http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/ RSS feed of mnpACT! Progressive Political Blog en-us sBLOG 0.5.0 Beta (Build 20050313) Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:34:12 GMT Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:34:12 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2411
There is a lot of ways to look at the coming onslaught of corporate donations. This flap with Target's corporate donation is giving us a preview of the arguments to be made.

I always hate the contention that unlimited money donations is akin to free speech, but we have a Supreme Court that seems to side with that interpretation, so we are stuck with it for now.

However, the flip side of that needs to be addressed. We should be entitled to know who is making those large contributions and to whom.

After all, a democracy is only as good as its informed electorate and when making voting decisions, an important aspect of what we need to know involves public record of large donors to any particular campaign.

Too often, in the past, the campaign finance laws that existed were circumvented by PAC groups disguised with inocuous names, funded by deep pocketed individuals, with stealth political agendas.

So, as the deeper pockets of corporate fingers grasp the neck of campaign finance, shouldn't our free speech rights to know and protest such massive contributions be part of the debate as well?

Which brings us to the DISCLOSE ACT (or as explained by the full name..... Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act).

This legislation would not block corporate donations, but it would, by force of law, make sure that who was giving was public knowledge. And, although this legislation has passed the House, the Republicans have a filibuster in play (again..).

If corporate donations are free speech, then why is it important that it NOT be public knowledge? Could it be that corporations are afraid of public displeasure from customers and stockholders?

The DISCLOSE ACT does have some problems:

Exemptions made for large, long-standing, non-profit groups which would not fall under the bill's disclosure requirements, such as the NRA, the AARP, and the Humane Society. The exemption was included in the House in order to gain support from moderates and conservatives.

Republicans are using these exemptions to argue against the bill and I have to say that I am troubled by them as well. There should be no exemptions....for any reason.

But it shows us how broken the methods of moving legislation have become. To even get this bill to the floor, these special interest groups had to be appeased....especially the NRA.

But, even with the flaws in this bill, we need to have this in place. Corporations are just going to move their giving to groups that do not disclose their donors. They will become conduits to finance agendas that promote their corporate or political interests. They will use profits gathered from you and me and then use that money to promote policies that could hurt you and me.

Transparency is really our only protection. And so far, that protection is hard to see through.]]> Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:34:12 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2411 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2411 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2410
Our soon to be ex-governor Tim Pawlenty makes a lot of statements that have a lot of tax hyperbole. Well, Politifact decided to examine the quote below and check it out for "truthiness":

"I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors."
Tim Pawlenty, Monday, July 26th, 2010.

Verdict?



In an opinion column published the following day, Washington Post reporter Ruth Marcus took aim at Pawlenty's remark.

"Actually," Marcus wrote, "the United States is on the low end in terms of the overall tax burden -- 28 percent of gross domestic product in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, compared with an average of 36 percent in the 30 OECD countries. Only South Korea, Mexico and Turkey were lower."

Frankly, I have a hard time believing anything that the man says anymore, regarding taxes. When he does tax something, like cigarettes, he calls it a fee. Property taxes don't seem to exist to him. And Minnesota is always a high tax state when he talks about Democrats and a fair taxed state when discussing his own record.

I think we have a credibility gap here.
]]> Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:55:24 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2410 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2410 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2409
Well, well. This is much too good not to share. Recently I posted about Kurt Bills (GOP candidate for 37B vs. Rep. Phil Sterner) and his connection to the "Liberty Caucus".... I called him a "tenther version of Judy Lindsay". I noticed some letters to the editors that were actually discussing some of this in the local Apple Valley and Rosemount papers. But, truly, I could not ask for a better verification than this...... (Note: emphasis mine)

To the editor:

Letter writer Ken Wolf (July 16) insulted the voters, Republican Party delegates, and myself in his lame attempt in trying to defend Kurt Bills. Party politics should not be more important than advancing the issues and leading Minnesota into a better economy, creating more jobs and protecting our freedoms.

Two years ago, Wolf assured voters that I was mainstream and fit the district when he wrote that I was: “someone we can depend on, someone who shares our morals and values.” Now he calls me an extremist right wing politician and Bills is a common-sense mainstream politician that fits the district.

The trouble is, my stands on the issues and Bills’ stands on the issues are identical. I challenge anyone to find an issue where he differs from my stated positions. If, in fact, Bills differs from the Republican platform, he has yet to announce those anti-Republican beliefs.

Since our beliefs are identical, the adjectives describing us have to be identical. Which is it? Are Judy Lindsay and Kurt Bills common sense mainstream politicians or right wing extremists?

If Bills votes the same way he talks, I guarantee you that a vote for Kurt Bills is exactly the same as a vote for Judy Lindsay.

Judy Lindsay
Rosemount

Need I say more? And thank you Judy Lindsay.]]> Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:15:12 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2409 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2409 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2408
I have talked extensively about the DFL primary race for governor, and we are now entering the home stretch. I have tried to point out what I see as strengths and weaknesses of the three candidates. Some people think I get a little tough on some individuals and others think I gloss over some of the problems.

Mostly I am just pointing out what I think are important items to consider as we head to August 10th. Of course, let the primary voters make the final decision. And then it is on to November with whomever you choose.

Today I want to talk briefly about what I call the GEP. (General Election Pivot). For most of the primary season the candidates have focused on the DFL base voters. They have to convince them that they are the best candidate in order to move on to the general election phase. So, for these past months, the 3 candidates have been emphasizing their left-leaning credentials....some harder than others.

But after August 10th, the winner will need to essentially make a quick pivot and broaden his or her appeal. The victor now must consider what the independent and moderate voters are going to be looking at and make a new appeal to them as well.

The question becomes who is in the best position to move seamlessly into that broader, general election mode. Well, here is one opinion:

1) Mark Dayton. Mark is a flat out progressive and it is why he has largely been considered the favorite in the primary. It is also the reason that he will have the hardest time making that GEP. He has invested too much in his current message and there is no backing off. That will lead to a very clear choice for Minnesota. Tom Emmer is not backing off his conservative credentials and Dayton will stand by his. The argument will be joined and I have to admit it would be interesting to see where that would lead. However, the middle ground will be easier for Horner to stake out in such an instance and the IP candidate will probably do better than expected in such a contest. Who that will hurt more is anybody's guess.

2) Matt Entenza. Entenza's main message is also a very clear progressive one -- green energy and green jobs. Again, that will be a contrast to Emmer. However, Entenza's other positions move him somewhat closer to the middle and he can adjust his message with a little more ease than Dayton will be able to. Another advantage that Entenza has is that his deep pockets can be utilized for image flexibility. If the message isn't working, change it.

3) Margaret Anderson Kelliher. Kelliher probably has the best tools for making the GEP. Her Lt. Governor John Gunyou fits the mold of a fiscal policy wonk. Her stance on taxes has been nuanced to the right of Dayton. Her jobs focus is the correct one for a general election. Her recent property tax focus is a clear GEP winner. And her language is often crafted to make that broader appeal. Of the three, her GEP could be the easiest.

There is little doubt that all three could make the transition. And the real clear advantage for the DFLers is that their GOP opponent is Tom Emmer.

His General Election Pivot shoes are made of concrete. ]]> Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:20:31 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2408 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2408 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2407 Note: This is a counterpoint piece that was sent to me by a friend of mine who is involved with the Dan Powers campaign. It is offered here in its entirety. -- Dave M.

By Paul Hoffinger

I think it was Fox News-style journalism at the Strib that contributed to its attempt to slam Dan Powers. Many otherwise liberal people are apparently either unaware of the paper's descent into yellow, muckraking journalism over the last couple years, or willing to give the paper a pass out of ill-advised nostalgia.

Plain and simple, one of the rats I smell behind the hatchet-job on Dan Powers, is the Strib's membership in the now virtually total, corporate media. Hemorrhaging dollars and red ink, the paper is a propaganda appendage of the right-wing nuts that own it.

Dan Powers is what he says he is: a south metro business owner, who has had difficulties with the economy that George W. Bush damaged. Other small business owners, and most of us, have had some similar difficulties with it.

Even the Strib acknowledged that Dan worked on his pool heating business in 2009, while he was collecting unemployment benefits. This sounds like the actions of a prudent businessman. Had anybody accepted one of his bids, he would have had to stop collecting. Should he not call himself a contractor because nobody accepted one of his bids? Must we assume lack of full disclosure if he hasn't had a bid accepted? I think we are too conveniently anxious to think we have been duped, and more than that, I think we are too easily used by a corporate media organ that employs innuendo to try to damage our DFL candidates.

If Dan was a Republican in the past, I know some outstanding DFL legislators who were too, so he's in good company. I don't think we should require a political pedigree to be a party leader. About his unemployment benefits, as a laid-off roofing company employee while also a pool-heating contractor, he was eligible for unemployment, [which is] unavailable to non-employees or independent contractors providing services to a business.

Warnings about circular firing squads are useful to heed at this time. We might well avoid damaging a candidate's chances by blindly believing everything we read in right-wing newspapers. The political news gods under the paper's neo-con owners have gone to great lengths to paint Dan Powers negatively, while they pointedly ignore Kline's pathetic excuses for not supporting child nutrition. Just like their heroes at good ol' fair-and-balanced Fox News.

Dan Powers is a powerful candidate, strong on the issues. He leads potent discussions about jobs and the economy, global warming and green employment, health care, tax justice, education, and has a wealth of personal experience and research in those fields. Ask anybody who's been in a parade with him in the last couple months. He's a great candidate, and a world of threat to John Kline and the fat cats that own Kline! He is actually doing the work to win this race without waiting for redistricting in two years. [Let's not hobble him now to placate the wing-nuts at the Star Tribune.]

The incumbent from the party of "no" would like to run away from Dan Powers, the better to conserve the hefty campaign war-chest Kline has amassed from the likes of Tom DeLay, Big Oil and other Texas and corporate friends. The incumbent's public comment about the high cost to taxpayers of child nutrition programs is something worth being distracted from. So, his oily friends at the Star Tribune come out high profile with their num-chuks and spin-knives against the likely DFL heir-apparent.

Yukkk, how greasy! I bet they're even using some of that emulsifier/ surfactant that BP spread in the Gulf.]]> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:13:05 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2407 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2407 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2406
Governor Pawlenty, on a tour of Iraq this week, told reporters that he “sees dramatic progress in Iraq stability. I’m getting a hopeful and optimistic impression.” Really? Rather than do “visits” to places (where I am sure he is kept away from the violence) he ought to read other accounts of what is happening.

For example, in the same paper reporting his optimism, there is a report that 15 people were killed in the Diyala Province in a car bombing. It was the third fatal bombing this week in that area. One U.S. troop was also mortally wounded. Nine people were killed on July 16, and although the level of killing has dropped significantly since the high marks in 2007, it is estimated that more than 2400 civilians have been killed in the first six months of this year.

Add them to the estimated 100,000 to half a million civilians killed in the war, the 2 million people who have fled the country, the 4400 + U.S. troops killed in the war, the 55,000 “enemy combatants” and you have nothing but a full-fledged disaster. It is especially galling since the war was unnecessary and has continued to be bungled in its management. U.S taxpayers have shelled out almost a trillion dollars for this effort and the costs will continue to escalate as almost 30% or more of our returning troops have forms of mental anguish and illness, to say nothing of the more than 30,000 who have been wounded. More than $10 billion is unaccounted for and $3.2 billion of Halliburton’s $20 billion in fees have been questionable expenses.

Nice that the Governor is “hopefully optimistic” about the future. He ought to be overwhelmingly saddened by the past and realize that the problems of the country still persist. It is time to close this horrible chapter in American history. We are experiencing record deficits and record unemployment…..it is time to invest our money in our own future and meet our own needs first.
]]> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:05:57 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2406 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2406 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2405
Governor Pawlenty and conservative interest group Minnesota Majority are now claiming that 1000 felons voted in the 2008 senatorial election and could have tipped the scales back to Coleman. They want an investigation. In the mean time, many of the disputed ballots are being found to be cast by individuals who were no longer ineligible to vote….they had served their time and were again able to cast a ballot. It is 2010…..it is time to put this close election behind us. Please.

And if anyone wants to complain about disputed elections, then Democrats can always bring up the disputed 2000 election. The stakes were higher….the presidency of the United States. In that election Mr. Gore won the popular vote by almost 540,000. That total is undisputed.

The problems in Florida, which gave Mr. Bush the necessary numbers to win the Electoral College vote by 5, were made worse when the Supreme Court, in Bush vs. Gore, said the uneven standards for the recount would do “irreparable damage” to Mr. Bush. In what some would consider one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever, the most activist intervention of the Court in American politics, a conservative Court chose to override the Florida Supreme Court and stop the recount. This clearly should have never happened. Conservatives have always supported states rights…especially against federal intervention. Except in this case, when they could hand the presidency of the United States to their political party. None of the conservative justices chose to recuse themselves, even though members of their family worked for the Bush campaign.

Reviews of the ballots were inconclusive. Some revealed that Bush would have won if only the four disputed counties in the court case were reviewed. Had there been a statewide recount, as was done in Minnesota, there is a strong likelihood that Gore would have won. Physically reviewing each ballot indicated that many of the discrepancies could have been discerned.

Most troubling of all the issues in the Florida election were the patterns discovered in voter trends. For example, ballots were rejected in counties where there were large majorities of Blacks, Hispanics, and older Floridians. Three times as many ballots in minority communities were rejected, compared to predominantly white areas. And clearly over-count ballots that were rejected were heavily cast for Gore. A NY Times article (Nov 12, 2001) suggested that of 113,000 over-vote ballots reviewed, 75,000 were cast for Gore and a minor candidate, whereas 28,000 chose Bush and a minor candidate. A hand count could have changed the outcome.

The worst part of the whole story in terms of American history is what happened as a result of this “appointment” by the Supreme Court. There probably would have not been a 9/11, there wouldn’t have been an Iraq war, there wouldn’t have been a huge tax cut for the rich (coupled with relaxed oversight of Wall Street and oil businesses) that caused the greatest recession since the Great Depression, there wouldn’t have been a Roberts Supreme Court that unleashed corporate money into the political arena, there wouldn’t have been a prolonged Afghan war, there wouldn’t have been torture, there wouldn’t have been 6000 American soldiers killed, there wouldn’t have been millions displaced and more than 500,000 civilians killed in Iraq, and perhaps there wouldn’t be the political polarization that we find in today’s social climate.
]]> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:04:27 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2405 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2405 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2404
I remember a line from the movie "Stand By Me" in which four intrepid pre-teen boys set out on a quest to find the dead body of a kid who was an accident victim.

During the mission, a young Wil Wheaton poses the question:

"If Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog ... what the hell is Goofy?"

A question for the ages.

However, we are beginning to find a different "what is" question developing in Minnesota. What the hell is Governor Pawlenty?

Politico quotes our 2% in the national polls Governor as saying he wants to cast himself as one leader who could dispel the impression that Republicans are “a bunch of country club elitists.”

Well, he may not BE a country club elitist, but he darn well protects their money. Even though he hasn't been using it much in his stump speeches lately, writers still mention his "Sam's Club Republican" characterization of where the GOP is headed...except Pawlenty isn't protecting them.

As we approach the 2010 elections, he talks about a new type of leadership:

The second-term Republican and potential 2012 presidential candidate specifically mentioned California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez and South Carolina state Rep. Nikki Haley, the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee, as promising candidates for the future of the party.

Interesting. I wonder if Pawlenty wants to put himself on that next generation of leaders stage with a cast of all women. I realize that he is trying to make a point that Republicans are attracting more women candidates, but that still leaves him kind of in the traditional white male Republican role with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. A man out of place in both arenas.

So, that still leaves us with the question, "What the hell is a Tim Pawlenty?".....

He once was concerned about the environment...but no more.

He once was concerned about the working man and woman, at least he says that is where his roots are....but now they are the enemy.

Pawlenty once thought of himself as the education governor....but I guess that is without teachers and without money.

Is Pawlenty really this bastion of conservative ideals? Is that what he is really all about?

Wil Wheaton never got an answer for Goofy.....and I doubt the real Pawlenty will be appearing anytime soon either.
]]> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:56:24 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2404 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2404 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2403
At NetRoots Nation, Al Franken stated this:

....But I do think that this whole approach of slowing everything down, in many ways I think it’s so that, they don’t want a jobs bill because they don’t want people to get jobs before the election. It’s a harsh thing to say, and I don’t want to impugn the motives of my colleagues, but I don’t get what they’re doing otherwise.

Of course, he is referring to the tactics of the Senate Republicans to utilize the filibuster far beyond its original intent. And of course, the Minnesota GOP had to respond:

In a statement, the Minnesota GOP Chairman Tony Sutton said that Franken “crossed a line.” “Al Franken’s outrageous remarks are beneath a United States senator and we would encourage him to apologize for his baseless suggestion,” Sutton said.

OK. So the first thing to note is that this "line" that Franken has somehow crossed must be a barrier with "Democrats Not Allowed" written across it, because Sutton and his GOP cohorts have no such arbitrary line stopping them.

But more importantly, what Franken contends about the Republican intent has some empirical evidence. Think Progress looked at over 100 bills that have passed the House (with large bipartisan majorities), that the Senate filibuster has left in limbo.

All told, there are 290 such bills in various forms that are sitting on the Senate agenda. You can view the entire list here....

But lets look at a few specifics:

1) Small Business Financing and Investment Act (HR 3854): This legislation would provide assistance to small businesses so they get the credit the need to obtain loans to make payroll and expand. It passed the House 389-32 on Oct. 29, 2009.

2) Republicans blocked a motion by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to provide immediate fixes to two areas of the law that would have clarified and protected coverage for millions of TRICARE and Veterans Administration beneficiaries.

3) Homes for Heroes Act (HR403): This legislation would expand and improve housing for homeless veterans. It passed the House 417-2 on June 16, 2009.

4) H.R. 3738, Small Business Early-Stage Investment Act

5) H.R. 3737, Small Business Microlending Expansion Act

6) H.R. 466, Wounded Veteran Job Security Act

7) H.R. 2352, Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

Of course, these are all in addition to the unconscionable delay in extending unemployment benefits. The blocking of the Finance Reform Bill. The delay on Federal Health Care. And the killing of the Cap and Trade legislation which contrary to their characterization would end up creating jobs not killing them.

The Republicans are determined to stop any progress in bringing down barriers to job solutions, job creation, and ironically, help for Veterans. If Franken is crossing some line to point out this hypocrisy, then please Senator Franken, by all means, cross the line.]]> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:56:25 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2403 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2403 http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2402
I haven't talked about the 2nd District DFL Congressional race much during this cycle. Some of the reasons I hesitate in that regard are that I usually get myself into trouble because I often don't say what everybody wants to hear.

Well, judging by the recent Tribune article about the two DFL Congressional candidates, we need to start talking about this a little more.

Essentially we seem to have two unemployed candidates that will be facing off in the August 10th primary. And that probably comes as a surprise to a lot of Democrats in the 2nd. Shelley Madore's situation seems to be quite recent, while Powers has had an ongoing situation for some time. None of which was disclosed.

Now, should that make a difference? Well....yes and no. I guess the better question is this: Should being out of work be a disqualifer to run for office? and the answer to that question is a resounding NO.

Now does it make it more difficult? The answer to that is absolutely. Running for a legislative seat while being unemployed would be classified as a difficult problem. Running for a Federal office, like a Congressional seat, makes it darn near impossible.

A Federal candidacy is basically an unpaid full time job. The best you can strive for is to get some of your personal expenses paid and hope you don't have to dip into loaning the campaign your savings too deeply. All the money you raise has to go into your campaign -- and there, again, you have to hope you can barely cover your growing list of expenses.

Another question that this situation brings up is, "are we entitled to know the personal finances of a candidate?" As if to answer some of that, Margaret Anderson Kelliher is calling for more such scrutiny of a candidate's personal finances in the Governor's race.

And, within reasonable boundaries, I agree.

I guess other questions piggyback on top of the ones just discussed. For instance, maybe Dan Power's employment situation shouldn't make any difference, but if it doesn't, why didn't anyone outside of a few party insiders know? I was a delegate to the Congressional convention and I was certainly not aware of this. All we were told is that Dan was a "small business owner". Of course, any one of us could have asked for more details on that and I would assume that Powers would have been forthcoming on those details. But we all made some assumptions that obviously lacked some credibility.

I guess the other question to ask is this. Since Shelley Madore is running in the primary and we now have information that may call into question Dan Power's endorsement, should Democrats consider Madore to be a better option now?

Well, if you are asking me, my answer is "I don't know."

Madore did not win the endorsement on merit (at least in the minds of the delegates -- although for disclosure sake, she did convince me). Dan's personal situation could have made some difference, but Madore didn't make any compelling issue arguments at the time that made her the obvious choice either. And, of course, you have to take into account that she did promise to abide by the endorsement.

So on August 10th, how do you vote?

I guess that simply brings us full circle. You vote for the candidate that you think has the best chance to defeat John Kline. That is what it always comes down to in primary elections. You have to weigh all the factors I just discussed and decide what is most important for you.

Then you pull the lever.

Whatever happens, John Kline is still not too worried, I'm afraid.]]> Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:30:56 GMT http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=2402 ]]> http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/blog.php?id=2402