March 12-13, 2008
Mar 12 05:34 Re-vote Anyone? Mar 12 06:18 Astute Observations Mar 12 10:16 Spitzer to Resign Within Hour Mar 12 11:02 Race Factor Looms Large Mar 12 11:34 Franken Vs. Coleman & Brodkorb Mar 12 14:34 Forget Politics; It's About the Rule of Law Mar 13 02:50 Party Purity vs. Economic Disaster Mar 13 04:12 Emmer Asks for Swanson Investigation Mar 13 11:21 Someone Doesn't Get It
Re-vote Anyone?
Politico.com's Ben Smith is saying that the re-vote picture got cloudy yesterday. Here's what happened to cloud the picture:
Washington, DC ; The Members of Florida's Democratic Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives issued the following statement regarding the seating of Florida's delegates at the DNC National Convention this August.This is the last thing that the DNC needs. The battle between Hillary and Obama is heating up, with some rather sharp elbows getting thrown back and forth. It's obvious that neither will win the nomination without substantial help from the superdelegates. If they don't seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, you'll alienate those states to such a point that Michigan might flip into McCain's column, all but assuring him of victory in November.
"We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated.
"Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind."
Florida is a Democratic longshot at best. I know that the polling shows it close right now but I have several friends in Florida that are GOP county chairs. They're telling me that they're getting the party united in a big way, thanks in large part to the underreported work of Jeb Bush and Gov. Charlie Crist's highly visible support.
Something that's being overlooked in the Michigan-Florida re-do is that a Michigan re-do is essentially impossible because there isn't party registration there. Mort Kondracke appropriately stated that "You'd have to mail out" over 7.1 million ballots & "Republicans could game the system."
It isn't often that I feel sorry for Howard Dean but I almost feel sorry for the ship he's currently sailing in. It's gotta be giving him ulcers.
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:37 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 12-Mar-08 06:00 AM
you know the Republicans told both states if you do this you only get half the delegates. If Dean had a brain he would've followed the lead. Of course the person who suggested the Michigan primary thought it was okay, because the Republicans had a bigger say than if they had waited.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Mar-08 06:20 AM
Walter, the problem is that Dean only has half a brain.
Astute Observations
The American Prospect's Terence Samuel has an interesting perspective on the Democratic Party. Granted, it's something that Republicans have long known. Here's specifically what I'm talking about:
As much as Democrats love their two candidates, the really animating issue is getting rid of Bush, and they are completely open on how, and evenly divided on with whom. Without Bush-loathing as the organizing principle of their unity, Democrats could find themselves on shaky ground: the party's old personality disorders may begin to resurface. The old identity crises have already begun to show themselves.Republicans have known for almost 7 years that Democrats' election motivation is based primarily on BDS. When Howard Dean said that "This is a battle between good and evil and we're the good", that statement was directed at President Bush.
Democrats face other daunting problems. righht now, independents don't like President Bush these days. The thing is that that problem disappears the minute John McCain accepts the GOP nomination. Another thing that's bound to factor into this is that Democratic activists are driven by their BDS much like they were driven by their hatred of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. How do these activists stay motivated when Bush isn't there to motivate them?
The biggest dilemma facing them, as Samuel points out, is that the Left's BDS affliction has masked a number of divisions within the party. Here's how Samuel frames it:
The fight over NAFTA is one such schism. Is this the progressive party that embraces the reality of globalization, or the neo-protectionist party that seeks to shelter American workers from the ravages of the global economy? The Prospect's Robert Kuttner and former Clinton administration adviser Robert Rubin disagree for a reason.This really is the fight for control between the Deaniac wing of the party and the DLC wing. It's essentially a fight between the protectionists and the globalists.
Once President Bush moves into the rearview mirror, the self-examination within the Democratic Party will take on a life of its own. When their nominee makes a mistake, will the activists start questioning their candidate? If they do, how will that affect turnout drives?
With the race getting nastier and the elbows getting sharper, there's plenty of reason to believe that this will hurt party unity in September moving forward. If the fight happens in the fall, it'll just make the Democrats' chances of winning the White House that much more difficult.
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:19 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 12-Mar-08 08:38 AM
The Republicans have to make a strong case against expanding government and raising taxes. So far, even in disaster areas like Michigan, New York, New Jersey and our own California their are no voices making the case every day that its the government strangling the economy. All you hear on TV is how everything is all the Republican's fault and long stories about people sniveling because they dont like some aspect of the health care system. if you dont go to conservative web sites or listen to talk radio you NEVER hear a word of the conservative message.
Spitzer to Resign Within Hour
That's what the NY Post's Fred Dicker is reporting in this article :
March 12, 2008 -- Originally posted at 8:38 a.m. Updated at 10:119 a.m.Based on this article on the WCBSTV website , it isn't apparent that a plea has been reached with prosecutors:
Gov. Eliot Spitzer has decided to resign and is notifying top state officials of his decision, The Post has learned.
Word began circulating of his decision in state political circles earlier this morning. The decision came after what one source called "an agonizing night," as the governor's wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, and the governor's lawyers went over a possible plea deal offered by federal prosecutors, sources told The Post.
Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who has remained at his suburban Albany home for the past three days, was expected to be notified of Spitzer's decision this morning.
Sources said Paterson has told friends that if he does become governor, he would like Sptizer to hold off his resignation until Monday to give him enough time to prepare for a transition. He will be the first black governor of New York.
The Associated Press reported that Spitzer will announce at 11:30 a.m. that his resignation will be effective Monday.
Spitzer was expected to leave his home around 10:30 a.m.
When asked what the best-case scenario is for Spitzer, Fischetti said, "No charges, absolute resignation and contrition. I think the worst that could happen is a felony plea on a number of charges they could lodge against him."Frankly, I'd prefer seeing the US attorney not enter into a plea agreement if that agreement allowed Spitzer to retain his license to practice law. He betrayed teh public trust in a totally despicable way. He should pay a steep price for that. Letting him keep his license isn't a strong enough punishment.
Fischetti said that as a former prosecutor himself, Spitzer would not want to plead guilty to a felony that could carry jail time, like tax evasion, money laundering or bringing a prostitute across state lines.
"The main thing I would do is not plead to a felony because if he does that his law license is toast," Fischetti said. "He can't practice law anymore."
Spitzer's and his counsel spent much of Tuesday holed up inside his Upper East Side apartment in talks with U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia and his aides. Any failure to reach an agreement may have to do with the pressure Garcia feels to make an example of Spitzer.
"It's very important that [Garcia] expresses to the public that everyone is treated alike and he doesn't charge someone who was the Attorney General and prosecuted crimes he will be subject to a lot of criticism if he lets [Spitzer] go because he was the governor," Fischetti said.
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:19 AM
No comments.
Race Factor Looms Large
The sharp elbows continued to fly between the Obama and Hillary camps, much of it centered on Geraldine Ferraro's comments Monday. Here's what the Politico.com's Ben Smith and Paul David Kahn are reporting :
The cycle of offense and apology, on racial grounds and others, has become a familiar feature of this campaign. But both campaigns swerved deliberately from the pattern Tuesday, choosing confrontation over delicate compromise. Obama's aides announced they'd had enough "offensive" attacks, while Clinton's suggested that they'd had enough of the politics of grievance. A top Obama adviser suggested that Clinton should "repudiate" Ferraro's words, and another demanded that Clinton drop her from the campaign. Clinton's campaign, in response, essentially accused Obama of being the one to inject race into the contest, labeling his very complaint a "false, personal and politically calculated attack."The more I read his quotes, the more convinced that Mr. Axelrod isn't ready for primetime. His statement that "Clinton is "trying to send a signal to her supporters that anything goes" makes him sound like a little weeney. As Sen. McCain frequently says, "this ain't beanbag." I wholeheartedly agree. I want to know that the candidate is mentally resilient, that he's able to withstand the criticism that they'll surely face.
The reactions began Monday night with a relatively mild reaction from Clinton's campaign to the Ferraro comment. "We disagree with her," spokesman Howard Wolfson told Politico.
Obama's campaign called a midday conference call, in which Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, drew a line in the sand. "All this is part of an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed," he said, suggesting that Clinton is "trying to send a signal to her supporters that anything goes."
Axelrod walked a fine line, not explicitly citing any racial element to the "pattern," and Obama aides later stressed that he had not intended to suggest there was a racial element to the attacks, just a level of "negativity." But the items Axelrod cited, two Clinton supporters' suggestions that Obama's past drug use would hurt him, and Clinton's "own inexplicable unwillingness" to affirm Obama's Christianity in a television interview - have been interpreted in the past by many Obama supporters, inside and outside the campaign, through a racial prism.
That said, if this devolves into a mudslinging match, neither Obama or Clinton will win. In fact, it might split the party, though not permanently. The other thing coming out of this is that anytime they're throwing haymakers at each other is another time when they aren't laying a glove on John McCain.
Meanwhile, McCain will stay in the news , this time by leading a congressional delegation to Europe and the Middle East:
John McCain, the Republican candidate for U.S. president, plans to travel to Europe and the Middle East for 10 days in mid-March as part of a congressional delegation, officials familiar with the trip said on Sunday. McCain, an Arizona senator, is staking his claim on the presidency based on his national security experience, and his foreign trip will play into that theme.The upshot for McCain in this is that he gets to look like a statesman while Hillary and Obama are throwing haymakers at each other. That image won't be lost on voters. That'll only strngthen McCain's image of statesman and Commander-in-Chief-in-Waiting.
He and other senators plan to meet some foreign leaders along the way, officials said.
Israeli media said McCain planned a visit to the region on March 18. The Washington Post said the trip might include a stop in Iraq.
I'm noticing Obama's campaign is having trouble recently. Yesterday, here's how she attacked Obama :
"Today my opponent is here in Pennsylvania talking about energy policy, and I think specifically talking about wind energy and that's great," she said, "except in 2005 when we had a chance to say 'no' to Dick Cheney and his energy bill, my opponent said 'yes' and voted for it with all of those tax subsidies and giveaways that have been used by the oil companies and others to retard the development of clean, renewable energy. Really when you think about what we have to do, it's not gonna happen just by asking people. It's not gonna happen just by saying don't we all agree. We're going to have to fight to make the changes against the special interests that dominate Washington.Telling a Democratic audience that a candidate voted for "Dick Cheney and his energy bill" should surely provoke a counterattack. It didn't, which isn't wise. After all, an attack unanswered is an attack that's verified. That's just another indicator that Obama isn't ready for primetime. Yes, he's a great speaker but he simply isn't a fighter.
His inability to fight off attacks won't impres the superdelegates. They'll want someone that'll fight back effectively. I haven't seen Obama display that ability on a consistent basis yet.
Rest assured that Team McCain is taking note of that.
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:03 AM
No comments.
Franken Vs. Coleman & Brodkorb
As Michael has documented , Al Franken's not paying his workers compensation insurance for 3 years will catch up with him. Here's how the Frankentroops are responding :
There have been bumps on his political road. Mr. Franken came under fire last week when he agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to the state of New York because his business, Al Franken Inc., failed to carry workers' compensation insurance for a three-year period from 2002 to 2005.That 'storyline' will soon return to bite Mr. Franken in the backside. Last night, I was privileged to participate in a blogger conference call with Sen. Coleman. sen. Coleman put this into perfect perspective, saying that "I'll bet that all of his paychecks from that time got deposited." The clear implication is that Franken knew about the workers compensation fiasco and did nothing about it.
His campaign, which said the fine could be an error, acknowledged to reporters that he only discovered the matter after it was reported by a blogger.
His campaign said the repeated notices from New York were sent to his address there, while Mr. Franken had moved back to Minnesota. The campaign said the fine will be paid from his company funds, not out of campaign money.
Personally, Franken's story doesn't make sense on several levels. Franken no doubt has an accountant to keep his books and pay his bills. Is Franken now saying that this accountant either stopped paying his insurance? Or is Franken saying that this accountant didn't think it was strange that his insurance premium notices stopped coming? Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that (a) an accountant wouldn't bring that to Franken's attention or (b) his accountant wouldn't notice this.
It's becoming more obvious that Al Franken belongs in his book " Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them ", not in this Senate race.
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:09 PM
No comments.
Party Purity vs. Economic Disaster
In 2006, conservatives across the nation stayed home to "teach the GOP a lesson." That definitely happened here in Minnesota. We're paying the price for that lesson in the forms of an irresponsible DFL-dominated legislature that is tax-happy but isn't reform-minded or accountable to anyone but their special interest friends.
The cost of that lesson is now manifesting itself in the form of higher taxes and increased spending here in Minnesota. It's manifesting itself in Washington where Pelosi's Democrats are so beholden to the lawyers' lobby that they won't pass a FISA reform bill that would give us greater surveillance abilities against the jihadists.
Is party purity worth all the bad policy that's getting considered right now? I'd suggest it isn't. I'd suggest that it's set the conservative movement back at least a decade. That's hardly worth it. It'll set us back further if Hillary or Obama get in & replace Ruth Bader-Ginsburg & John Paul Stevens with 50-something year old ACLU-approved replacements.
Let me be blunt about this: These lesson-teaching purists must now decide whether it's more important to teach us another lesson or if it's more important to elect Republicans and recapture the House of Representatives this time to thwart the irresponsible budget management that this group of Democrats have demonstrated.
I'd vehemently argue that it's infinitely more important that we outwork the DFL, that we elect enough principled Republicans so that we control the House. That way, we don't have to worry about Gov. Pawlenty's veto getting overridden. That way our bills & amendments are the ones that the DFL has to defeat.
When the dust settled after the 2006 election, Minnesota Republicans dodged a bullet because Tim Pawlenty defeated Mike Hatch. Nonetheless, we realized that there were other bullets that we'd still have to avoid. After all, the DFL controlled 85 seats in the House, meaning that they didn't just control the agenda; they dominated the agenda.
They were so arrogant that Cy Thao made this statement :
"When you guys win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money."The Senate was even worse, with the DFL controlling 44 of the 67 seats, meaning that they were a single vote shy of a veto-proof majority. Since then, they gained another seat in a special election, which gives them a veto-proof majority.
The DFL campaigned on not raising taxes. They quickly trashed that pledge when their special interest allies started whining that they weren't getting paid off. (That isn't how it was worded publicly but that's what happened.) Let's put that into the proper context, too, because it's quite noteworthy.
The House DFL didn't propose any tax increases until after the budget forecast came in. The November forecast predicted a $2.2 billion surplus. February's report showed that the state budget had a $2.163 billion surplus. The DFL tried arguing that there really wasn't a surplus because they didn't factor inflation into the equation. As King argued here , inflation shouldn't be factored in.
Undaunted, the DFL still went on a tax increasing spree, which was stopped thanks to our goalie and the unity of the House GOP Caucus. Had the projection been off by a significant amount, I might've understood their tax increases. The projection was off by $37 million dollars. I'll bet that King would say that that's a statistically insignificant figure.
The point in all this is to remind those that taught us a lesson that their lesson caused alot of needless suffering and irresponsible financial mismanagement. On a national level, it meant that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid caved into the trial attorneys when they let the FISA reforms lapse, thereby wreaking havoc on our intelligence-gathering operations.
Two years later, it's obvious that few lessons were taught. It's more obvious that many Minnesotans are worse off because of the DFL's financial mismanagement.
The real lesson to be learned is that we need everyone getting involved. It's imperative that we outwork the DFL so that we can recapture the majority in the House. Only after that can we restore fiscal sanity to Minnesota.
On a national scale, the implications are larger. If those that stayed hom in 2006 return with a fire in their belly, we can recapture the House and put John McCain in the White House.
We owe that much to each other and to our country. It's time to outwork our opponents. It's time that we explained why our way is the superior way, that fiscal conservatism leads to greater individual liberty and increased prosperity. After all, you can't government yourself to prosperity . Government can't even do many good things .
It's time we realize that the time to be purists is during the primaries. It's time that we realized that the general election is the time for principled pragmatism.
Posted Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:59 AM
Comment 1 by Sam at 13-Mar-08 08:20 AM
"Party Purity vs. Economic Disaster"
I would remind you that after all you scolding over not voting for "bad" Republicans and letting DFL win, that the largest tax increase in MN history was passed not because the DFL had enough votes, but because we did not have good Republicans.
At a national level.
We did not get all the conservative judges appointed not because the Democrats prevented them, but because Republicans did not allow it.
Try again on the argument.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 13-Mar-08 09:21 AM
Sorry, but that argument won't wash. IF we had 100 Republicans in the House, those 6 wouldn't have mattered one bit. In this case, replacing any 3 of them would have been enough, but that's water over the dam bridge, at this point.
We need to understand why Republicans always insist on voting for the ideal Republican candidate that doesn't exist over the only one running. To not vote is to vote for the other guy. Not voting Republican because the candidate doesn't share some of your values is a guarantee that the winner will be a Democrat who will actively work against ALL of your values. Maybe there IS a reason Republicans are often called "the stupid party."
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 13-Mar-08 09:52 AM
Sam - I have to echo J.Ewing....If we had 60 Republicans instead of 49, the votes of these 6 WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A DARNED BIT OF DIFFERENCE! Staying home made sure that we had Reps. Madore, Maison and Morgan (for example) sitting in REPUBLICAN seats. The three reps that they replaced were all good team players and would not have voted to over-ride.
Try again on that argument.
LL
Comment 4 by Sam at 13-Mar-08 01:18 PM
We are not going to get 100 Republicans when they run as DFL lite.
So if we continue to support Republicans like the 6, we win maybe a few more seats.
The problem is you are advocating having us replace say 10 DFL with 10 Republicans like the 6.
So instead the vote of 85+6 to override would be 75 DFL, 16 Republicans. 91 to override.
Same results.
A Republican majority made up of 43 Republicans and 20 DFL-lite does no good, because the hold the caucus hostage by threatening to leave on every vote. And then we lose real Republicans because the party image get tainted with the bloat of pork.
Or to put it on a finer point.
JE if we had just 3 real Republican as part of the six, then we win.
And what is easier to do, have a real Republican win in a Republican district or a DFL-lite with an R by their name win in a DFL district?
Comment 5 by Chad at 13-Mar-08 01:43 PM
Sorry J. Ewing and Lady Logician but if you had 100 Republicans in the house and half were RINOs like the tax 6, you still end up in the same position. Republicans can win as many seats as there are seats to win but if they continue to vote with the DFL than we are no better off have voted for the RINO. At least you know what you are getting when you vote for the DFL. You never know what you are going to get with a RINO. The Republican party needs to start getting people who actually believe in the party plateform (i.e. conservatives)elected instead of those that only believe in some of the party values. Holding my nose just to vote for so called republicans is against everything I believe in.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 13-Mar-08 01:54 PM
blockquoteThe problem is you are advocating having us replace say 10 DFL with 10 Republicans like the 6.We're doing no such thing. We're advocating that people recruit candidates that can offer primary challenges to the Wayward Six.
A Republican majority made up of 43 Republicans and 20 DFL-lite does no good, because the hold the caucus hostage by threatening to leave on every vote.Did you pay attention during math? To gain a majority in the house, you need 68 seats. Furthermore, you're assuming that we'd be replacing RINO's with other RINO's, which isn't likely.
The point is to either (a) find a viable primary challenger, (b) contact your wayward legislator & let them know where you stand on things or (c) play the I'm taking my ball & going home' game.
Whining about how bad things are & doing nothing constructive about it as destructive as having 6 wayward R's voting like D's.
Get off your ass & do something constructive. Don't just whine like a pack of spoiled brats.
Forget Politics; It's About the Rule of Law
Yesterday, I posted about the allegations swirling around Lori Swanson and the Minnesota AG's office. After much thought about this, I've decided that these allegations need to be taken out of the political realm & put into Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles' hands.
It's time that we did this for several reasons, the most important of which is that the GOP needs to stand for the rule of law. That means all laws, not just the ones we agree with. While Republicans have disagreed with some of the actions taken by unions, the certifiable fact is that organizing a union is protected by federal law. People engaged in union-busting are breaking those laws.
That isn't acceptable .
I can't say this often enough or forcefully enough: We need to enforce all the laws . If we don't, then we're no better than criminals. How many criminals 'just broke one law'? I'd bet a high percentage fit into that category.
When Mark Ritchie 'appropriated' Mark Giga's & Jack Tomcak's names for his campaign's use after a SecState event, Jim Nobles was asked to investigate. Mr. Nobles investigated that incident thoroughly. In light of Tony Sertich's unwillingness to conduct an investigation of any sort on the allegations swirling around Ms. Swanson, these allegations should be investigated by the Legislative Auditor's office. Here's why:
- Investigations by the Legislative Auditor's office carry subpeona power.
- Investigations by the Legislative Auditor's office are done under oath.
- Investigations by the Legislative Auditor's office are thorough & unbiased.
Again, the seriousness of the charges warrants a serious investigation. If the charges are without foundation, Jim Nobles will tell us that. Considering the fact that an attorney has gone public with that information, I'd suspect that the allegations are accurate.
This week, we've seen how Eliot Spitzer allegedly broke several federal laws while he prosecuted others for breaking the same laws. That's unacceptable, too. While the specific allegations swirling around Lori Swanson are different, there's several similarities worth noting:
- Lori Swanson is Minnesota's Attorney General. Spitzer's transgressions started while he was New York's Attorney General.
- If the allegation that Ms. Swanson suspended a qualified attorney because she tried organizing a union is accurate, then Ms. Swanson is guilty of breaking federal law. If the allegations against Eliot Spitzer are accurate, then he broke federal law, too.
- If they both broke federal law, then that's unacceptable behavior by the states' chief law enforcement officer. Either they comply with the laws that they're charged with enforcing or they're unacceptable for their job.
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:34 PM
No comments.
Emmer Asks for Swanson Investigation
This afternoon, Tom Emmer asked the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services to investigate Minnesota Attorney General. Here's what we know thus far:
Representative Tom Emmer wants the bureau to look into allegations that Swanson been an obstacle to employees attempting to organize a union. Swanson put an assistant attorney general on leave earlier this week, but denied that the suspension was punishment for speaking with news media about the union drive.Here's what Mark Brunswick is reporting in the Strib :
Messages left for Bureau of Mediation Services Commissioner James Cunningham were not immediately returned.
Emmer, a Republican, has been pushing DFL House leaders to investigate Swanson, who is also a Democrat.
Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, deputy House minority leader, sent letters to legislative leaders and to the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services on Wednesday seeking the inquiry regarding the office of DFL Attorney General Lori Swanson.Ms. Swanson's saying that Ms. Lawler's being placed on "placed on paid leave" wasn't "because of union-related activities" isn't supported by AFSCME's statement that the attorney general's office has created an atmosphere of intimidation for attorneys seeking to unionize . I'm certain that those statements won't fit together.
"The actions in the attorney general's office during the past year have become an unnecessary concern for public employees in that office," Emmer wrote to Mediation Services.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5, the union pursuing the organizing effort, has contended that the attorney general's office has created an atmosphere of intimidation for attorneys seeking to unionize and stifled criticism.
Most recently, an assistant attorney general who is an advocate of the organizing effort, Amy Lawler, was placed on administrative leave after she spoke to reporters about ethical concerns she had over how some consumer protection lawsuits were handled.
Ms. Swanson doesn't appear to be an ethical person. Here's what Ms. Lawler said about Swanson's tactics :
During an interview, Lawler also described wrestling with ethical issues in her job. She said one issue came up when Swanson directed her to quickly file lawsuits against mortgage foreclosure consultants even though the attorney general had no defendants in mind.That sounds completely unethical. If it isn't unethical or illegal, it's certainly sleazy and repulsive.
"And that was kind of the case across the board," she said. "She'd just have an idea about a lawsuit, and she'd want it filed as quickly as possible. The biggest was she wanted people who'd be willing to appear at press conferences."
Eric Black quoted Eliot Seide as saying this:
Seide, of AFSCME, was blistering in his comments toward Swanson, as he has been since Swanson first rejected the union drive. "We have a group of attorneys trying to practice good law for the people of Minnesota and they wanted to form a union so they could do that. Instead what they faced was a savage work environment of fear and intimidation," he said.Here's how Rep. Sertich responded to Tom Emmer's questions:
Sertich responded Wednesday afternoon saying, "We actually had a discussion last spring about this that Rep. Emmer seems to have forgotten." According to Sertich, the rules committee went to the non-partisan legal counsel that the House has on staff. "They advised us not to interfere in any ongoing employment dispute with any potential legal ramifications," Sertich said.My question to Rep. Sertich is whether the Rules Committee, which he chairs, published an official report on this. As I recall, the House voted 129-0, on two seperate votes, to conduct a hearing on this. I don't recall ever hearing anything about Rep. Sertich's conversation with the House legal counsel's office. That's why I just contacted Rep. Sertich's office. I'll keep you posted on what I find out.
Suffice it to say that there's alot of discord in the AG's office, which is inexplicable due to the nature of the problem source. I never thought I'd see the day that a DFL Attorney General would be accused of hindering the formation of a public employees union in the office.
You can't write fiction that strange.
UPDATE: Michael has posted the YouTube of the exchange between Rep. Sertich & Rep. Emmer :
UPDATE II: Here's Rep. Sertich's response to my email:
Gary,I'd like to thank Rep. Sertich for such a prompt response.
All reporting is accurate. I contacted our non-partisan legal staff both last year and this week when inquired by Representative Emmer. Their advise has remained the same.
Thanks again for your email.
Tony
Posted Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:41 AM
No comments.
Someone Doesn't Get It
Drew's posted an editorial by George and Donna Pavelek here . It's obvious that they didn't read my post about party purity . Here's one thing that lept off the page at me:
We think its time for us "little" people in the party to send a message to the "top." We have reached our political line in the sand, and we're not coming across. We will not sell our souls for the sake of the party. We will remain true to ourselves, not to political ideologies that go against who we are and what we believe.Did the Paveleks try to recruit a viable candidate to challenge Sen. Coleman? Did the Paveleks write Sen. Coleman and tell them about their frustrations? Most imporantly, did the Paveleks examine Sen. Coleman's voting record?
How can we send this message? By voting our one little vote! Be disgusted but don't stay home. Cast a write-in vote. Let them know you were there, you participated, but you are not happy with who's offered. We can only hope that the party backlash this election is great enough that the "top" will get the message.
If they did, were they upset when he voted to confirm Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court? Are they upset that he voted for the Bush tax cuts that gave us prosperity? Did they disapprove of Sen. Coleman's vote for funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
For all their talk about participating, what they're really doing is taking their ball and going home. What they're really doing is casting a vote for Al Franken. Fortunately, Al Franken's such a total loser that their irresponsible behavior won't cost us like it did in 2006.
Their voting write-in is a betrayal of all those who are working hard to give us a principled majority. The time for purism is during the primary season. The time for realism is during the general election.
Finally, let me introduce them to a radical concept, the concept that there are some battles that are worth fighting to the death over and there are others that simply aren't worth the life and death struggle over. By voting for Al Franken by writing in a nobody, they're voting to cripple America's intelligence-gathering ability . By voting Al Franken, they're voting for high taxes which will put thousands of people out of work . By voting Al Franken, they're voting for ACLU-approved replacements to Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court.
What their vote really is is a betrayal of the conservative movement by setting it back a decade or more. Their actions are as reprehensible as the actions of the Wayward Six. The time to overthrow the poobahs at the top is after the election. The time to vote for the man who's stood with us on all the important issues is now.
Forgive me if I'm not thrilled with their betrayal.
Posted Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:23 AM
Comment 1 by Shoebox at 13-Mar-08 04:43 PM
I can't agree with you more!
People like the Pavelek's think that they get to vote on a grade i.e. they want to be able to give fractional votes for the % they agree with the candidate. That's not how our system works. The place to grade the candidate is in the primaries, the BPOUs, writing letters etc. Once you get to the general election, the vote is PASS/FAIL. If you agree 51% of the time, you vote pass. If you don't, you vote fail and get the other candidate (I'm sorry but until a 3rd party makes a viable option they don't count).
None of this means you give up your values. As soon as the election is done, you get right back at it again. Politics done right is not just a one day event, it is a process that is constantly in play.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Mar-08 05:03 PM
Shoe, GHod bless you for saying that. You absolutely get it.
