition of marriage and makes sure the converstaion doesn't stop, but takes it out of the courts and the Capitol, and makes ure the conversation stands in the hands of the people."

My goodness, where does one begin?

First of all, let's have the actual wording of this amendment:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

The pro-amendment Minnesotans for Marriage seem to be making an argument now that this is merely word semantics. This won't prevent same sex unions. That will be OK. It just can't be called marriage.

Well, then why make this part of the Constitution? What makes a semantics of wording so important that the Constitution must be changed?
With a Constitutional provision locking marriage into a box, how can we know if legal rights will apply. Will contested property fights take this amendment and strip a same sex partner of all legal rights? Will custody battles get ugly and angry with this amendment in the middle? Will this amendment be held up as a reason for a church body to deny a same sex couple their ceremony and celebration?

These are questions that need not be asked. They are questions that can be answered but do not need the complication of a discriminatory Constitutional provision designed to be ambiguous and vague.

Mr. Atkins, you are dead wrong. This amendment will make certain that this conversation is always in the courts and the Capitol. You are taking it out of the hands of the people and putting it into the Constitution.

Yes, Mr. Atkins, you can stand with ministers trying to do the right thing and allow the marriage of a same sex couple. But you know that in the end, and as you will count on, where you stand has nothing to do with the legalities of this issue.

The damage will be done and you can smile and minimize this deed all you want. This amendment is a travesty of individual rights....and you, Mr. Atkins and your Minnesotans for Marriage organization, will have chained Minnesota into a mistake. One, that posterity can only question as to why.]]> Mon, 14 May 2012 22:48:05 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3327 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3327 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3326
It was deeply disappointing that the bonding bill did not include funds for the Southwest Light Rail line. It's not because I have some personal stake in it. I have enough trouble keeping up with the set backs happening in my own area of Apple Valley on transit.

But it is a continuation of a long and deeply troubling semi-conspiracy to kill the light rail network for this Metro area. Even though the sparse rail lines in place are popular and exceed expectations. And even though gas prices continue to escalate and people beg for alternatives. And even though the public continues to want movement in this area. Despite all that, the progress on this rail network moves at a slower than snail's pace.

It was also troubling to watch the legislature, in the space of a few high impact weeks, give a billionaire's sports facility the kind of attention and action that proponents of light rail have craved for decades.

Light rail is never going to achieve the impact it can if we don't move all of its potential projects along. We have construction people who want to work. We have interest rates at record lows. We have a citizenry who would welcome a cheaper alterantive to gas guzzling commutes. All of these things could make a full throttle, full metro ring, light rail network the public works project of our time... and with benefits and development potential beyond measure.

Other major metro areas have made a rail system a priority and their commuter base has responded. Metro areas with complete transit networks prosper. Their businesses prosper. Their citizens will never go back.

What is also troubling about this is this....

Representatives of TwinWest chamber, along with the Minneapolis, St. Paul area and Eden Prairie chambers of commerce, have met with the media and promoted the (Southwest Rail) infrastructure project online.

and this....

In 2000, the corridor through which it would run contained 210,000 jobs. With a light rail line, business leaders say they anticipate a growth of 60,000 more jobs in the corridor by 2030.

and this.....

UnitedHealthcare, for example, is counting on the line to support the addition of thousands of jobs at its suburban headquarters, Schroeer said. SuperValu has also indicated the line could help the company expand its Eden Prairie headquarters. The line could also promote more jobs at Comcast's call center in Minnetonka.

Good for business. Good for jobs. Good for commuters. Good for development.

So what's holding this up?

Minnesota Speaker of the House Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove) and Senate Majority Leader David Senjem (R-Rochester) did not return calls but have expressed hesitation to endorse the line in the past. Zellers has said he is "not a rail guy" and prefers bus rapid transit........Senjem has called light rail lines "a financial liability."

Republicans in the legislature continue to "fight the future". They can't commit to investments that lead to future growth. They are more interested in one time budget fixes that can bring about short term political benefit.

It is a fools game......and we all lose.

Vote for new leadership for Minnesota's future. We cannot wait anymore.
]]> Mon, 14 May 2012 04:01:05 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3326 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3326 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3325
Anybody who watches the TV Show "House" is probably aware of the main character's signature line....

Everybody lies.

Well, when the Wilfs sat down with the press after the Vikings stadium passage, we got a pretty good indication of how much lying was going on during negotiations.

Remember how the Vikings stated that the $$ they were putting up were an absolute ceiling? This far and no farther?

Well, the bill gets to the final countdown and what happens?

Vikings need to put up $50 million more. OK. No problem.

Then during the press conference, we hear about how the Wilfs would like to add a retractable roof. No problem.

The Vikes will pay $3 million to rent TCF stadium during construction. No problem.

The Wilfs have big plans for the "people's stadium". I wonder if the people will actually have any say about it?

]]> Sat, 12 May 2012 17:52:00 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3325 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3325 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3324
I was reading an article on MPR which was discussing the same sex marriage issue in the context of the Bible and morality. It was reasonably balanced and was informative about the issue. But as I will explain in a moment, I'm not sure the entire context is even relevant.

All of my blood relatives cringe when I talk about this topic. My views on this issue are way off base as far as they are concerned. They have very strict moral interpretations of things and I can respect that ....for their own personal beliefs.

But when it comes to same sex marriage, I have a different view of all this. For purposes of legality in a democratic society that guarantees individual liberty and prohibits the governmental practice of any one religion, the moral context of this issue is completely and totally IRRELEVANT.

The effect of a marriage contract is broad in effect but is not meant to be difficult. It's legal effect is that it is a contractual agreement between two people that merges their lives in a monogamous relationship and all assets and actions of the marriage are, from then on, subject to the contract.

I'm not going to say that is a "definition" of marriage, anymore than saying that marriage should be defined as "between one man and one woman". Even among heterosexuals, marriage is defined by family law over time. Really, family law attorneys can give you the better definition of marriage.

But today, the hang up is with religion. Part of the problem stems a lot from the fact that most marriages are done in churches and performed by ministers. And that is fine in the legal sense. But that isn't necessary for a marriage to be recognized under the law. We have civil ceremonies, open air marriages performed by the latest spiritual guru, Vegas quick stops, etc, etc. As long as you have a license filed at a courthouse, you are married.

But the fact that churches and ministers are involved in the majority of marriages has confused the idea as to whether or not same-sex couples can also get married. Religion has again invaded a secular issue and taken away minority rights.

That is why the court system seems to be at odds with prevailing social mores. Given the basic facts and the way the basic Constitutions (Fed and State) read, it is hard to deny the legality of two people (of the same sex) wanting to get married. Contrary to social conservative opinion, the Constitution stayed away from religious interpretations of things. Sure there are laws that are similar to the Ten Commandments...but similar laws are a part of nearly every civilized society. That is not unique to "Christian" societies....it is a basic tenet of almost any society...even ancient pagan ones.

As the generational shift continues on same sex marriage and older, traditional societal members continue to hold to beliefs that the younger generation is rejecting, the idea of encasing this view into Constitutional law has taken on an almost desperate frenzy. States are being asked to vote on "forcing" the future to maintain a view that is going to go away and will eventually require a lot of nuisance legal wrangling to fix because of what we are doing now.

And it all stems from religion. Your views on homosexuality are what you believe. Those beliefs are yours and no one is forcing you to change it. However, in a democratic society, you do not have the right to force everyone else to accept those views as well.

You and your church do not have to recognize same sex unions. If your religious beliefs cannot accept that, fine. In the eyes of your church that marriage does not exist. But you also cannot prevent them from exercising their right to a legal contract. Putting a religious belief as a prerequisite for a contract that affects so many actions of our society and economy, is simply wrong.

Maybe you don't believe in a separation of church and state. Many people think that Chrisitan beliefs are the defacto law of the land. I do not. Since we are a pluralistic society, we simply can't allow that. Although a majority of the country is "Christian" (at least in label), that still does not negate minority rights.

And the real foolishness of all this is that a lot of same sex couples would prefer to be accepted in the Christian community. They want to be married in a church....to have the same celebratory atmosphere that everyone else has. And many churches do accept this and do celebrate it.

So it really all comes down to individual rights. Religious beliefs are personal and have a myriad of qualifiers. Mixing those beliefs with government produces a host of problems. For the most part, we have done well to keep those problems to a minimum. But we are at a serious crossroads on this issue of marriage.

Laws are on the books which don't allow marriages that involve homosexual couples. That is a mistake; but it can be corrected. But to double down on a Constitutional amendment as many states have done, is a foolish burden on our posterity.

In Minnesota, Vote NO on this fall's amendment. Stop fighting the future.
]]> Sat, 12 May 2012 16:27:21 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3324 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3324 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3323
The bonding bill got passed in between Viking soundbites, but going into the 2012 campaign it will be interesting to watch the Republicans play this both ways.....it passed to help create jobs, but the GOP didn't "actually" support it.

In the Senate, Republicans were south of the votes needed for a simple majority; only 18 of their 37 members voted for it. In the House, 39 of the 71 Republicans present voted for the bill, leaving them well shy of their three-fifths share. That meant DFLers needed to compensate for significant gaps in GOP support to get the bill passed.
They did so with unanimous DFL support in the House, despite gripes from several of them about the bill’s contents. Twenty-seven of 30 Senate DFLers voted for the bill. As of Tuesday afternoon, when the House concurred with some changes made by the Senate, the bill was on its way to DFL Gov. Mark Dayton’s desk for his signature.

So....it was the DFL legislators that made the bonding bill happen. The GOP leadership needed a 3/5ths vote to pass it but couldn't get that percentaage out of either of their majority caucuses.

If it was up to the Republicans, this session would have simply been an absolute do-nothing session (not even the Vikings)....but just watch -- leading up to November elections, you are going to hear a lot about how the bonding bill will be a GOP talking point.

The ironic thing about that is that the Democrats didn't think the bonding bill lived up to their standards. Many of the Dems voting for the bill lamented the fact that the Southwest rail corridor was left out....which will cost Minnesota a lot of Federal matching funds....and the construction jobs that would go with a major project like that.

Democrats could have sat on their hands and let it all go down....Vikings included for that matter. But they actually believed in that "jobs, jobs, jobs" slogan which was supposedly the GOP mantra for 2012.

Watch the GOP take credit for all of it. You know its going to happen.

]]> Fri, 11 May 2012 04:33:47 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3323 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3323 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3322
Dakota County Commissioner Will Branning is retiring and the county loses a strong advocate for growth, transit, and serious forward thinking.

Within hours of his retirement announcement, the Mayor of Apple Valley, Mary Hamman-Roland made it clear that she would run for the seat.

Mayor Hamman-Roland has classified herself as an Independent, politically, and ran for the State Senate as an indy in a special election for state senate, won by now retiring Senator Chris Gerlach.

Most observors feel that Hamman-Roland would continue the Branning advocacy, as the two worked in a collaborative sense on a number of Apple Valley projects.

The questions now are who will run against her for that seat and if she wins, who would be the next mayor of Apple Valley?

The future of transit in this part of Dakota County probably hangs in the balance. Hamman-Roland is transit friendly, but if an uncooperative mayor takes over, that collaborative pro-transit working group could shift dramatically.

This is going to be watched closely. It will have major implications on the future of Dakota County.

Note: Not official, but Rep. Garofalo is tweeting that retiring Senator Chris Gerlach is running for the Commissioner seat. We may have a rematch!

]]> Thu, 10 May 2012 17:06:11 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3322 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3322 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3321
Michele Bachmann has become an official citzen of Switzerland.

Ah, the poor Swiss.

Their centuries old position of neutrality must now come to an end.

The Alps must now be opened up for drilling.

Swiss banks will be forbidden to help with Greek bailouts.

And those Swiss guards have to quit wearing those "outfits".



]]> Wed, 09 May 2012 23:08:34 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=3321 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=3321