With Friends Like These

The long knives are out in the DFL party today and they are all aimed at one Senatorial candidate - and it is not Norm Coleman. Whether it is Minn Post, the Star Tribune, The Washington City Post, USA Today or CBS News all everyone is talking about is Al Franken's flight of pornographic fantasy! Stories about Al Franken's 2000 Playboy Article have dominated the talk of all of the organizations tracking this high profile Senate race and most of the talk focuses on the fact that it is fellow Democrats that are the ones raising a ruckus.

Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said that a Playboy column written by Senate candidate Al Franken eight years ago was offensive and presents a serious political problem for Democratic candidates this year. McCollum, who had supported Franken rival Mike Ciresi until he dropped out of the race, told The Associated Press on Thursday that she was worried that Minnesota Democratic congressional candidates will be running with a candidate “who has pornographic writings that are indefensible.”

Ed Morrissey, writing at Hot Air, asks an interesting question...why were these Democrats so quiet when the issue was Franken's tax problems.

I guess in the end it doesn’t matter much how Al Franken loses this election, but a broadside from two key members of the Minnesota DFL’s Congressional delegation reflects a strange set of priorities. Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison attacked Franken not for his serial tax evasions or his failure to provide workers-comp insurance to his employees, but for a sexually graphic and sophomoric piece of fiction Franken wrote for Playboy eight years ago. Apparently for the DFL, breaking the law doesn’t rise to the level of outrage, but idiotic fantasy is a disqualification:

In a way, I understand why Reps. Ellison and McCollum are on the attack now. Tax evasion is a "crime" against the government, but this kind of sexual exploitation is a crime against a DFL protected class and it simply can not be allowed to stand! However I don't agree with Ed that this is "column" is nothing more than a "piece of silly sexual fiction" that should be so easily dismissed. It is a window into the soul of the satirist. Yes satire can be offensive, but as we have seen in the past, there is a mean streak to Al Franken that takes his satire to a level of nasty thoughtlessness that most people do not want to see out of a member of "the worlds greatest deliberative body". Al Franken's form of satire is of the speak first, deliberate only if your words come back to bite you and it seems like lately everything Franken says is coming back to bite him.

I just hope that it blowing all of this political "ammo" now does not come back to bite the MNGOP in the next two weeks. Al Franken is a beatable candidate - especially if you have all of this intel in your back pocket. Why blow the wad now, in the last two weeks before the DFL Endorsing convention. What happens if the DFL decides to pull a stronger candidate off of the back bench. Say a Mike Cirisi or a Tom Bakk? What will the MNGOP do then?

Fear And Loathing In Minneapolis

Part two of Eric Black's expose into the Minnesota Attorney General's office is out today. After a brief summation of former AG Mike Hatch's career (attorney, chairman of the DFL Party, Minnesota commerce commissioner, a two-term attorney general and a three-time candidate for governor), Black recounts some of the more tawdry events in the AG's political career.

In 1994, when he realized he couldn't get the endorsement, he threw his support to state Sen. John Marty against his chief rival for the endorsement, Mike Freeman. A Star Tribune article at the time said Hatch believed Marty would be easier to beat in a primary than Mike Freeman. It worked, as far as knocking off Freeman, who kept his pledge to drop out if he lost the endorsement, but Hatch lost in the primary anyway.

In 2006, after Hatch's protégé Lori Swanson had entered the race for the DFL attorney general nomination, Hatch encouraged former state Rep. Bill Luther to get into the primary field. Luther, who had a previous reputation as a relentless fundraiser and campaigner, entered the race but didn't raise much money and didn't campaign very hard. He received just 21 percent of the vote in the three-candidate field. Most DFLers to whom I talked about it subscribe to the belief that this was another clever but devious Hatch trick. Swanson, who was clearly Hatch's chosen successor, was able to win a close primary over DFL endorsee state Sen. Steve Kelley. The widely accepted theory is that Hatch believed if Swanson was the only woman against two men, she could win. If so, it worked. Swanson was nominated with a 42 percent plurality.

Black knew that this would have the appearance of being one sided so he went out of his way to find supporters of the former AG to interview.

Hatch certainly has friends, allies and admirers. (How else, in spite of his critics, could he have handily won both the DFL gubernatorial endorsement and primary in 2006?)

His work ethic is legendary. No one, not even Hatch, denies the temper, but his friends see it as an excess of populist zeal. They believe Hatch has accumulated critics and enemies because he is a tough fighter...Because so many of the sources I interviewed for this series have developed a dim view of Hatch's tenure as attorney general, I sought out someone who had a lot of dealings with Hatch and was an admirer. I was referred to Jim Bernstein, a former Minnesota commerce commissioner.

He said Hatch had been an outstanding AG and he maintained "nothing but the highest admiration" for him. (In the interest of full disclosure, Bernstein pointed out that he has a contract with the attorney general's office.)

However, the former AG seems to have more detractors than he has admirers as witnessed by this remark by one of Minnesota's First Families of Politics.

Another source, who worked under Hatch as well as Hatch's predecessor, Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III, put it more bluntly: "Mike Hatch is the last person in the world whose shit list I want to be on. Even when he's out of office, just his presence on the planet. He's a very nasty person. I don't have enough interest in the truth being known to risk anything professionally."

Still, is the threat as real as it appears. After all, Black quotes one anonymous former staffer as saying "It's funny how much power we give them (Hatch and Swanson) in our minds,". Could the threat be that real?

During our weekly Blog Talk Radio program, Jazz Shaw and I discussed the developments in this story and remarked about how interesting it was that Attorneys General seem to have this kind of "above the law attitude" (we referenced Jazz's former AG Eliot Spitzer and North Carolina's Mike Nifong as examples) which led me to half jokingly inquire "what is it with this office?" The answer can be found in Black's report.

The office of attorney general carries with it enormous discretion to mete out benefits and pain. On the plus side, for example, the attorney general can appoint private lawyers to represent state interests. This includes not only the lucrative state bond work that was referred to in the first installment, but also appointments to handle big cases for the state...On the other hand, the attorney general has near-total discretionary power to prosecute, sue or investigate people, companies and organizations.

Many of those who have left the AG's office express a clear concern that Hatch and Swanson (most of these sources believe that Hatch still has enormous influence over Swanson) will sue or investigate their company or organization, even retaliate against the clients of their law firm, in order to punish them.

In fairness to the AG's, Black asked for names of people who had been "ruined" by the AG's office retaliating for some supposed slight.

They speak as if Hatch (and Swanson) is the kind of junkyard brawler who will do whatever is necessary to make them pay. They speak as if the circles of their acquaintance are littered with the ruined lives of those who crossed Mike Hatch.

So I've been pushing them: Tell me the names of those whose lives or careers were destroyed so I can confirm the details...But the actual damage done to the targets of Hatch's wrath seems minor compared to the level of the fear. Many who left the AG's office unhappy and bitter have gone on to bigger and better jobs and lives. In the most famous cases in which threats of retaliation were made, the threats were not fulfilled. There is a serious disconnect between the facts and the fear.

Emphasis mine. Even though there is a "disconnect" between the facts and the fear, the fear is enough to make people, including non-partisan Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles, think twice about putting name to accusation.

One of my sources, who also testified to Legislative Auditor James Nobles about his experiences in the office, said that even Nobles encouraged him to think hard about whether he wanted his identity to be disclosed in the auditor's report that will soon be published.

One person willing to go on the record is Amy Brendmoen. While not an AAG, Brendmoen was an 11 year employee of the AG's office and she did see some things that puzzled her.

He never yelled at her, although she did witness one of Hatch's screaming, cursing, table-pounding tantrums, and was mostly puzzled by it. "The banging and red-faced crap was all pretty unnecessary," she said. "We were all on the same side" on the matter under discussion and everyone was doing the best work they could. She didn't believe that such displays were the best way to motivate the troops.

She was often puzzled by the Hatch team's insistence on the "lazy staff" explanation for the problems of the office. The people who worked in the office were "hardworking, bright, committed and they were treated as if they were just the opposite," Brendmoen said.

Her career in the AG office ended in what appears to be typical Hatch fashion.

After Swanson's election, Hatch informed Brendmoen that she wouldn't be kept on either as spokeswoman or be offered her old investigator's job back. He offered her a demotion with a 25 percent pay cut. She assumes she was supposed to quit over that, but when she indicated she would think about it (because the mother of three couldn't afford to be unemployed), Hatch told her she really needed to leave.

Brendmoen suspects that her termination may have been caused by her friendship to AG office employees who were pro-union. What leads her to that suspicion? A couple of very strange phone calls to her new place of employment...

The first call was to her, at work, from a young man claiming to work for Lois Quam, wife of Hatch's political foe, Matt Entenza. The caller asked Brendmoen to write a post for "the family" on a blog that the union organizers have created. Brendmoen took that call to be an effort to trick her into confirming Hatch's and Swanson's theory that Entenza is behind the union movement. (As far as Brendmoen knows, Entenza and Quam have nothing to do with it, and the answers she gave to the caller would not have confirmed the suspicion.)

The next call was a message left for her new boss. The message, claiming to be "on behalf of Matt and Lois," thanked her boss for allowing Brendmoen to spend company time helping her former colleagues with their union drive. This one, she assumes, was designed to undermine her in her new job. She can't say for sure that Hatch and Swanson were behind the calls, but she found them "threatening and unsettling, but also immature and unbecoming."

If there is anything good to come out of this expose, it is that more and more former AAG's are coming forward - some even willing to put their careers on the line in order to give credence to the anonymous sources.

On Wednesday, after the first installment of this series had been published, I got a call from another former official of the office who was willing to speak for attribution.

Bob Stanich of Minneapolis was an assistant attorney general for 19 years, spanning the Humphrey and early Hatch years...The two big differences between the two administrations was the "climate of fear" that Hatch brought to the office and the increased level of politicization...
Hatch was the kind of boss who wanted things done a certain way, but didn't want to tell you what it was, Stanich said. "You were supposed to guess," he said, and if you guessed wrong, it could easily blow up in your face. That management style makes everyone jumpy.

There are many more stories like this, but Black closes with one that, if true, could add even more fuel to the anti-AG fire.....

This parting anecdote comes from a former department head in the AG's office who was involuntarily transferred out of his supervisory position in late 2006. He was told it was because he wasn't working his staff hard enough. But the woman who took his place told him that she had been sent in to "manage [a particular employee] out of the office." The woman said she was chosen because she had some experience at getting people to leave whom Hatch and Swanson couldn't easily threaten with dismissal.

This particular employee fit that category because he is a former policeman who lost one of his legs, at the knee, in the line of duty. Because of his disability, he has special protection from arbitrary dismissal.

The former cop's injury had been acting up and he had missed a lot of work, although his absences had been approved under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The leaves were unpaid. When the ex-cop was able to work, the quality of his work was excellent. My source concluded that the bosses were concerned that the absences could create an embarrassment for the office.

He was outraged. Scheming to get rid of a disabled person violates civil rights law, he said, "and bear in mind, this office is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws."

Emphasis mine. The employee in question did find out about the plot and when he confronted the manager, he got a raise instead of being fired. However, he ended up quitting the job (for some strange reason) and instead filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint which is still pending. If there is any merit to this complaint, the either AG could be in a world of hurt.

As I said before, these are serious charges - no matter who the AG is. There are serious allegations of wrong doing that need to be thoroughly investigated and where necessary prosecuted. The Attorney General's office is supposed to be a place where the rule of law is sacrosanct. However, when your "top cop" feels that he (or she) is above the law that s/he was elected to enforce, then corrective measures need to be taken as quickly as possible in order to regain the publics trust in the system. Let us hope that Legislative Auditor Nobles gets to the facts of the situation sooner rather than later so that we can all move forward and then maybe the AG's office can do what they are supposed to do....look out for the citizens of Minnesota and not just the AG's political career.

Cleared?

I mentioned yesterday, that the Mengler Report (on AG Swanson's office) was released. For those that have been in a cave for the last few months, AG Lori Swanson hired Thomas Mengler (Dean of Law at St. Thomas University) to investigate the charges of ethics violations in the AG office that had been raised by Amy Lawler (among others).

The Star Tribune touts the report saying it had "cleared" AG Swanson of the charges, but is that really the case? If you actually read the report, the answer is not nearly as clear as the Star Tribune would have you believe. The 3 page Executive Summary goes to great pains to specify that the report only covers one of the charges raised by Ms. Lawler. On that one charge, Mr. Mengler states that he could not find proof that there were ethical violations and that Ms. Lawler was wrong for disclosing "confidential communications" and doing so "diminished the ability of the AG's office" to represent the people of Minnesota . However, it is how Mr. Mengler addresses the other issues that I find to be of greatest interest. Mr. Megler goes out of his way to indicate that he is offering no opinion on any other charges that have been raised by Ms. Lawler and others...that these other charges were "beyond the parameters" of his investigation.

The remaining 16 pages detail out who was interviewed and when and details of the findings. To be sure, Mr. Mengler raises doubt about some of Ms. Lawler's claims, but he does not address any of the other claims that were raised by named and anonymous sources in the Minn Post series of reports. It is apparent that there is much, much more to be said about this story in the days and weeks ahead.

Lessons 3

While I certainly meant this to be a series, I never expected it to be a DAILY series....

Today's lesson comes to us from the great state of Florida where they have found a way to make health insurance affordable for the 3.8 million Floridians who do not have access to insurance.

But the Florida reform, which both houses of the legislature approved unanimously, renounces Mr. Obama's favored remedy: It nudges the government out of the health-care marketplace. Insurance companies will be permitted to sell stripped-down, no-frills policies exempted from the more than 50 mandates that Florida otherwise imposes, including for acupuncture and chiropractics. The new plans will be designed to cost as little as $150 a month, or less.

Emphasis mine. The Florida Legislature has figured out something that the Minnesota Legislature needs to figure out. Mandates make things cost more! It's really that simple!

Mr. Crist observed that state regulations increase the cost of health coverage, and thus rightly decided to do away with at least some of them. It's hard to believe, but this qualifies as a revelation in the policy world of health insurance. The new benefit packages will be introduced sometime next year and include minimum coverage for primary care and catastrophic expenses for major illness.

Of course, the defenders of government interference are not happy with this development.

Critics are already saying that, without mandates, the plan won't guarantee quality of care. That's purportedly why the states have imposed more than 1,900 specific-coverage obligations.

However, the WSJ writers give that objection the slashing it so richly deserves.

These government rules are imposed without regard for how much they will cost and who will bear the burden. In practice, the costs are disproportionately carried by lower- and middle-income workers, who already on average have more limited insurance coverage as part of their compensation, or none at all. When prices rise because of mandates, the less affluent are often forced to make an all-or-nothing choice between "Cadillac coverage," which involves just about everything, or going uninsured. In other words, they're prohibited from buying the lower-cost options that might be better suited to their needs.

A great example is from the Logical Household. No one in the Logical Household will EVER need treatment for Tay Sachs Disease or Sickle Cell Anemia. However, because of Minnesota state mandates, our insurance company is required to provide it to us! Now if we were to adopt a Jewish or African American child, that coverage would indeed be necessary, but as free people we should be ALLOWED to make that decision for ourselves! Not have the government decide it for us.

The people of Florida should be proud that their legislature took the biggest step to date in making insurance affordable to those who need it. Will the Minnesota Legislature be the next to make this bold decision? We can only hope!

A "Small Cabal"

As I stated in my previous post, Former AG Mike Hatch did send a written response to Eric Black's request for an interview. MinnPost has it posted here, I wanted to pull a couple of exertps out for your review.

I had misinterpreted my secretary's message, and thought that you were with the Rochester Post. I checked around about you and your blog last night. While I am sure that your blog will not publish the report of Dean Mengler, his report raises significant issues not only about Ms. Lawler but also, based on my review of your blog last evening, your own objectivity. At any rate, it is my policy not to interview with bloggers. While I should stop right here, I feel chagrined in having agreed to a telephone interview with the Rochester Post, finding out that in fact you represent a blog called the Minnesota Post, and having raised your expectations of an interview.

So we shouldn't expect to see Mike Hatch granting interviews to Minnesota Monitor anytime soon? It should also be noted that the Former AG's initial accusation (that MinnPost won't publish the Mengler report) was incorrect - they not only published it, they tied it to the string of articles on the subject so that both sides of the story COULD be told! Well, you know what they say about assumptions, don't you...

It was not after I left office, when a small cabal of attorneys attempted to organize a union in the Attorney General office, was any issue raised about my management style. As Attorney General I faced budgetary pressures which resulted in the reduction of the office from 250 attorneys to approximately 160 attorneys. I recognize that, having laid off over 75 attorneys, there are people very bitter with me. This is inevitable. Your cabal of union attorneys, however, does not speak for the Attorney Generals staff. Indeed, over the years I found that the vast majority of attorneys I served with are talented, hardworking, and mission-driven. Most importantly, we got the job done for the people of Minnesota.

The union organizing committee, however, is so weak that it has to resort to anonymity in an effort to give CPR to their comatose effort. Instead of putting their names by their accusations, they hide in the cloak of anonymity looking for any scribner to serve as their hand maiden.

Emphasis mine. Can you really imagine if Joe Business Owner had tried to use this defense if he had been accused of union busting? This is a rhetorical question as I do know the answer....they get taken to court by organizations like the Attorney General's office or the NLRB! Also as much as it pains me (as a card-carrying member of the "vast right wing conspiracy") to do this but I simply must come to the defense of Mr. Black (not that he needs it mind you). Eric Black is not just "any scribner". Black is a 30 year veteran of reporting (mostly politics) for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

This letter is a look at the hubris that lies at the root of the matter. It all comes back to this quote from the main story...

A long-serving attorney, still in the office, said that, under both Hatch and Swanson, "it's a cult-like atmosphere. They demand blind obedience. Nobody's criticism is tolerated."

Nobody's criticism.....not even a 30 year veteran of Minnesota political reporting...is to be tolerated...

Root Causes

MinnPost, more than any other media outlet in the Twin Cities, has come out with yet another bombshell report on the continuing scandal in the Minnesota AG's office.

The recent agonies of the Minnesota attorney general's office under Lori Swanson (an alarming turnover rate in the office, a futile unionization effort blocked by Swanson, a series of allegations that lawyers in the office felt pressured to do things they considered unethical and a preliminary investigation by the legislative auditor, which may be released any day now) are really the latest symptoms of trauma that goes back nine years and starts with two words:

Mike Hatch.

One former assistant attorney general said that when people ask him what he thinks about the turmoil of Swanson's first year, he replies: "Are you kidding me? None of this is new. All of this has been happening since Hatch took over."

Hatch, who is Swanson's mentor, ran for governor three times and was elected attorney general twice as a hard-charging populist. He made his name by his willingness to take on corporations that he felt were victimizing Minnesota consumers. Although his temper was legendary — and may have cost him the governorship in 2006 — his admirers see it as a symptom of his crusading zeal.

But as attorney general from 1999 to 2007, Hatch traumatized the AG's office. His bare-knuckled style tested the boundaries of acceptable conduct, stretching across matters of law, politics and especially the norms of Minnesota niceness. Attorneys and other subordinates describe working for Hatch and Swanson as hellish, featuring verbal abuse and pressure to do things they believed were unethical, and to put Hatch's political needs foremost.

Author Eric Black (formerly of the Minneapolis Star Tribune) interviewed current and former employees of the AG office who were more than willing to "spill" office secrets.

As attorney general, they told me, Hatch was a foul-mouthed screamer and a bully. Some of the former employees described scenes of Hatch yelling, cursing, turning red, calling his subordinates names, pounding his fist on a desk. They said that any reluctance to unquestioningly implement an order could lead to a sudden loss of status with the management, an unwanted transfer, or being called into a meeting and offered a choice between resignation or dismissal.

The sources describe Hatch as quick to suspect political motives behind any disagreement. He also seemed to assume that any small setback, a small mistake made by someone in the office, might spell his political demise. Said one source, who worked with Hatch for years and has now moved on: "Several times I heard him say, 'You may have just ended my career.'" He believed that any mistake could turn into negative publicity from which he could never recover politically."

He also attempted to interview both Hatch and Swanson.

MinnPost had requested interviews with Hatch and Swanson a week and a half ago. Swanson never offered an interview. Hatch, after much delay, agreed to an interview that was to occur this morning. Publication of this article was delayed to meet his schedule, but then Hatch canceled the interview this morning.

Former AG Hatch did, to his credit, send Black a written statement which was posted in it's entirety (which I will comment on in a later post). However the stories of forced resignations and bully tactics are a tale of a pair addicted to power and who feel that they are somehow "owed" the power that they have and crave.

A former deputy attorney general under Hatch recalls getting summoned to the Capitol for a meeting with the boss... As the deputy walked up the big marble stairs (to the Capital Building), he saw Hatch...Hatch was in a rage (my source didn't know why at the time) and started screaming.

"Hatch berated me like I haven't been talked to since my drunk old man did when I was a kid," the former deputy said. "He's poking my chest with his finger. I almost hit him, I almost popped him."

Hatch used the f-word and the mother-f'er variation. He called the deputy and his entire division the "biggest bunch of [f'ing] losers" he'd ever seen. He accused the subordinate of some unspecified betrayal. My source knew not what it was.

He later learned from one of Hatch's top deputies what set off the tirade. Hatch was in the midst of one of several significant purges of the staff. The former deputy had picked up word that one of his subordinates was in danger of getting axed. He confidentially warned the woman to watch her step..the woman confronted Hatch...Hatch...considered the warning to the woman to be a personal betrayal...

...A long-serving attorney, still in the office, said that, under both Hatch and Swanson, "it's a cult-like atmosphere. They demand blind obedience. Nobody's criticism is tolerated."

Black, in his piece, likens the former AG employees who still gather to compare stories to victims of physical abuse. You really need to go read the whole thing. It is eye-opening to say the least.

Lessons 2

Yesterday I posted on lessons that the Minnesota Legislature could learn from their colleagues in Utah. Today we are shifting our focus across Lake Michigan to the state of the same name.

It's no fun to kick a state when it's down – especially when the local politicians are doing a fine job of it – but the latest news of Michigan's deepening budget woe is a national warning of what happens when you raise taxes in a weak economy.

Last year, Michigan faced a very steep budget shortfall. The governor's answer to that shortfall was to raise taxes.

Her tax plan raised the state income tax rate to 4.35% from 3.9%, and increased the state's tax on gross business receipts by 22%. Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance.

Did Governor Granholm's plan come to fruition? Nope...

Officials in Lansing reported this month that the state faces a revenue shortfall between $350 million and $550 million next budget year....Six months later (after the budget was enacted - ed) one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales.

Michigan is now in the 18th month of a state-wide recession, and the unemployment rate of 6.9% remains far above the national rate of 5%. Ms. Granholm blames the nationwide mortgage meltdown and higher energy prices for the job losses and disappearing revenues, but this Great Lakes state is in its own unique hole. Nearby Illinois (5.4% jobless rate) and even Ohio (5.6%) are doing better.

When it became apparent that Minnesota was going to be going from a $2 billion plus budget surplus to a $935 million shortfall, the DFL leadership's first instinct was to raise taxes. Those plans led one state rep to opine that it was impossible for the state to TAX (or borrow) it's way to prosperity. They ended the legislative session beaming with pride at "balancing" a budget that less than 12 months ago didn't need "balancing" - unless you consider the over collection of taxes a need to balance the budget.

Think about this.

The tax hikes have done nothing but accelerate the departures of families and businesses. Michigan ranks fourth of the 50 states in declining home values, and these days about two families leave for every family that moves in. Making matters worse is that property taxes are continuing to rise by the rate of overall inflation, while home values fall. Michigan natives grumble that the only reason more people aren't blazing a path out of the state is they can't sell their homes. Research by former Comerica economist David Littmann finds that about the only industry still growing in Michigan is government. Ms. Granholm's $44.8 billion budget this year further fattened agency payrolls.

Emphasis mine. The sad state of Michigan's economy should be a reminder to all state and national legislators of the folly of raising taxes in a tight economy. It should also be a stark lesson for Minnesota voters. Do we want to end up with an economy similar to the one they have in Michigan - where more people are leaving the state for sunnier, more taxpayer friendly climes - or do we want to have a thriving state where people want to move TO.

In the end, legislators need to realize that while there was grumbling about property taxes two years ago, there is very REAL ANGER now - people can't feed their families because the cost of everything has gone up so high....and THEN you throw taxes on top of it. We the People, don't want empty rhetoric. Say what you will do and then do it. If you can't deliver on your campaign promises then don't be surprised when the people rebel against you at the ballot box.

Lessons...

Minnesota is not the only state dealing with the high cost of road repairs.

We are faced with some sobering realities:

* Between 1990 and 2007 Utah experienced a 47.5 percent increase in population growth.

* During that same period of time, travel on Utah roads, measured in vehicle miles traveled on our roads (VMT), increased 78.5 percent.

* During those same years the State added only 4.2 percent more capacity to the highway system to accommodate this explosion of growth.

So what does this mean? In a word: congestion.

To exacerbate the problem:

* Since 2000 UDOT construction costs have increased 91 percent. In fact, recent reports show that steel has increased again by another 30 percent in the past few weeks alone.

* Funding for transportation was raided beginning 2001 when we experienced a downturn in the economy in order to keep public education funding whole. It took the legislature several years to bring funding levels back to pre-downturn totals. But demand for roads and the cost of construction outpaced our capacity to meet the demand several times over leaving us far behind.

However, unlike their Minnesota counterparts, the Utah Legislature is looking at ways outside of raising the gas tax to make up the shortfall in funding.

So what steps have we taken without raising taxes?

* We looked internally for other funding options within existing budgets. We found that between 10 to 20 percent of the revenue from sales tax within the state came from auto related sales (car sales, tires, oil changes, etc). Many of us in the Legislature felt that these tax dollars should be earmarked for roads and so we pushed legislation through to capture this money. It is in place today.

* We are looking at ways to focus economic development in areas where the transportation system in unbalanced. In Northern Utah I-15 is a log jam southbound to SLC in the AM and the opposite in the afternoon leaving half the system underutilized. When placing incentives for economic development we, as a legislature, need to be conscious of balancing the transportation system and encouraging job growth closer to where people live.

Emphasis mine. What a radical thought....moving the jobs to where the people are! Note the difference between what they are doing (encouraging development where the people are) there and what we are doing here - punishing drivers by raising the cost of licensing and driving and owning a car and forcing people into light rail corridors. Instead of tightening government control on the voting public, the Utah legislature is actually solving a problem while maintaining freedoms! That is outside the box thinking!

There are other ways of relieving congestion that require the assistance and cooperation of the business community. By offering staggered start times to employees (thus reducint the number of cars on the road all trying to get somewhere by 8am) or allowing staff to telecommute, you can reduce the number of cars on the road (thus reducing congestion AND greenhouse gas emissions). Offering tax incentives to businesses so that they can purchase the necessary equipment to allow telecommuting (you do need special voice and data equipment that maintains the security of your communications) you can encourage more businesses to think outside the box as well. Enlist the business community in the solution. THEY are the ones that know what their needs are and what the solutions to those needs are!

These are lessons that the Minnesota Legislature can learn Utah colleagues. This is the kind of forward thinking that our Founding Fathers used to make this great country.

That and how cool is it that the Utah State House and Senate have their own blogs! What a way to engage the electorate!

The Incredible Lightness Of Obama Part 2

Last Thursday I put up a post on Houston Post column on Barack Obama. Captain Ed has two stories up at Hot Air that, when taken into the context of that post, are not surprising. First is the story that Obama advisor David Axelrod is a closet lobbyist.

After spending most of the month trying to paint John McCain as having a lobbyist problem, Barack Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod may have been hoist by his own petard. His consulting firm turns out to do lobbying as well, and in some shady ways:

When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a “California-style energy crisis” if the rate increase wasn’t approved—but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. “It’s corporate money trying to hoodwink the public,” the state’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then—but may soon get more scrutiny—is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

Mr. Axelrod's claims that he is not a lobbyist because he doesn't work in DC falls flat on many levels. He must think we are all terribly stupid if he expects us to believe that. Lobbying of government happens on ALL levels, not just the federal. While it is horribly dishonest of him to say that, it is not surprising when you consider that his playing field is Illinois. The level of dishonesty and the audacity that it takes to make that kind of a comment are nothing new to followers of Chicago politics. Then again neither is this story...

Barack Obama continues his quest in demonstrating just how feckless he can be on foreign policy. Once again, he talks about how terrorists should be isolated in one breath while demanding presidential-level engagement with their financiers in the next. Jake Tapper had a difficult time keeping pace with the shifting rhetoric over the space of just two days:

More recently, Obama as he traveled through Florida seemed to give some contradictory statements about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the Colombian terrorist group FARC.

On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and “one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about.”

OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on.

But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated.

“We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments,” he said in a speech in Miami. “This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand.”

So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?

First off, I hate to correct a man who ran the Harvard Law Review on vocabulary, but the proper word is fomentation, not fermentation, unless one wants to start marketing Anti-American Sentiment Beer. Imagine if George Bush had used fermentation in such a context. The media would have a field day pointing out that Bush once belonged to a fraternity! And that he had a drinking problem! It would end up at Slate’s “Bushisms” column within hours.

According to his fans, Sen. Obama is an eloquent orator. I agree - as long as that oratory is on a teleprompter in front of his. When it comes to extemporaneous speech however, you find out just how little substance there is to the flowery rhetoric and how contradictory his speeches are. It just goes to show you that Barack Obama is nothing more than yet another opportunistic Illinois politician who will say what ever he thinks the audience of the moment wants to hear in order to get elected. Don't we deserve better than that?

Teachable Moments

So one of the many "mom" things I have been dealing with this week is the Junior Logician's viewing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in his 8th grade Science class. Their science class has been talking about "global warming" for a few weeks now. Today, the Junior Logician brought home two sheets - one a page for the kids to calculate their carbon footprint and the other a sheet entitled "Reflections on 'An Inconvenient Truth' What Am I Willing To Do??" I have to admit that I was curious as to how he was going to answer. While we have never directly talked about the issue, he has heard my radio programs talking about it from time to time. While several of his answers were spot on, there were a couple of things that I do need to work with him on - mostly taking shorter showers....sewer and water charges being what they are and all. The one answer that I did get a chuckle out of was his answer to the suggested action "Eat Less Meat". His simple answer to that was a very emphatic "NO!"

While filling out the carbon footprint calculator, he had to ask about certain energy saving appliances that we have in the house. It was nice because it gave us the opportunity to talk about ALL the reasons for having low-flow toilets and Energy Star appliances (cost savings and energy savings). It also gave us the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of things like compact fluorescent bulbs and the like.

Yeah, I could have complained about the propaganda as many conservative parents do. However, I prefer to use these moments to teach the Junior Logician how to apply critical thinking to the propaganda. It is a skill that will serve him well over the next few years.

Busy, Hectic Week

As you have probably noticed, my posting activity has been on the light side this week. Part of it is because the legislative session is finally (blissfully) ended. The other part is that it is officially time. At the end of the school year, the Junior Logician will be packing up what remains in the house and we will be driving out to Salt Lake City to join the Logical Husband. It has been a long 4 months (since his transfer became official) and I am looking forward to finally moving on with my life. I am looking at setting up a final night at Keegans - either next Thursday or the following one. It all depends on what happens with the house. I will probably be quite busy over the weekend loading furniture in the moving van, but as soon as that has been finished, I will be back to semi-normal blogging....for a little while longer.

Stay tuned for more details on LL's final Minnesota bow.

The Incredible Lightness Of Obama

Jim Geraghty over at the Campaign Spot points readers to a Houston Press article written by a former Chicago reporter for yet another example of Senator Obama's temper. However, as I read the article, I was more taken in by the vacuous depths of the Senator's paper thin record. That and just how much of a machine politician he really is.

Let me start by saying I grew up in Chicago so there is nothing about Chicago politics that surprises me. So when I read things like this:

Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's ­kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

I am not surprised then to see this..

So how has Obama repaid Jones?

Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.

Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.

I'll never forget what he said:

"Some call it pork; I call it steak."

...follow it up. And when it comes to his claims of being someone who gets things "done":

On the stump, Obama has frequently invoked his experiences as a community organizer on the Chicago South Side in the early 1990s, when he passed on six-figure salary offers at corporate law firms after graduating from Harvard Law School to direct a massive voter-registration drive.

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders.

Harold Lucas, a veteran South Side community organizer who remembers when Obama was "just a big-eared kid fresh out of school," says he didn't finally decide to support Obama's presidential bid until he was actually inside the voting booth on Super Tuesday.

"I'm not happy about the quality of life in my community," says Lucas, who now heads a black-heritage tourism business in Chicago. "As a local elected official, he had a primary role in that."

Emphasis mine. Let's just say that reality is much colder...

Obama's aloofness on key community issues for years frustrated Lucas and many other South Siders. Now they believe he was just afraid of making political enemies or being pigeonholed as a black candidate. Lucas says he has since become an ardent Obama supporter.

Again emphasis mine. The reality is that Obama made a cold, calculated political move...then again, that has been the story of his political life. It has been one calculated political move after another....

Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets — to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district — to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

"A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career," wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long. "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."

Emphasis mine. That has long been the local conventional wisdom on Obama....the ruthlessness with which he dealt with anyone who challenged him. We have only seen glimpses of this during the primary...the RNC would be wise to learn from this - as should the McCain Campaign. This candidate will talk the talk, but when it comes to "playing nice" he will not walk the walk.

Three years later, in September 1999, Obama was already preparing his first national campaign. He ran for U.S. Congress against veteran incumbent Bobby Rush, a former co-founder of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party.

Rush painted the largely unknown freshman lawmaker as an out-of-touch elitist, and won the 2000 primary by more than 30 percentage points.

You know....when Bobby Rush calls you an "out of touch elitist" you are in deep water.

If you want to know how Barack Obama will handle any dissent from the Democratic ranks during this campaign all you need to do is read the closing paragraphs....

A week after my profile of Obama was published, I called some of my contacts in the Illinois Legislature. I ran through a list of black Chicago lawmakers who had worked with Obama, and was surprised to learn that many resented him and had supported other candidates in the U.S. Senate election.

"Anybody but Obama," the late state Representative Lovana Jones told me at the time.

State Representative Monique Davis, who attended the same church as Obama and co-sponsored several bills with him, also did not support his candidacy. She complained of feeling overshadowed by Obama.

"I was snubbed," Davis told me. "I felt he was shutting me out of history."

In a follow-up report published a couple weeks later, I wrote about these disgruntled black legislators and the central role Senate President Emil Jones played in Obama's revived political life.

The morning after the story was posted online, I arrived early at my new offices. I hadn't taken my coat off when the phone rang. It was Obama.... He said the black legislators I cited in the story were off-base, and that they couldn't have gotten the bills passed without him.

I started to speak, and he shouted me down...I asked if there was anything factually inaccurate about the latest story.

He repeated that his former colleagues couldn't have passed the bills without him.

He asked why I wrote this story, then cut me off when I started to answer.

He said he should have been given a chance to respond.

I told him I had requested an interview through his communications director.

He said I should have called his cell phone.

I reminded him that he had asked me months ago to stop calling his cell phone due to his busier schedule.

Today I no longer have Obama's cell phone number. I submitted two formal requests to interview Obama for this story through his Web site, but have not heard back. I also e-mailed interview requests to three of his top staffers, but none responded.

Maybe he'll call the day after this story runs. I'll get to the office early just in case. And this time I'll have my recorder ready.

Todd Spivak has seen the "real" Barack Obama up close. The real Barack Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. He is a man who quickly figured out how to use the political machine to his advantage. However, as a product of the machine, you have to realize that the "empty suit" that most people see is not what it appears to be. It is all part of the chameleon like nature that is necessary to "win at all costs".

Spivak's story is a cautionary tale of what Republicans can expect this fall from the candidate of "Hope and Change".

It Depends On What Your Defination of "Unity" Is

Gary Gross has a post up on this Doug Grow MinnPost column.Gary does a great job tearing the base premise of the column apart but I do have to add to one comment. Gary remarks:

...Here’s how Grow finishes his post:

As November approaches, Republicans are trying to understand who they are. Meantime, DFLers are bouncing around the state more robust, and unifed, than they’ve been in a quarter century.


There isn’t any doubt that DFL legislators are unified....

If you watched the floor debates from the last month of the session you would know that the claim of unity is patently false! Whether the subject was Education funding or property tax relief, there were countless speeches on the House floor from outstate DFL'ers about how the leadership (who are all from metro cities) were overlooking the needs of outstate townships and giving everything to the metro. If there was any unity in that caucus, it was the unity of fear of the leadership. The DFL leadership made it clear, through out the session that there would be consequences to voting against them. When Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba voted initially against the Transportation bill, rumor has it she was told that she would lose her committee chairmanship if she voted against the over-ride.

Here's a little more from Grow on the "dis-unity" that he says is afflicting the GOP.

Like Tingelstad, Rep. Neil Peterson, a Republican from Bloomington, has felt the wrath of his party for joining the Override Six. He was not endorsed at his district convention, meaning he’ll have to run against a more pure, endorsed candidate in a September primary.

“The leadership in the party has become very conservative,” said Peterson. “It’s caused quite a rift. Next week, they have a (district party) monthly meeting that we’ve always been invited to to discuss how the session went. This year, I’m not invited. Neither is Ron Erhardt. They don’t even want to hear from us.”

Erhardt, from Edina, is another of the Override Six. He’s been representing his moderate district for 18 years but now is pondering whether to try to continue his job by running in the Republican primary or as an independent.

“I’m not sure if this is Ron Paul people or what,” said Peterson. “I just know I don’t pass their test.”

Mr. Grow...shall we talk about Reps. Joe Muellery and Willie Dominguez? It seems that your unity meme does not apply to them. You see, like Reps. Peterson and Erhardt, Reps. Muellery and Dominguez were not endorsed by their respective BPOU's this year. Do you suppose the Ron Paul people infiltrated those BPOU's as well? Or do you suppose that maybe, JUST MAYBE is it because, like Reps. Peterson, Erhardt et al, these representatives are no longer "representing" their district?

This idea of strict party unity is one of those memes (media themes) that just does not wash when put through the scrutiny of reality. The reality is that the local party unit decides if their representatives are really representing them and if they are not, it is the local unit's choice whether or not to endorse! In the case of Representatives Muellery, Tinglestad, Dominguez, Peterson and Erhardt the reality was that the BPOU did not endorse because the member in question was no longer "representing" the district. It has nothing to do with "party unity" and everything to do with "local representation".

Then again, I realize that local representation is a foreign concept to reporters and elitists like Doug Grow.

Sloppy Reporting?

So Rep. Mindy Greiling calls for the Star Tribune to fire columnist Katherine Kersten for "reckless" journalism and yet the state DOE pretty much calls on TIZA to take "corrective action" in order to address the very issues Kersten raises...

An Inver Grove Heights charter school must take "corrective actions" to address concerns about how it handles Muslim prayer in school and after-school religious instruction, the Minnesota Department of Education said today.

In its report, the department raised several issues with Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, a public school with many Muslim students, which came under fire this spring for allegedly blurring the line between church -- or in this case, mosque -- and state.

One has to wonder if Rep. Greiling will be as public in her apologies to Kersten as she was with her condemnations....

Oh who am I kidding.....it will never happen...

An Accomplishment To Be Proud Of?

During the press conference yesterday, announcing the budget deal, Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher boasted that they had "balanced the budget". However is that really an accomplishment to be proud of?

Remember the headlines two years ago - the ones that excitedly reported a $2.2 billion dollar budget surplus? Remember all of the plans that many, including the Governor, had for spending all that money? Sure you say, but no one expected the economy to take such a sharp downturn...

Not so fast with that excuse my friends. Some legislators actually called for budgetary restraint over a year ago.

Friends and Neighbors,

The biggest news item from the State Capitol this week was that the projected budget surplus remained well above the $2 billion mark, even though it dropped a fraction of a percent from earlier forecasts. Earlier this session I explained how "a fraction" in state budget terms can actually be a huge amount of money, and that is true in this case. State economists lowered their surplus projection by $7 million,which to any of us is a fortune. But in terms of a $31.5 billion state budget, it's relative pocket change.

How will this affect the rest of the session? Probably not a whole lot. The forecast is that we will have just shy of $34 billion to spend, and that is the number we will use to set the state budget. The economists warned that there is still an amount of uncertainty in the economy (witness this week's unexpected fall in the stock market) and we need to be prudent with spending and not leave ourselves in a tough situation if the economy takes a sudden downturn.

Sadly, instead of listening to that wise council, the legislature went on a spending spree that put us in a situation where they had to depend on 11th hour negotiations in order to balance the budget in light of such an "unexpected" shortfall.

Given that this DFL led legislature took us from a $2.2 billion dollar budget surplus to nearly 1 Billion in debt, the news that they were able to "balance the budget" is not something to be proud of. It should be something that the voters take a long hard look at come November.

Off With Their Heads Pt 2

The advocates of free speech are at it again. It seems that an online petition has been started by some of the usual suspects to get Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten fired. They apparently did not like her reporting on the inconsistencies at the TIZA school. Some of the esteemed signatories include Mark Gislason, our dear friend Eva Young and failed Congressional Candidate Coleen Rowley. One anonymous commenter had this to say:

May 15, 2008, Anonymous, Minnesota
Katherine Kersten should lose her job because her column is extremely poorly researched, completely lacking any criticism of those in power who hold her narrow and intolerant views, and is invariably divisive to the community. It takes advantage of the Right of Freedom of Speech to perpetuate oppression --time and time again. The Star Tribune can certainly find a conservative columnist who is not so one-dimensionl.(sic)

Poorly researched??? I guess talking to an EYEWITNESS is Anonymous' idea of "extremely poor research". Scott Johnson at Powerline has listed out all of the "extremely poor research" that Katherine Kersten did in a post here.

What is most frightening about this is the fact that this petition had it's genesis in an elected official calling for Ms. Kersten's employer to fire her.

In response to questions prompted by Katherine Kersen's recent columns on Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), I decided to visit the school myself.

What I learned during a tour late last month is that none of Kersten's concerns that the charter school is promoting religion in violation of a state law that prohibits public schools from doing so is valid.

What I did see was excellent teachers hard at work in the classroom focused on improving student achievement. I saw engaged students of different religious and cultural backgrounds learning reading, math, government and science. I spoke with parents, teachers and administrators who all stressed their high standards for TIZA students.

While an outsider, or someone like Kersten who is trying to validate a predetermined conclusion, might be tempted to brand Tarek ibn Ziyad as an "Islamic School" because it leases space from the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, the school, like other charter schools in Minnesota that lease space from churches, is a separate entity. It does comply with federal law that requires all schools to accommodate a student's right to practice his or her religion. And unlike other charter schools that have faced financial and other administrative challenges, the school was recognized with a 2008 School Finance Award from the Minnesota Department of Education for its "sound fiscal health and financial management policies."

Kersten's reckless journalistic standards have diminished this paper's credibility. Worse, they have threatened the safety of the children and staff at the school, which has been forced to take extra security measures in the wake of recent death threats. While I value a broad range of opinions from a variety of perspectives, I value the facts even more. Kersten's gross distortion of the facts in this case should compel Star Tribune management to ask for her resignation.

REP. MINDY GREILING, DFL-ROSEVILLE; CHAIRWOMAN, HOUSE K-12 FINANCE DIVISION

Now Rep. Greiling accuses Kersten of "gross distortion of fact" for quoting an EYEWITNESS to the events in question. Did Rep. Greiling also speak to this EYEWITNESS when she did her "research" or did she simply take the school administrators word that there was no violation of "church and state" here and would Rep. Greiling show the same understanding to a Catholic Church if someone accused them of having mandatory chapel services during the school day?

To Ms. Kersten's credit, she is keeping a sense of humor about this. However, the fact can not be ignored that the oh-so-tolerants on the left are yet again calling for the head of yet another person who dares to insert cold hard facts into their nice fuzzy preconceived notions. The good thing is that Rep. Greiling has shown her true colors just in time for the election. Here is hoping that her opponent can put this information to good use.

Pity Poor Al Franken

Even Governor Turnbuckle is piling on. In an interview with TPT's Mary Lahammer for "Almanac", former Governor Ventura had this to say about Angry Al's tax troubles.

He says he won't rule out running for U.S. Senate and he repeatedly ripped Franken and Coleman with some very harsh words. He said he lives in Minnesota more than Al Franken and when he wrestled for 30 years in different states he knew he had to pay taxes where he earned the money. He wondered why a Harvard grad like Franken wouldn't know that. Moving on to Coleman, he was angry the Republican Party was using an old wrestling image of him in ads and said he'd like to see some images of a long-haired war protestor from years ago who was Norm Coleman.

This story gets worse and worse every day for Team Franken.

HT MDE

Lessons To Be Learned

The Wall Street Journal has a little different take on the recent special election loss than my friend Kevin does.

If there is such a thing as a useful election defeat, then Tuesday's Republican loss in a special House election in Mississippi would qualify. Maybe this thumping in a heretofore safe GOP seat will finally scare the Members straight, or at least less crooked.

Democrats won with 54% of the vote in a district that a Republican won with 66% in 2006 and that President Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points. It was the GOP's third special election loss this year, and it has Democrats predicting that November will be another rout of 2006 proportions. Oklahoma's Tom Cole, who runs the National Republican Congressional Committee, captured the GOP reaction when he declared that "There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates."

Three straight special elections losses here in Minnesota have also driven the point home hard - especially coupled with the not-so-stunning caucus defeats by 3 of the so-called "Override 6".

This is the lesson Republicans should have learned in 2006, but the Members preferred to blame their failure on President Bush and Iraq. House Republicans pooh-poohed their own earmarking scandals, spending excesses and overall wallowing in the Beltway status quo. Rather than rethink their habits, they re-elected the same party leaders and even kept Jerry Lewis as their chief Appropriator. Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona is right when he says that "Since the 2006 elections, Republicans have done absolutely nothing to redefine themselves. We can't even get behind an earmark moratorium bill."

The state and national parties use the "2006 was just a tough year to be a Republican" meme to excuse the massive losses that they suffered, rather than taking the long hard introspective look at what THEY did wrong....and they did a lot wrong. Both the state and the national parties have abandoned running on a vision or message and decided that the best way to campaign is fear. They constantly point out what a horrible person the other guy is and then whine with the other side responds in kind! Meanwhile, no one knows what Republicans are supposed to stand for. It is that abandonment of the message that caused this very website to come into being! After all - SOMEONE needs to let people know what conservatism is about.

They've also been content to replay their same losing political attack strategy. In 2006, they thought they could save their majority by donning a Nancy Pelosi fright wig and shouting "liberal, liberal, liberal." This year they're wearing a Barack Obama mask, and that isn't working either.

In the Mississippi race, the national GOP tried to link Democratic candidate Travis Childers to Barack Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. One TV ad declared: "Travis Childers: He took Obama's endorsement over our conservative values." But Mr. Childers was well known as a cultural conservative who favors gun rights and opposes abortion. In a year when Americans are mad as hell, such a negative attack strategy merely reminds voters that Republicans have run out of ideas.

I would maybe not say that Republicans have run out of ideas, but I would say that the consultancy class that the state and national parties rely on are woefully out of touch with the voters!

The Journal then goes on to say something that many on these pages have said for the last 3 years!

The better strategy is to offer a reform agenda of their own, especially one that begins to speak to the economic anxieties of the middle class. This includes doing some homework on health care for a change, instead of ceding that field to the Democrats. One of Tom DeLay's great blunders, among many, was failing to do anything about health care when Republicans controlled Washington in 2005. This year, John McCain is offering them a policy lifeline, and they should grab it.

Mr. McCain is also proposing to veto all earmarks, and you can hear the grating of teeth in the GOP caucus on that one. Yes, the "real money" is in entitlements. But there's nothing independent voters hate more than the self-dealing and incumbent protection that earmarks represent. An earmark ban would be potent political symbolism – and substance.

Democrats and the media want to cow Republicans into believing that tax cutting doesn't sell anymore. But tell that to Republican Mayor of Indianapolis Greg Ballard, who won an upset victory last year by calling for lower property taxes. The GOP should expand its tax cut message into a larger tax reform theme that also hits at the corruption of tax loopholes for the rich.

Voters are especially angry about rising prices for food and gasoline, and here too Republicans can start speaking for the middle class. The weak dollar policy of the Bush Administration and Federal Reserve has helped to cause the price spike, and Republicans on Capitol Hill should start talking about how inflation punishes those who work and save. With oil at $124 a barrel, voters are also willing to listen to a message that encourages more domestic energy production across the board – oil, natural gas, coal, shale and nuclear.

Yes, yes, yes, yes and YES!!!!! That is exactly what the voters in Minnesota AND America want to hear! However, we also want you to act on your campaign promises.

Democrats have settled on a formula of running as cultural conservatives in GOP districts, and as economic populists on "fiscal discipline," trade protection, corporate bashing, and "middle-class tax cuts" paid for by taxes on the rich. If Republicans can't trump that message with an agenda of low taxes, health-care affordability and portability, jobs and stable prices, they will be routed again in November.

We have already seen that the Democrats don't mean it when they campaign as fiscally disciplined. We saw (in 2006) Margaret Anderson-Kelliher stand before the microphones and claim that this new legislature would be fiscally moderate and then watched this same "fiscally moderate" DFL Leadership propose MILLIONS of dollars in tax increases over the last two years. The voters have a serious case of "buyers remorse". If the House Republican Caucus were smart, they would seize on that and propose a vision for Minnesota that not only highlights what they will do but it will give the voters an "accountability matrix" so that they realize that this caucus means what they say.

If they do this, it could reverse a very troubling trend. Will they learn this lesson? One can only hope the answer is a resounding "Yes we can!"

What Will It Take?

What is it with these guys? First we had Jim McGreavey, then Elliot Spitzer, then Vince Fossella and now Marc Dann.

Ohio's attorney general resigned Wednesday under threat of impeachment because of a sexual harassment investigation in his office and his extramarital affair.

Can't these politicians figure out that these kinds of affairs are going to get out in todays 24/7 media climate? The media beast must be fed and fed often and the media beast LIVES for this kind of a story!

Sweetie?????

Senator Barack Obama was in Michigan talking to a group of workers in an automobile plant when a member of the press shouted a question his way...





EXCUSE ME?!?!?!?! What did you say Senator?



Now I have to admit that the reporter's snide remark in closing the story was pretty good. I know that I would not have been quite as restrained as she was. After all, we women have come too far to be relegated back to "sweetie" by some guy....especially some guy who is running for President.



I wonder what the press reaction will be to this. I wonder what it would have been if John McCain had said it....

Hot Air

So the presumptive GOP nominee Senator John McCain gave a major policy speech on global warming the other day. Others have written on it, but so far I have not seen anyone talk about a couple of things that I caught from it, so....

Some of the most compelling evidence of global warming comes to us from NASA. No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I've seen some of this evidence up close.

However, Senator McCain seems to forget that "evidence" of previous years predictions.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

All of the models that the so-called experts use are static models and we all know that this is far from a static world. Things happen on a daily basis that will throw off the best predictions of the best experts.

Another thing that the so-called experts fail to take into account that intelligence and ingenuity of mankind. You see, every time a "crisis" like this has happened every day, hard working men and women have stepped up to the plate and engineered a solution - WITHOUT THE INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENT!

Don't get me wrong...there are things that Sen. McCain has right. We need to get back into using nuclear power. Nuclear is a clean, inexpensive, efficient way to provide power to our homes and businesses. Government can also encourage development of ALL FORMS of alternative fuel. What they should not be doing (as I have long argued) is to pick one form of alternative fuel - corn based ethanol - over any others. Corn based ethanol mandates are guaranteed to put all other forms of alternative energy at a disadvantage because the market is being pushed toward one solution only. They should also not be talking about things like carbon taxes or cap and trade. Cap and trade would be an economic killer according to economist Art Laffer (of the Rich States Poor States report) Listen to this, from Larry Kudlow's program, where Mr. Laffer debates cap and trade versus carbon taxes with David Hamilton from the Sierra Club and with Dan Jergen.

It is past time to have a COMPLETE discussion on what we can be doing to be better stewards of ALL of our resources....economic as well as natural. A balance can and should be reached that will help us to enjoy a clean planet and still leave room for prosperity for all it's inhabitants.

Watching the Legislature

So you don't have to...

We are quickly coming up on to the end of the session. Right now the House is debating on whether or not to accept the Conference Committee report on the Omnibus E-12 Spending Bill (HF 6). A couple of points that were made so far. First is that the Outstate Legislators are (AGAIN) complaining that they are being left out of the funding process. As you recall, this charge has been made during debate on a couple of the Omnibus Spending bills. Rep. Garafalo mentioned that this bill will end up being yet another PROPERTY TAX INCREASE for those cities who were not blessed enough to get funding from the state. Rep. Buesgens pointed out that the Conference Committee did not meet during the light of day where the concerned citizens could watch. No, the Conference Committee meeting was called to meet at 10pm on the Sunday night before the end of the session. Rep. Buesgens also read from a Star Tribune article that quoted the Chairwoman of the House Education Committee saying that the DFL was going to use this vote as fodder for the election this fall! Talk about playing politics with our childrens future!

Rep. Seifert (the author of the motion) has withdrawn the motion to send the bill back to committee which means that the minorities points were made so they are going to debate the bill. Or not....Rep Olson (R-Big Lake) re-moved to send the bill back to Conference Committee. He questioned why Seifert withdrew his motion. Rep. Seifert said that it was because he did not want to be charged with "filibustering" the bill.

Rep. Sertich rose to request a recess to the call of the chair with no time for return. The motion was passed. Rep. Sertich said that there was some important business that needed to be taken care of. I'm not sure what is going on, but I will keep you posted.

Curious.....now I do not know this to be a fact...but it sounds like the Governor may have had something to do with this recess. You see Governor Pawlenty does not like this bill...because of what it does to Q-Comp. Basically what this bill does (if I understand the debate correctly) is it guts Q-Comp going forward. Any school district who did not file an intent to adopt Q-Comp (like ISD 719 in Prior Lake/Savage) will only get a one time payment of $51.00 per pupil. However, those who did just squeek in (like Ed Chair Greiling's Roseville district did) they will not only get the $51.00 one time payment, they will get an additional $200 something (I have to go back and listen to the archives to get the correct figure) per pupil in annual funding! Oh and apparently not everyone knew about the March 31 Q-Comp deadline? Again, I have to listen to the House archives as that was something that was mentioned as almost a throw away line. As certain Democrat Exposers would say....Developing!

The House is still in recess as of 1:45pm with no expected time to return. I was told that both the Democrats and Republicans adjourned to caucus and that they would probably learn more about the reason for the sudden adjourning in caucus. One of the rumors (and I do have to stress that this is a rumor at this juncture) is that the Governor will pull his support from the renewed Central Corridor funding provision if this bill passes the House!

3:22 and they still have not reconvened.