April 23-26, 2010
Apr 23 04:38 A Letter To Seifert Supporters Apr 25 08:03 DFL Discord Displayed in Duluth Apr 25 09:23 Oberstar's Ill-Advised Attempt Apr 25 10:14 Seifert: In His Own Words Apr 26 04:08 Is Patty Murray History? Apr 26 06:07 Enforcement, Not Reform Apr 26 08:36 Larry Jacobs Agrees With Me
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
A Letter To Seifert Supporters
Last night, after I learned about Team Seifert's attempt to smear Tom Emmer, the candidate I'm supporting, I wrote a post expressing my outrage with Seifert's tactics. After pondering what I'd written, I deleted that post.
First, I want to make several things clear: I can't imagine the pain that Mrs. Berg and her family have gone through. From this day forward, I'll pray that her son and her husband make complete recoveries and their anguish will eventually disappear. Second, it's important that everyone understand that I don't condone drinking and driving. In this post, you won't hear me attempt to rationalize Tom Emmer's actions decades ago.
Rather, what I will do is ask Rep. Seifert's supporters if you feel comfortable with supporting a man who would use a family's grief for political gain. That's what Team Seifert is attempting to do, though they won't admit that's what they're doing.
Mrs. Berg's letter didn't expose some deep, dark secret. According to the factsheet that Mrs. Berg referenced, the Star Tribune wrote about this a year ago. Late last night, I spoke with a friend who is a casual activist and a reliable conservative. When I told my friend what had happened, my friend said that that didn't seem like news because it was reported a year ago.
Tom answered questions honestly and forthrightly when the Strib article broke a year ago. Though I'm sure it wasn't comfortable for Tom to answer those questions, it was important that he answer them. That he took the heat then is a testament to Tom's honesty.
Hardcore activists, like me, heard this information long ago. Still, it isn't surprising that some conservative voters hadn't heard about it.
In her letter, Mrs. Berg said that the DFL likely would've used that information against Tom in the general election. I agree. The DFL wouldn't have hesitated in using this information. In fact, I'm betting that they'll attempt to use it this fall.
The question I want Seifert supporters to ask themselves is whether they can trust a man who plastered this on his website :
Any Seifert for Governor campaign employee or member of the Seifert for Governor team that engages in negative campaign tactics of a personal nature against any opponent of either party will be fired or removed from the campaign should those charges be proven.The letter sent to select delegates to next week's state convention was sent out on Seifert for Governor stationary. It represents the vilest type of personal attack I've seen in a decade.
Let's remember this important fact: the letter wasn't sent to all state convention delegates. If Team Seifert thought this was a big ethical issue, why didn't Team Seifert send it out to everyone? Might it be because their real goal wasn't to express outrage but to win over undecided delegates? I won't accuse them of that but that's a distinct possibility.
My question for Seifert supporters is this: is this the type of campaign you signed onto? I suspect it isn't. If you're tired of this type of dirty politics, then isn't it up to you to put a stop to it? Isn't it up to you to let Rep. Seifert know that he's gone too far?
When the DFL tries personal attacks against a Republican candidate, we come together and reject the politics of personal destruction. If we want credibility, don't we need to reject it when Republicans cross that line?
Whether you continue to support Rep. Seifert or not, isn't it your responsibility to demand he stop with the personal attacks? Isn't it time you told him that you're rejecting the politics of personal destruction and division?
I sincerely hope that Rep. Seifert apologizes for engaging in this type of politics. If he doesn't, he should be told in no uncertain terms that he's gone way too far this time.
Readers of this blog know that I'm part of Tom Emmer's Steering Committee because I've worked hard to not hide that fact. This post isn't an attempt to defend Tom. He's perfectly capable of doing that himself. Rather, this is written solely from the perspective of an activist who expects better behavior from conservatives.
Posted Friday, April 23, 2010 4:42 AM
Comment 1 by Donna Foster at 23-Apr-10 07:31 AM
While I share many of your sentiments about this issue and the "negaitve campaign" aspects of it - don't you think the delegates that are deciding who to endorse are entitled to know what the opposition can use against the candidate? When Tom Emmer first announced that he was running, he came to Rochester for a "meet and greet". I specifically asked him at that time, "tell me now what I'm going to have to defend" I explained that anyone can talk like a conservative - and he has the voting record to back it up - but what I wanted to know was what we campaigners and supporters were going to have to defend - because that is what ultimately kills a campaign. Imagine my surprise to find all of this out now. He never mentioned it - even though I SPECIFICALLY asked about stuff like this. Did he think it wasn't going to be brought up? ELECTABILITY is a large part of the consideration for delegates in the endorseing process. Damaging information like this is a part of that electability. Not because WE are unforgiving - but because of the way this type of information can be used by the opposition to sway voters who are otherwise uninformed - which is sadly the majority. This is a fact of life! While you are asking Seifert supporters if this is the type of campaign they signed up for - ask yourself why Tom wouldn't warn supporters that this was coming. I'm all about forgiveness - and Tom deserves to be able to live his life - but to try to hide this from delegates who may hve been unaware of it smacks of dishonesty. Many of the delegates this year are Tea Party people who haven't been paying attention for very long. Tom should have bee more forthcoming about his past. Especially when he was directly asked about it.
Comment 2 by Janet at 23-Apr-10 11:09 AM
The other side of this comment is that is someone who would stoop this low electable? I support Emmer, this is old news, and yes, the DFL will/would use it.uUt what if the reverse had happened? What if there were something in Marty's past of 20-30 years ago - would you take the same stand? Who knows, maybe there is but the Emmer campaign didn't dig to find it. Then again, the Seifert campaign didn't have to - Tome came clean last summer.
TO say I'm disappointed in the timing of this attack by the Seifert crew is an understatement.
Comment 3 by MplsSteve at 23-Apr-10 09:56 PM
Tom Emmer has been less than honest about his DWI. I know of several people who have asked him "Is there anything we should know about in regards to your past?" The answer was always "No". In short, he lied.
And then there was his bill to remove past offenses (like his DWI's from the public record. Amazingly, Tom never bothered to do a bill like this prior to his running for Governor.
Tom Emmer has also been less than honest about his votes on funding the Twin Stadium back in '06. I met him at the State Fair last year and expressed my disappointment about the Twin Stadium bill. He said "I voted against it. I thought it was wrong".
But surprise surprise surprise, he didn't tell the whole truth. He voted for an amendment to strip the bill of the referendum requirement. He denied me the right to decide whether I wanted to be taxed for the stadium - and failed to mention it to me.
His excuse for voting for it (as posted on his wesite) is nothing but pure undiluted BS. He played politics and games and the end result was to cost Hennepin County voters. He knew that a referendum would have failed miserably in hennepin County - but apparently, he didn't care.
I've seen Tom Emmer on the floor of the House more times than I care to remember and he is nothing more than a bloviating disingenuous lout. if he's the GOP nominee in November, I'll sit this one out.
Comment 4 by Walter Scott Hudson at 25-Apr-10 02:54 AM
If I, a complete neophyte to the political process, knew about the DWI before this story broke, anyone could have known. So I don't get this sense of betrayal being expressed, as if there was some kind of coverup. It was public and readily available knowledge. Google anyone?
Comment 5 by Donna Foster at 25-Apr-10 10:13 AM
What you knew and what people could have know isn't the issue. The issue is that there are those who didn't know. While Emmer supporters are claiming he has been open about it - I'm telling you he was not. I'm also pointing out that this will be an issue that will have to be justified abomgst the populace - and that the Democrats will make it worse than it was. Remember Mark Foley?n Everyone thinks he was having illicit relations with actual underage pages - when in truth - he was having an illicit e-mail exchange with FORMER pages who initiated the exchange and who, at the time of the e-mails were no longer pages nor were they underage! But none of these facts kept the press and the Democrats from running on a "culture of corruption" message and winning! Meanwhile - we have Emmer supporters convincing people that the mere mention of this information by the Seifert campaign represents some sort of unforgivable sin! This is exactly the kind of "feeling" I would be encouraging if I were a closet Democrat wishing to get Republicans to0 stay home in November. Grow up people - and start living in the real world!
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-10 10:26 AM
Donna, if it was important for everyone to know, why did this letter only go out to a portion of the delegates? This was a desperate attempt by a flailing candidate to regain a semblance of political momentum going into the convention. PERIOD.
FWIW, Tom's handled the situation properly & with alot of grace. He hasn't attempted to justifiy his actions, saying repeatedly that "It was wrong then. It's wrong now."
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 25-Apr-10 12:13 PM
Gary:
I know you're a big Emmer supporter, but given the fact that George Bush's DWI arrest almost cost him the presidency by the lack of disclousure I think Emmer should've realized that he had to be ready to handle this better.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by MplsSteve at 25-Apr-10 09:58 PM
Gary-
The question is not whether Tom Emmer has apologized sufficiently and gracefully for his past DWI's.
I personally do not hold it against him in that he had run-ins with the law in the past. That was the past and I'm certain he's changed since then.
The issue here is Tom Emmer's lack of candor with (a) his own supporters and (b) with other GOP activists.
He has blatantly lied about his DWI's in conversations about with GOP activists and he has blatantly lied about his votes on the Twins stadium.
Worse yet, he proposed a bill that would have eliminated those DWI's from the public record. There really is no amount of bloviating on his part (BTW, something Tom specializes in) that can take this away.
For all of his years in the Legislature, he sure picked an unusual time to sponsor a bill like this - one year before he ran for governor.
What else can we expect Tom Emmer to lie about?!
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-10 12:39 AM
He has blatantly lied about his DWI's in conversations about with GOP activists and he has blatantly lied about his votes on the Twins stadium. Tom's answer has been consistent & reasonable. He's said numerous times, in so many words, that he won't defend the indefensible. Let's remember the exact wording of Mrs. Berg's letter:
At that debate, both Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer were asked a question about whether there were any skeletons in their closets:
"Is there anything that we should be concerned about in considering your candidacy that could be an "October surprise" for you as a candidate?"This isn't a surprise. It's been written about before. Tom's explained himself dozens of times on this & the answer has been consistent. He hasn't called on anyone to defend his actions because he won't defend his past actions. How that's lying is beyond me.
As for Team Seifert, their actions have been despicable & transparent. During his interviews with WCCO's Esme Murphy & KSTP's Tom Hauser, Marty repeatedly said that this was a compelling issue that needed to be told. He said that that's why he agreed to send it out on Mrs. Berg's behalf. It's strange that the letter never made into the mailboxes of Tom's solid supporters. It only went to the people considered undecided or whose support was wavering.
If it's that compelling of information, then I wouldn't have hesistated in sending it to every delegate & alternate.
This was an attempt to win undecideds. I hope that desperate attempt fails.
DFL Discord Displayed in Duluth
Watching the Twitter traffic from the DFL convention in Duluth, one thing is abundantly clear: the DFL isn't even close to being united heading into the primary campaign. That, by itself, will be a tough fight squandering lots of the candidates' money.
Once they're into the primary campaign, Speaker Kelliher, Susan Gertner, Mark Dayton and Matt Entenza will work hard to out-liberal the other. Here's a picture of the conversation:
Speaker Kelliher, aka MAK: I'll keep my promise to John Marty & get single-payer passed if elected.
Sen. Dayton: I'll raise taxes on the rich if elected. (I'll raise them fast, too.)
Matt Entenza: I'll spend like crazy. (After all, he's always talking about how we aren't "investing enough" in Minnesota.)
Susan Gaertner , as far as I can tell, doesn't have a message or a reason for being in the race unless she's running for Lt. Gov.
Here's a sampling of some of the discordant tweets:
An upset Rybak delegate just came up to me and said, "Mark my words. Governor Tom Emmer."To be fair, it wasn't all doom and gloom, as these Tweets prove:
When Noah Kunin tweeted that MAK had been endorsed, Dusty Trice replied "It doesn't really energize the crowd, does it? They should go with a scorpion drop next time."
Tom Scheck reported that Tom "Rukavina says he's disappointed Kelliher dropped Lit with him in it", referring to a lit piece distributed to the conventioneers by MAK organizers immediately after Rep. Rukavina endorsed MAK during his speech announcing he was dropping out.
Javier Morillo, the president of SEIU Local 26, said that "Rybak has more elected delegates. Supers hijacking convention." Earlier, in responding to a PIM report that Rep. Rukavina was going to support MAK, Morillo said that the "endorsement doesn't belong to legislature, belongs to the people." He then said that "this endorsement does not belong to deals. It belongs to the grassroots".
MzKirkpatrick reported that "Dayton folks remind all DFL candidate folks that they are selecting second runnerup so don't waste time."
SD56DFLMAK will have a tough time connecting with voters after thanking "John Marty for keeping health care in the forefront" before saying that she's "looking forward to making the MN Health Plan a reality."
Favorite moment yet: In Q&A, Ole Saviour recommends Democrats change their mascot from a donkey to a unicorn.
christruscott: "Wasn't Jesus a socialist? He shared. He kicked the bankers out of the temple, didn't he?" Tom Rukavina.
Promising enactment of a single-payer health care plan is a political loser. While it's obvious that MAK said this to win the endorsement, bloggers like myself will remind voters that she made this statement. My hope for MAK is that the albatross she put around her neck doesn't cause permanent damage to her neck.
The bigger point to all this is that, while the DFL candidates try to outliberal each other while vying for their special interests' hearts and minds, the GOP candidate will talk with Minnesotans about his vision for making Minnesota a prosperous state once again.
This won't help the DFL this fall. They'll devote most of their time to talking with their special interest allies. Meanwhile, the GOP candidate will be focusing his entire attention to speaking with mainstreet Minnesotans. That image won't be lost on Minnesotans because it's the image national Democrats started projecting a year ago.
Couple that with the unions' discontent with AG Lori Swanson for her unionbusting activities and you have the potential for widespread discord within the DFL. That's the last thing the DFL can afford going into a tough election year.
Just as important as the discord at the DFL convention is the DFL's message. Like the American people, Minnesotans don't want tax increases and 'investments' to stimuluate the economy. That's the DFL's message. Spend. Tax. Spend some more. The MNGOP's reply is simple: Live within your means, start setting sensible priorities and start saying no to the special interest parasites.
Posted Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:03 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 25-Apr-10 12:17 PM
Gary:
I think the biggest problem that MAK is how the House has been run so poorly the last four years.
After all they couldn't work out a formal budget with the exception of passing a large tax increase at the last minute (and Democrats like to talk about how Pawlenty doesn't negoiate).
I'm sure there are beter examples. I think this will cause the Democrats to go to Dayton especially since he has promised to self-fiance again.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Leo Pusateri at 28-Apr-10 12:09 PM
Great piece, Gary--It's definitely the GOP's election to lose this November. There should be no excuse why GOP can't turn both houses and the Governorship at the same time.
Oberstar's Ill-Advised Attempt
It isn't often that a congressman makes a naked attempt to exponentially expand government control of the land we own. Such is the case with Rep. Jim Oberstar's attempt to dramatically change the Clean Water Act .
Oberstar, who represents the 8th District in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, wants to strike from the Clean Water Act the word "navigable," a restriction in the original bill based on constitutional principles that limit Washington's regulatory reach.This naked power grab is despicable. This modification of the Clean Water Act's language would give the federal government the authority to regulate every parcel of land in the United States.
Without that check, the federal apparatus will have dominion over all waters in America. Rainstorm puddles, mud holes, drainage and irrigation ditches, ponds, intermittent streams and prairie potholes on private lands. These have nothing to do with interstate commerce, but would suddenly be subject to federal rules, as would adjacent property...if the word is removed from the law.
Before the DFL tries spinning this as conservative paranoia, I'd ask them what legal restraint would exist if this change was passed. They won't answer that question because that answer doesn't exist.
Based on their actions, Democrats at all levels of government want to change government from being of, by and for the people into of, by and for bureaucrats far removed from positions of accountability.
IBD is spot on with this observation:
Farmers should be particularly concerned. The Oberstar bill gives federal regulators the power to police farming practices and to take their land through regulatory restrictions if those practices are deemed to be in violation of the law.Here's some questions CD-8 voters should be demanding answers of Rep. Oberstar:
With the federal government already hobbling California farmers by denying them water, in large part due to the Endangered Species Act, Oberstar's ambition is an existential threat to farms.
- How will this change in the CWA improve water quality in the United States?
- Does this change in the CWA improve water quality? If it doesn't, what's the benefit to landowners?
- What protections would landowners have against regulatory abuse?
- If this modification in the CWA doesn't improve water quality, doesn't that indicate that the modification is just a naked regulatory power grab?
Let's remember that Rep. Oberstar, as ranking member of the House Transportation Committee, diverted federal highway funds from road and bridge maintenance to pay for his bike trails. That isn't implying that Rep. Oberstar is to blame for the I-35 Bridge collapse. I've said before what I'll repeat here: That collapse wouldn't have happened had MNDoT replaced the gusset plates on the bridge.
My argument is that Rep. Oberstar has operated with misplaced priorities for far too long. It's time that CD-8 was represented by someone who will represent the people of CD-8, not Rep. Oberstar's special interest allies in DC.
If the many outdoorsman's clubs in CD-8 found out about Rep. Oberstar's attempted regulatory hijacking, he'd be less popular with outdoorsmen than President Obama is with doctors.
It's one thing to want to ensure a cleaner environment, including cleaner water. It's another to sanction the type of regulating Rep. Oberstar has in mind.
Posted Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:23 AM
No comments.
Seifert: In His Own Words
On this morning's At Issue, Tom Hauser interviewed Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert on Tom's DWI conviction in 1981. During the interview, Rep. Seifert was asked about the bill Tom had sponsored.
Hauser asked specifically about the bill Tom had sponsored, saying that Emmer's bill simply made certain that a person's license couldn't be revoked until they were convicted of drunk driving. Hauser then noted that the bill had bipartisan support.
Rep. Seifert's reply was stunning. In his own words, Rep. Seifert said that just because a bill has bipartisan support doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
I replayed Rep. Seifert's response to make sure I didn't hear him wrong. I didn't. Think about this: Rep. Seifert is arguing that people arrested on drunk driving charges aren't entitled to the presumption of innocence, that their driving privileges should be revoked without conviction.
Let me be clear about this: Even though I strongly support Tom, if Tom had said that, I wouldn't hesitate to correct him on a mistake of that fundamental importance.
This isn't just a mere technicality. This is one of the cornerstones of our legal system,important enough to be included in the Bill of Rights.
I'm not suggesting that Rep. Seifert favors abandoning the Constitution. I'm suggesting that, in this instance, he foolishly said something that he should've thought through first. In his zeal to attack Tom, Rep. Seifert put his foot in his mouth instead.
Walter Scott Hudson spoke of the importance of "principled governance" rather than outcome-based governance. Mitch Berg's post questions Rep. Seifert's logic this way:
Drunk driving is an emotional issue - made all the more so by groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the rest of the drunk driving lobby. It's understandable; anyone who's lost a loved one to a drunk driver is justifiably motivated to seek change. But the .08 blood alcohol level limit is a ludicrious waste of resources, and the resources spent on hammering on first-time, only-time offenders with low levels of intoxication are largely a complete waste.Saying that someone should have a drunk driving conviction hanging over their heads for the rest of their life after they've proven that they've put that behavior into their past isn't reasonable, in my opinion. What's worse is saying that we should abandon one of the cornerstones of our judicial system because it's an emotional issue.
Question: Does saying the above mean I "support" or am "soft on" drunk drivers and drunk driving?
If you said "yes", how hard to you have to waterboard logic to get to that answer?
It's ludicrous to treat attempts to make the system fairer and more rational as "sympathy for drunk drivers". Almost as ludicrous as assuming two mistakes made a generation ago are defining traits about a late-fortysomething guy's judgment.
That's the position Rep. Seifert put himself in in making that ill-advised remark. Let's hope he realizes his mistake and admits that he's wrong for saying that.
Posted Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:18 AM
Comment 1 by King at 25-Apr-10 11:31 AM
By analogy, then, should a person charged with homicide have to turn in his handgun (with its concealed and carry permit) while awaiting trial? How about attempted homicide? Aggravated assault? Or does the presumption of innocence apply here too?
We have a right to carry guns. We don't have a right to a driver's license. That is considered a privilege.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 25-Apr-10 12:08 PM
Gary:
I have a silly question to ask since you are a big supporter of Emmer. Isn't there truth in the comment which you attacked?
TARP was a bi-partisan bill and I don't think you will agree that was a good piece of law?
McCain-Feingold was a bi-partisan bill and I don't think that was good law.
On a state level I believe it was a bi-partisan bill to raise taxes on cigarettes even though smokers pay extra fees to the tobacco companies which are paying to compenstate the state for extra health care costs. Was banning smoking from bars a bi-partisan bill? The gas tax increase which created extra mass transit funding instead of focusing on roads was bi-partisan.
So attacking Seifert for that comment I think was wrong.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-10 02:53 PM
King, If the gun was used in the commission of the crime, the gun must be surrendered as evidence. The person shouldn't be required to turn in his permit, though. Isn't that a different criteria?
The last I checked, a drivers license isn't EVIDENCE. Different rules apply because of the rules of evidence.
I'd also argue that it's one thing to take a drivers license away if the person has a history of drunk driving. Since it doesn't say whether the bill applies only to repeat offenders or to all people arrested, I'd be reluctant to say we should pull a person's license.
Walter, I don't disagree that there are lousy bills that get bipartisan support. I'm just opposed to this bipartisan bill because of the presumption of innocence requirement.
Comment 4 by R-Five at 25-Apr-10 08:33 PM
I'm inclined to dismiss Seifert's pithy answer as simply unresponsive, no good answer coming immediately to mind. It happens. Few of us are as quick on the draw as say, a Michael Medved.
I think both Emmer and Seifert made some good points here. And some will be unhappy with either the current law or proposed reforms.
Comment 5 by kb at 25-Apr-10 09:06 PM
Gary, perhaps we just have different views of the seriousness of drunk driving. I think someone who has consented to testing for DUI by the fact that they asked for a license, and then refused the test, has surrendered their privilege to drive. So too someone who tests above the limit.
Making the issue the instrument as evidence conflates the issue. We revoke the RIGHT of gun ownership on a judge's order for surrender of those guns at arraignment, pre-trial. Not just the gun used but any other, since the person is a threat to re-offend. Given that driving is not a constitutionally protected right but a privilege of using taxpayer funded roads, how unreasonable is it to revoke the privilege pre-trial?
As your for-instance, Google "Jim Leyritz DUI". Would the Emmer bill have put this man back on the road?
Comment 6 by Alan Shilepsky at 26-Apr-10 08:46 AM
I agree that this topic is overemotionalized, and that .08 bad policy compared to .1--the DWI people killing people on the highways are likely blowing a lot higher than .08, or even .1.
That said, we do make provisions for constraining suspected offenders while waiting for ajudication. There are lots of people sitting in jail awaiting trial--heck, that's a main purpose of jails. And they are not proved guilty yet. Want to release the guy caught with blood on his hands?
Another "Constitutional violation"--People on temporary restraining orders--not to get within 1000 feet, etc. Do you get a jury trial for that? (I don't know.) Can't an order be issued and later examined further judicially?
Anyway, temporary withholding of driving privileges (you'd say right, I suppose?) may be very appropriate if the person blew .15 or .3. They will still get their trial--they just have to stay off the road in the meantime because of a very good "probable cause." And having your license yanked temporarily sure beats sitting in the cooler waiting for your DWI case to come up. Don't you think?
Comment 7 by John Anderson at 26-Apr-10 09:18 AM
I am shocked that you Emmer "Kool-Aid" drinkers fail to understand that this is an issue. The DFL will have crying families on ad after ad this Fall. We just had numerous people killed this past week by drunk drivers. If someone gets pulled over, blows a .20 with beer cans everywhere, you think they should quickly get bailed out and handed their driver's license back immediately.
Since he is so forthcoming, can you confirm 100% that these are his only DWI's? Anything from other states?
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-10 09:39 AM
John, If the DFL tries this, they'll be met with "This is old news. Tom doesn't excuse his behavior. It was wrong then. It's still wrong now." People actually have been known to have a little forgiveness from time to time.
Perhaps you should learn a little about that.
Comment 8 by LadyLogician at 26-Apr-10 01:01 PM
So then do we not allow second chances anymore? I agree that someone with a recent DUI should be held under scrutiny, but when the offense is as old as these are....
There are thousands of people in the same boat - that made a youthful mistake but have since cleaned up their respective acts. Does that disqualify them from future elective office?
I hate to put it this way but in this circumstances it fits best - let he (or she) without sin cast the first stone.....
LL
Comment 9 by Jim Knoblach at 26-Apr-10 08:32 PM
The Bill of Rights does not include the right to a drivers license.
In getting your drivers license, you have agreed to give it up if you blow a .08 or more or refuse a breathalyzer (or other blood alcohol) test. There is a civil process where you can rapidly appeal this loss of license separate from a criminal trial for breaking the DWI law if you choose.
If people don't lose their license until they are convicted months (or years) later, you are letting drunk drivers continue to drive, endangering people for months, which is why this has been an important part of DWI enforcement for years.
The constitutionality of this "implied consent" law has been litigated many times and been upheld repeatedly.
The Emmer bill proposing to eliminate this "implied consent" law was heavily opposed by law enforcement and would be a huge issue in the general election campaign whether or not Emmer had any previous DWIs.
Comment 10 by Steve Hansmann/East Central Minnesota at 10-May-10 03:06 AM
As a former deputy sheriff and intoxilyzer operator for almost eight years, (I ran just over 1,000 breath tests), I have to clarify a few things. First, the .08 limit is not a waste of resources. You have to work very hard, and drink a great deal, to get to .08. Example; when I was being trained on the MN Model 5000 at the BCA, barring religious or health concerns, you were required to get intoxicated in a controlled setting and have your partner test you over a pre-set time period to test the efficacy of the intoxilyzer. I drank seven brandy sevens and a beer in 41 minutes, spurred on by BCA techs, almost puked, and never scored above .083, and that was just briefly, and then I began to decline. You burn off a beer, mixed drink, shot, or glass of wine per hour. Theoretically you could drink one drink per hour all night and NEVER get a D.U.I. People who argue against the .08 limit are usually, quite frankly, drunks who've gotten a D.U.I. And consistent testing shows EVERYONE with measurable impairment at .05.
Secondly, driving while intoxicated, especially more than once, is a symptom of addiction and continued irresponsible behavior. Again, Emmer felt especially strong about allowing offenders to keep their license because I'm sure he was sorely inconvenienced when his license was yanked. Again, because in my experience he probably has a problem with alcohol. Bipartinship based on personal biases, addiction, and ignorance is worthless. And juding by the venom, concrete thinking, and vindictiveness of Emmer's expressed beliefs, I'll bet he never learned a thing from his court-ordered AA attendance.
Is Patty Murray History?
Conservative pundits have long thought that Washington Sen. Patty Murray was vulnerable. The question was whether Washington state Republicans could find a viable candidate. A recent spate of polling indicates that might not be that important :
SurveyUSA has surfaced to poll the Washington Senate race, and finds some unpleasant news for incumbent Patty Murray (4/19/10-4/22/10, 517 LV, MOE: +/- 4.4%). She fails to get above 46% against any of her opponents, and does so in a sample that looks an awful lot like the 2008 electorate.Murray's numbers aren't as frightening as Sen. Reid's but they're still bad. In none of these polls does Sen. Murray get above 46 percent of the vote. That doesn't automatically mean she's toast but it indicates she's in deep trouble. What's worse for her is that, aside from Rossi, these gentlemen are unknowns with lots of room to grow.
Patty Murray (D) -- 42%
Dino Rossi (R) -- 52%
Patty Murray (D) -- 46%
Don Benton (R) -- 44%
Patty Murray (D) -- 46%
Clint Didier (R) -- 44%
Patty Murray (D) -- 45%
Chris Widener (R) -- 43%
Patty Murray (D) -- 45%
Paul Akers (R) -- 44%
Patty Murray (D) -- 45%
Art Coday (R) -- 41%
Aside from this being a great year for Republicans, Sen. Murray's biggest problem is that she's a nondescript liberal. There just isn't anything compelling about her. If she's defeated this year, a decade from now, the most that people will remember about her is that she used to be a senator. She won't be remembered for her contributions.
Sen. Murray's isn't alone with this type of difficulty:
Endangered House Democrat Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, now running for the Senate in Indiana, justified his vote for the health-care bill by declaring:As Mr. Geraghty aptly puts it, that argument just got vaporized :
In addition to meeting my pro-life principles, the plan reduces costs, improves access to affordable insurance options, covers pre-existing conditions, and does not add one penny to the deficit.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake...falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs , raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.This isn't the first time that the CMS actuary blew the Obama administration's claims of deficit neutrality out of the water. It's just that this time, the media is actually paying attention. Now that the American people know that congressional Democrats first ignored them, then lied to them, before passing a bill that they didn't read, other Democrats will be in danger. Mr. Geraghty has a nice list to start with:
Endangered House Democrat Baron HillI'm betting that Bill Owens is in especially hot water because he ran in NY-23 promising that he wouldn't vote for Pelosicare. Now that he's been exposed as untrustworthy, and considering the demographics of that district, I'm thinking he's pretty much toast.
Endangered House Democrat John Boccieri
Endangered House Democrat...Charlie Wilson of Ohio
Suzanne Kosmas of Florida
Melissa Bean of Illinois
Bill Owens of New York
Chris Carney of Pennsylvania
Each race is unique but I'm betting that people will reject Democrats in huge numbers because they ignored the will of their constituents. Instead of being a public servant, these Democrats put a higher priority on being puppets to the Democrats' special interest puppeteers.
That won't play this year. The American people demand to be put first. The battle cry of last September's TEA Parties was "NO MORE!!!" NO MORE!!! will we tolerate politicians ignoring We The People. Those that ignore us are marked for defeat this November.
Posted Monday, April 26, 2010 4:15 AM
No comments.
Enforcement, Not Reform
The Democrats are about to misread the public again, this time on immigration reform. According to Laurie Roberts' column , Arizona's supposedly controversial enforcement law isn't as polarizing as Democrats would have us believe:
A few hours before Brewer signed the bill, President Obama stood in his Rose Garden and lashed out at SB 1070, saying it threatens "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."President Obama and DHS Secretary Napolitano have tried using the killings in Arizona as proof we need comprehensive immigration reform. DC's dunderheads still don't get it. It isn't like there aren't laws already on the books that allow the Border Patrol to arrest and deport illegal immigrants. It isn't like we didn't pass a law to build a border fence from San Diego to Texas.
He's right. But this bill is now state law because the trust between our communities and our federal government
was long ago broken.
It is because of Washington's steadfast refusal to do its job that we find ourselves where we are today, when half of Arizona Democrats, 69 percent of independents and a whopping 84 percent of Republicans support SB 1070, according to the latest Rasmussen Poll of likely voters.
Dismiss this, if you like, as the work of the "radical fringe", as Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund did on Friday. But 70 percent of likely voters supported this law.
At a time when President Obama and his Democratic accomplices have spent us into oblivion, they couldn't see their way clear to finishing the fence. They're arguing that there are better ways to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Thus far, there's no proof that they're right.
Meanwhile, special interest groups are pushing immigration reform:
They've pushed and pulled, marched on the national Mall and issued demands, including some to the president, which the White House hustled to meet, and now, immigrant rights groups find they've forced immigration and legalization to the top of the crowded congressional agenda.Each time this issue comes up, lefties like Mara Liasson argue that it's a tricky political issue when, in reality, it isn't. Each time it's brought up, pundits argue that neither political party can afford to "alienate the fastest growing minority group." With all due respect, that's nonsense.
The next test of their power will come Saturday, when the groups hope to turn out hundreds of thousands of supporters in rallies across the country, all demanding that Congress and Mr. Obama slow interior enforcement and move to legalize illegal immigrants.
What's proving true is that 70+ percent of the American people, whether they're Republicans, Democrats or independents, approve of harsh enforcement of the border. What do Democrats gain if they marginally increase their share of Hispanic votes but dramatically lose white suburban voters?
Republicans would be wise to copy a page from President Bush's 2004 campaign strategy. President Bush understood that a high percentage of Hispanics are pro-life Catholics or evangelical Christians. Republicans should highlight that in their Hispanic outreach. Another way of getting a bigger percentage of Hispanic voters is to appeal to Hispanic small business owners.
That means doing more than showing up 3 months before an election and asking for their votes. Spend time twice a month talking with and listening to Hispanics' worries.
Mr. Obama has criticized that law and said it shows why the federal government must act, but the groups say it's time for him to do more than just call for action. "The avalanche of actions that have happened recently are really a demonstration by the immigrant and Latino communities in this country," said Gustavo Andrade, organizing director of CASA de Maryland, just days before Friday's events. "What we've seen from coast to coast is they are incredibly dissatisfied by the lack of leadership from the Obama administration on immigration in particular."President Obama will undoubtedly ignore the American people in favor of appeasing liberal special interest groups. (Ignoring the people while listening to the special interest groups is what this administration does best.) If there's anything that the Americans hate, it's when they're ignored and liberal special interest groups are put on a pedestal.
The truth is that the Obama administration has the authority to stop the murders and the kidnappings in Arizona. That's what this new law is about. It's a plea to have the federal government do fulfill its constitutional mandate of protecting its citizens.
Here's another salient point Ms. Roberts made:
If we are now a police state, it's because nobody's been listening. Even as the nation was bloodying our nose and blackening both of our eyes on Friday, Cochise County sheriff's deputies were announcing the arrest of 67 illegal immigrants in southeastern Arizona. They were found Thursday night, crammed inside a U-Haul that deputies spotted driving erratically, 20 miles north of the border.Late last week, DHS Secretary Napolitano said that things were improving along the border because they were spending more money on the problem. I wish she'd return home to Arizona where residents are getting killed or kidnapped by Mexican drug runners. Those statistics are rising quickly. I'm betting that the people who've endured the violence will vehemently disagree with Ms. Napolitano's opinion.
In this case, success isn't measured by how much money you're spending. It's measured by a sustained significant drop in drug-related violence.
The special interest groups that are making their push are all open borders advocates. NCLR certainly won't be satisfied with enforcement-first legislation. What they want is to ignore enforcement and prioritize amnesty. Countries that don't enforce their borders aren't countries much longer.
The overwhelming majority of Americans get that. The question is: Does Washington? Bit by bit, evidence is piling up that they don't.
Posted Monday, April 26, 2010 6:11 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Apr-10 08:18 AM
What part of "ILLEGAL immigration" do you not understand? That should be the question.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-10 08:40 AM
Chill, Jerry. I prefer the enforcement of the border, which is one of the enumerated responsibilities given to the federal government in the Constitution.
We don't reform to enforce existing laws & preventing illegal immigration.
Larry Jacobs Agrees With Me
I'm not that surprised but it's gratifying to hear a seasoned political pundit like Larry Jacobs agreeing with me :
" For the Democrats to be kind of bludgeoning themselves in a district that is hard for them to win is doing Michele Bachmann a big favor ," said Lawrence Jacobs, the chairman of University of Minnesota's Political Studies Department.Compare that with what I said in this post :
The 6th district race is on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's list of top challenges to watch. Reed says she has not received any pressure to drop out of the primary, and the DCCC has stayed out of the contest. But it wouldn't be unheard of for the national party to change its mind if the primary starts to get nasty or if it determines it's the only way to have a shot against Bachmann.
If Tarryl wins the primary, which I'm predicting, that's just the first step in winning the November election. While Tarryl and Dr. Reed are fighting it out, Michele Bachmann will be attending TEA Party events, marching in parades and attending fundraisers while saving her money for a massive ad blitz starting the day after the DFL primary.While I'm predicting Tarryl to win, that doesn't mean I'm pulling for her to win. Frankly, I don't care which candidate wins. I'm just thrilled that Tarryl and Maureen are getting started on what might be a heated fight.
Anyone that thinks Dr. Reed isn't interested in winning obviously is overlooking the fact that she's loaned her campaign committee $250,000 of her own money. If a candidate is willing to do that, it's a sign that they aren't getting ready to quietly disappear. It generally means that they're getting ready for a fight.
Rest assured of one thing: whoever wins the primary will have spent alot of money that they won't have to spend on Michele Bachmann:
Clark significantly outraised Reed in the first quarter of 2010, $507,000 to $204,000, leaving Clark with a cash-on-hand edge of $601,000 to $435,000 at the end of March. But Reed's campaign announced last week that she had loaned her campaign an additional $250,000 in early April.I genuinely feel for Tarryl about the fundraising totals. Tarryl's team did a fantastic job raising money. When they released their totals on April 6, they had to have been feeling great and rightfully so. I can't imagine that they weren't stunned when Team Bachmann announced on Tax Filing Day that they'd raise $820,000 in Q1, 2010 and that they'd started off Q2 with a huge haul from Michele's fundraiser with Sarah Palin.
Both women were trounced by Bachmann, who raised a mammoth $820,000 over the first three months of the year and ended the quarter with $1.5 million in cash on hand.
Either Democrat faces an uphill climb against the sophomore Republican in the suburban district north and east of the Twin Cities, which tends to favor the GOP. Despite her polarizing national persona, a poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling in December found that a majority of 6th district voters approved of Bachmann's job performance. She led Reed by 16 points and Clark by 18 points; the margin of error was 3.7 points.
If Dr. Reed runs a competitive race, Tarryl will expend alot of money to win the primary. I wouldn't count on alot of money from the DCCC, either, because they're gonna need their cash to save their incumbents. That isn't a guarantee this year by any stretch.
The bottom line is this: Michele, like the GOP's endorsed gubernatorial candidate, will spend this summer talking with Minnesota's small businesses about reviving Minnesota's private sector economy. By the time the DFL primary is held, Michele will have laid out an appealing pro growth agenda for Minnesota's economy, starting with fiscal discipline.
There's alot of time between now and Election Day, 2010 but the outlines of this election are already taking shape. Regardless of how the primary plays out, Tarryl is still facing an uphill fight.
On that, Professor Jacobs agrees with me.
Posted Monday, April 26, 2010 8:36 AM
No comments.
