May 1-5, 2010
May 01 05:28 DFL's BS Barrage Begins May 01 07:52 Entenza, Kelliher Weigh In On Emmer Endorsement May 02 23:04 Tom Emmer Defines Mainstream On At Issue May 03 02:59 Weekly Election Roundup May 04 02:20 He Did It Again May 04 03:36 They Prefer Corruption??? May 04 06:06 Rep. Ellison Defends the Indefensible May 04 09:35 Who Knew: Racial Profiling Is In The Constitution? May 05 03:03 That Sucks: Paul Kohls & Laura Brod Retiring
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
DFL's BS Barrage Begins
Immediately after Tom Emmer became the MNGOP's endorsed candidate for governor, the DFL's BS barrage began in ernest. The Democratic Governors Association, aka the DGA, even jumped into the fight :
Democratic Governors Association Executive Director Nathan Daschle issued the following statement after Rep. Tom Emmer's nomination as the GOP candidate for governor of Minnesota.I'll hand it to the DGA: that's first class BS. First, saying that Tom's been "a rubberstamp for Tim Pawlenty's reckless management" is preposterous. Saying that that statement isn't rooted in the truth is understatement. The next thing they'll say about Tom Emmer is that he often was on the small end of votes like 120-9 or 127-7. Those aren't the actions of a rubberstamp.
"With a last-minute blessing from Sarah Palin, Tom Emmer tonight claimed the Minnesota Republican nomination for governor. Emmer, who has spent his career as a rubberstamp for Tim Pawlenty's reckless management, has promised to continue his irresponsible and disastrous agenda. Whether it's denying health care to veterans or increasing class sizes, Emmer's record is one of putting Tim Pawlenty's agenda before Minnesota families. Minnesotans want more jobs, not more Tim Pawlenty.
Our strong Democratic candidates have a vision for rebuilding Minnesota that embraces the optimism of the people of state. They know that together Minnesotans can strengthen our schools, create good jobs and restore our prosperity."
It's laughable to suggest that the DFL knows anything about creating jobs when their hostility towards entrepreneurship is documented. Their idea of a jobs bill is borrowing money from future generations to spend recklessly on projects of questionable benefit to the state.
The past 3 years, the DFL has touted billion dollar bonding bills as their jobs bill. Meanwhile, they've passed massive tax increases on Minnesota's jobs creators to the point that the IRS can tell legislators that people have left Minnesota and where those people left to.
That certainly isn't the sign of sound policymaking.
Second, Gov. Pawlenty's policies have been anything but reckless. The DFL's bills are what's been reckless. Let's remember that Speaker Kelliher's DFL legislature voted to increase taxes of $6,600,000,000 WHEN MINNESOTA HAD A $2,162,000,000 SURPLUS. They did that to pay for the spending increases they passed in 2007. That year, Speaker Kelliher's DFL passed omnibus spending bills that would've increased spending by more than 17 percent, a total spending increase of almost $5,000,000,000.
Minnesotans will quickly agree that that isn't the picture of fiscal responsibility.
Meanwhile, DFL Chairman Brian Melendez issued this pathetic statement after Tom's endorsement:
"Minnesota needs balanced leadership founded on strong policy and vision rather than political posturing," said DFL State Party Chairman Brian Melendez. "Emmer has continually chosen divisive partisan rhetoric over sound policy, choosing to throw temper tantrums on the House floor instead of putting in the hard work and compromise to deliver results for Minnesotans."First, the DFL doesn't have anything in common with sound policymaking. Increasing taxes and spending at a time when the economy is slowing down isn't responsible public policymaking.
Second, I'd love hearing Chairman Melendez explain what the halfway point is between the DFL's reckless spending increases and responsible spending priorities. This statement proves that Chairman Melendez hasn't changed since first getting the DFL's chairmanship. He's still a complaining political hack whose statements aren't credible.
Third, I'm confident that Tom's vision for Minnesota will appeal to Minnesota's entrepreneurs and blue collar types alike because his vision is to get government out of the way of Minnesota's job creators. When Minnesota's entrepreneurs are creating jobs, everyone is better off. (I know that's a foreign concept to the DFL but it's true.) Tom Emmer agrees wholeheartedly with Steve Gottwalt's saying that "the best social program is a good paying job."
Fourth, as Tom said yesterday in his presentation to the delegation, there's nothing wrong with saying no to the DFL's terrible policies. Saying yes for the sake of being agreeable isn't wise. Fighting for Minnesota's taxpayers is what Minnesotans expect. The DFL's priorities start with payoffs to their political allies. Tom's priorities start with returning Minnesota to prosperity.
The DFL's and DGA's BS barrage have little to do with reality. That's why I'll be telling Tom to first discredit their pathetic attacks with sound public policy, then wearing their pathetic criticism as a badge of honor.
Posted Saturday, May 1, 2010 5:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-May-10 07:06 AM
Why did you not quote the Kelliher blurb Polinaut posted:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2010/04/kelliher_goes_n.shtml
I thought it was quite cordial, "I believe voters are ready for honest solutions to the issues we face. I congratulate Tom Emmer on winning the Republican Party endorsement and I look forward to a spirited and civil campaign as we talk to voters all across the state."
Interestingly, she did not put "honest solutions" and "Tom Emmer" in the same sentence, but I presume that was a stylistic coincidence; nothing intentional.
Where I saw a pure BS quote:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2010/04/emmer_speech_an.shtml
Eye of the beholder stuff, eh, Gary?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-May-10 07:55 AM
Eric, you mean like how I mentioned MAK's statement in this post???
Comment 3 by eric z at 01-May-10 12:18 PM
Gary, that post was not up when I put the comment up.
Pawlenty certainly is saying that continuity, Emmer being like him, is to his mind a good thing.
Is Emmer ready to run on Pawlenty's record, or is he his own man? Are there any hints you might have from public info? I do understand that time is for seeing how a campaign unfolds. Siefert and his people caught that point going from front runner to declaring his intention to work as hard as possible, and urging his people to to the same, with the aim being to get Emmer elected. That in practice will be shown in the time between now and November.
Gary, will you be crossing over to vote in the DFL primary now that your team has its ducks in a row? It would be curious if you did - how you would base a choice.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 01-May-10 06:04 PM
Tom Emmer & Tim Pawlenty are both great conservatives but they aren't clones of each other. Melendez's line that Tom was Gov. Pawlenty's rubberstamp was the dumbest statement I've ever heard him make & that's saying something.
Tom is definitely his own man. What he's got most in common with TPaw is fantastic retail politicking skills. Tom's ability to connect with people the first time he talks with them is what's going to help him win over Minnesotans & win this election.
I'm not planning on voting in the DFL primary nor do I know of anyone who's thinking about doing that.
Response 3.2 by Gary Gross at 02-May-10 01:03 AM
I know that post hadn't been written yet because I hadn't found the quotes so I could write about it. I'm not a machine. LOL
Entenza, Kelliher Weigh In On Emmer Endorsement
Speaker Kelliher and Matt Entenza weighed in on Tom Emmer's endorsement victory. In their statements, they've shown who they are and why they won't win. First, here's Speaker Kelliher's statement:
"This race for governor is about the people and the future of Minnesota, and I believe voters are ready for honest solutions to the issues we face," Kelliher said in a statement. "I look forward to a spirited and civil campaign as we talk to voters all across the state."While I'm certain that Speaker Kelliher would love to start her general election campaign today, that isn't the case. First, she has to win the DFL primary against 2 candidates capable of self-financing. One of those candidates, Matt Entenza, issued this out-of-touch statement after Tom Emmer's endorsement:
Entenza, who just completed a 14-city tour, said Emmer's endorsement gives voters a clear choice.Entenza is just the latest DFL candidate who thinks that keeping spending under control is the fastest path to the poor house. The reality is that most Americans are tired of the DFL's and DC's Democrats' reckless spending habits. They prefer candidates that promise to protect their wallets from irresponsible liberal politicians.
"We can't cut our way to greatness," Entenza said in a statement. "If Tom Emmer's idea of cutting education and economic development worked, then Mississippi and Alabama would be leading the nation."
The key to prosperity is found in setting responsible spending priorities that fund important, essential things, then getting out of the entrepreneurs' way. Picking winners and losers, the path favored by the DFL, doesn't lead to a diversified economy that's capable of withstanding bumpy economic conditions that are sure to happen.
The DFL candidates often pick green energy as their growth industry. They won't let people, aka the marketplace, decide what industries should be winners. I've said many times what I'll repeat here: the government is terrible in picking the next Microsoft, Fedex or Dell. Why would we want to trust them in picking the next future growth industries when they haven't picked the best growth industries in the last quarter- to half-century?
I said last week that the DFL's candidates' messages are predictable: Kelliher will try selling herself as fiscally moderate, Entenza will be the spendaholic candidate and Sen. Dayton will be the taxaholic candidate. While they're campaigning on who can outliberal the other, Tom can start his general election campaign today, meaning he can define himself as the prosperity candidate who will create jobs while protecting taxpayers' wallets.
That will play well with people who see government as being too oppressive. Thanks to President Obama, people see Democrats as the party that favors oppressive government and oversized taxes. That's the millstone Democrats will wear from now through Election Day.
Good luck with that fight.
Posted Saturday, May 1, 2010 7:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-May-10 12:10 PM
You don't mention Mark Dayton.
I think there would be a good contest if Dayton wins the primary.
Emmer, being a Pawlenty and Gingrich clone and saying do nothing, tax nobody; and Dayton saying run government to be prosperous for everybody, tax the rich.
Gary --- Why not tax the rich?
They have all the money. Take some.
They can afford taxes that guys like you and Emmer cannot.
And Entenza, I am skeptical of a rich guy ducking the issue of the rich paying fair tax.
And I am skeptical of UnitedHealth.
Dayton and Kelliher would be the better two choices of the three, but in the off chance the DFL primary yields Entenza v. Emmer, we differ on how that choice would best work out.
What would be best about a Dayton v. Emmer contest would be an outsider, not a party hack, Dayton, would oppose a Pawlenty imitator, with Palin/Bachmann and such supporters as baggage, and with the Gingrich woman as Lt.Gov. candidate.
Awful.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-May-10 01:01 AM
Gary - Why not tax the rich? They have all the money. Take some.Because they're the job creators. If you take away their return on investment, they'll take their money & go home.
Frankly, I don't care about fair taxation, whatever that is. First, I don't know how you define what's fair because it's such a subjective term. Second, the tax code shouldn't be used to pick winners & losers. That's what Entenza, Dayton & MAK have in common. Like I've said in my posts, the federal & state governments haven't found the next Microsoft, Fedex or Dell EVER. Why trust them with it now? Third, Even if you raise taxes on "the rich" by 2 percentage points, that barely brings in $500,000,000. While that sounds like alot, it's peanuts when you're staring at a $5,000,000,000-6,000,000,000 deficit.
Fourth & most importantly, government is pissing away too much money. The DFL whined & pissed & moaned when the GOP proposed using bonding for roads, saying that it's wrong to put that burden on future generations. A year later, the DFL proposed putting that debt burden on future generations to pay for a new gorilla cage at Como Park & other questionable projects.
As for Dayton being an outsider, PLEASE!!! He's been involved at the highest levels in the DFL since I was young. He's a tired old hack who hasn't had a worthwhile idea this century.
Eric, PLEASE don't embarrass yourself again by saying Tom Emmer is a "Pawlenty imitator". That's one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard.
Mr. Emmer will be our next governor because he's a substantive man with great ideas & because he connects with people. Mark Dayton, MAK & Matt Entenza lack that ability. They're as endearing as day old sardines. MAK will campaign as the centrist consensus-builder, an image that I'll demolish in minutes. Entenza will run as the spendaholic candidate at a time when polls are showing 75-80 percent of voters want to shrink gov't. Dayton will run as the taxaholic candidate at a time when people are pissed at the high taxes.
Good luck with that one.
Comment 2 by Chad at 01-May-10 03:50 PM
If the DFL picks either Matty E or Crazy D as their candidate, it will show they are the real party of the rich and not the common person. One guy has a trust fund to spend and the other has his wife's money.
Dayton's "tax the rich" mantra is easy for him to spew as he has never had to work for any of his own money. Why exactly do the rich need to pay more anyway? Do they use more roads, sewer, water, police, fire, schools than the average family does? Do they "owe" it to the community just for being rich? The people who owe it to the community are the ones sucking off the government tit. The DFL in MN like Obama at the federal level feel that no one should have more than anyone else and they will make sure everyone is equal if they have the power.
Comment 3 by Chuck at 01-May-10 08:05 PM
I always love that mantra "tax the rich". Ok, do it and then let the rich man you work for eliminate your job to make up for his lost revenue. Let's put liberals to the test, two lines at the gas pump. One line has $2 in taxes more than the other line of pumps. You'll be amazed how many liberals will be at the lower taxed pumps. Funny how that works out.
Tom Emmer Defines Mainstream On At Issue
Sunday morning, Tom Emmer was interviewed by Tom Hauser after his winning the MNGOP endorsement for governor.
During the interview, Hauser suggested that Tom's conservatism didn't represent mainstream political thought in Minnesota. Thankfully, Tom Emmer didn't accept that premise. Instead, he invited Tom Hauser to join him on the campaign trail and see how he's connecting with Main Street Minnesota.
As he pressed his point, it became clear that we've picked the best candidate for this election cycle. Unapologetic for his consistently adhering to conservative principles, Tom Emmer made the case for limited government and sane spending priorities. That's exactly what Minnesotans are looking for this year.
We've seen the DFL and the Democrats in Washington, DC propose reckless spending levels. For instance, DFL gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton says that he's "unapologetic" for proposing to raise taxes on the rich by $500,000,000 only to increase spending on education.
That's insanity personified.
The next legislature and the next governor will be faced with a $5,000,000,000- $7,000,000,000 deficit next January. If Gov. Dayton plans on raising taxes on "the rich" by $500,000,000 to increase education spending, what's he going to do to eliminate the budget deficit? The only options are to cut spending or raise taxes on small businesses and the middle class.
What's mainstream about raising taxes on the middle class and/or small businesses? That might appeal to DFL primary voters but that won't appeal to non-activist voters.
Matt Entenza's ad says that we need a change of leadership, that we aren't spending enough. That isn't what Minnesotans are thinking. They're wondering when the legislature will put the brakes on the reckless spending and forget about raising taxes. Most Minnesotans want to be left alone to pursue prosperity. PERIOD.
Yes, they want a safety net but they want a vibrant economy so that a good paying job replaces a safety net program.
In order to win the endorsement, Speaker Kelliher promised John Marty that she'd sign into law a single-payer health care system. Single-payer is more exteme than the bill that (a) President Obama signed into law and (b) the 60 percent of the American people are rejecting.
The American people, including Main Street Minnesotans, don't want radical programs like that. Only the mainstream of the DFL is enamored with those types of radical programs.
The DFL is painting themselves into a corner by labelling Tom as a radical. I've watched Tom work crowds. What I've seen is a man that's able to listen and respond to people's questions and ideas. He's engaged them where they're at. From what I've seen, Tom's been able to win people who disagree with him over to his side of the argument.
The independents that I've talked with think he's a reasonable man. That even includes people that don't agree with him 100 percent of the time.
The more the DFL tries painting Tom as an unreasonable radical, the bigger their problem will be when people meet Tom and get to understand that he's actually a pretty reasonable person.
This is shaping up to be a replay of the 1980 presidential race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Throughout the campaign, President Carter portrayed Reagan as a crazy madman who couldn't be trusted with "his finger on the button". Then along came the only debate between President Carter and Reagan.
Reagan came across as informed, rational and in touch with the American people. In the final week+ of the campaign, Ronald Reagan surged and President Carter became a one-term wonder. That election, President Carter won Minnesota, Walter Mondale's home state, Georgia, his home state, and West Virginia, for a grand total of 49 electoral votes.
The more the DFL tries to paint Tom Emmer as a radical, the worse their defeat will be this November. The more the DFL refuses to engage Tom Emmer on the battlefield of ideas, the bigger their loss will be.
It's just that simple.
Posted Sunday, May 2, 2010 11:04 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-May-10 08:18 AM
Emmer needs to do three things, IMHO. 1) follow his wife's advice and smile more, 2) be consistent in his statements, rather than "move to the middle," though it matters greatly how you phrase things, and 3) start to develop some clear proposals-- real and clear (and obvious) solutions to the problems the state has. I would say those solutions must be consistent with his vaunted principles, but that's a given. Conservative solutions are THE solutions.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-May-10 10:16 AM
Jerry, Rest assured that Tom's specific proposals will be forthcoming shortly.
Weekly Election Roundup
I just read Liz Sidoti's AP article about the state of various elections when I read that Charlie Crist's running as an independent might cost Republicans the seat in Florida.
I know that's the CW being spread by the media but it's BS everywhere else. Gov. Crist's highest ratings as an independent are today. It's all downhill from here.
Now that he's an independent, GOP contributors are asking for their contributions back. Now that he's an independent, his campaign staff is disappearing. Now that he's an independent, Republicans that once supported him are abandoning him because they're loyal to GOP candidates, not political opportunists.
The reality is that Gov. Crist isn't the type of politician that inspires loyalty. Politicians like Marco Rubio, Michele Bachmann and Tom Emmer, the freshly endorsed GOP candidate to replace Tim Pawlenty as Minnesota's next governor, have supporters that are so loyal to them that they'd run through proverbial walls for them.
Unprincipled political opportunists like Gov. Crist and Sen. Specter don't inspire loyalty. Instead, they attract supporters that come and go with the breeze, here on the good days, vanished everytime else.
Another reason why people are fleeing the Crist campaign is because they don't like politicians who speak with a forked tongue. Many are the bloggers who've noted that Charlie Crist told FNS Anchor Chris Wallace that he'd run as a Republican in the Florida GOP primary. The minute it became clear that he couldn't win in the GOP primary, in fact the moment he saw that he'd get demolished, Gov. Crist didn't hesitate in braking his promise.
If there's one thing that today's voters won't tolerate, it's politicians that flip-flop without good reason. Politicians that think they can get away with flip-flopping should ask Bart Stupak what his now-infamous flip-flop did to his political career.
By the time Election Day rolls around, Gov. Crist will be lucky to garner 10 percent of the vote, with much of that coming from Democrat Kendrick Meek.
Rasmussen's latest polling shows Rubio with a 7 point lead over Crist in a 3-way matchup. That lead will widen as the campaign wears on. Gov. Crist's decision to run as an independent will be seen as a Hail Mary attempt by an unprincipled politician to keep his career alive. If Floridians are like the rest of America, and I suspect they are, they'll reject Gov. Crist's naked political opportunism swiftly and thoroughly.
Put differently, Gov. Crist is in for the political thrashing of a lifetime. He won't be a spoiler. He'll just be a trounced loser the first Wednesday this November.
Posted Monday, May 3, 2010 3:02 AM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 03-May-10 04:32 PM
Actually Chris Wallace brought it up yesterday as well.
Hehehehehe
LL
He Did It Again
During his commencement address at the University of Michigan, President Obama just couldn't resist telling this whopper :
President Barack Obama took aim Saturday at the angry rhetoric of those who denigrate government as "inherently bad" and said their off-base line of attack ignores the fact that in a democracy, "government is us."To be fair, in most years, the government is supposed to be us. This year more than any other, the government is definitely anti-us. Repeatedly, Americans told DC's Democrats to shut it down on health care. Last August, America attended townhall meeting to tell Democrats to shut it down. They didn't listen. In November, voters told President Obama to shut the health care debate down by defeating Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds in New Jersey's and Virginia's gubernatorial elections. He didn't listen; he had a legacy to build.
In January, Massachusetts voters sent the strongest, loudest message yet that they wanted the health care debate stopped by electing Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's seat. Speaker Pelosi couldn't be bothered with what We The People said. She rammed the bill through over the persistent, passionate protests of We The People.
That's why I can't let sit President Obama's statement slide that the government is us. This November, we'll give the Democrats a lesson in paying a political price for ignoring We The People.
Predictably, President Obama constructed a straw man argument:
In Obama's 31-minute address to what the White House said was his biggest audience since the inauguration, the president made no mention of Palin or the tea party movement. He did say that debates about the size and role of government are as old as the republic itself.President Obama isn't an intellectual heavyweight. That's why he's forced to use these fatuous strawman arguments.
"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."
It isn't that "all of government is inherently bad". When an administrations ignores We The People when they tell that government what they want, that's a tyrannical government. This administration has nothing in common with being of, by and for the people. This admininstration is all about doing everything on their special interests allies' wishlists.
Administrations that care more about the special interests than they care about We The People are corrupt. Administrations that refuse to protect its citizens from foreign drug cartels when they enter the United States to kill, kidnap or terrorize US citizens are incompetent and deserve to be called tyrannical. Administrations that haven't shown any inclination towards siding with We The People but who have shown a propensity towards siding with the special interests need to be called out as tyrants.
If President Obama's skin is this thin, then he doesn't belong in the White House. It's time he grew up and learned how to accept criticism like a man. If he doesn't, he'll soon find himself as a one-term wonder.
Posted Tuesday, May 4, 2010 2:25 AM
No comments.
They Prefer Corruption???
The radicals at Minnesota Progressive Project appear to be making things up as they go along. Here's a claim they make in this post :
In addition to Dan Severson's determination to make college student's ineligible to vote he also has a position about the process that got Al Franken to his position as a United States Senator.
That accusation isn't based in reality. I've visited Dan Severson's campaign website to see what reforms he'd offer. Here's the list of things he'd prioritize as a way to eliminate corruption:
- First and most importantly implement Photo ID.
- Eliminate Vouching on same day registration.
- Absentee voting reform.
- Initiate Bar-coding and a central processing center for absentee ballots.
- Mandate a run-off election for close elections.
In checking Rep. Severson's list of reforms, where does MPP get the proof that Rep. Severson wants to "make college students ineligible to vote"? Implementing Photo ID certainly wouldn't make college students ineligible to vote. Ditto with eliminating vouching. Here's why Rep. Severson is advocating reform for the counting of absentee ballots:
In the last election Ramsey county, Minneapolis and St. Louis county (the county I did my investigation in) had a combined rejection of only 7 absentee ballots. Carver county officials (a county much smaller than any one of the above named counties) had 188 rejected absentee ballots.
We know this is important. We know it because of an investigation done by KSTP reporter Mark Alvarez digging into election irregularities. Here's what Mr. Alvarez found:
In South Minneapolis, Margaret Dolan told Alvarez that they didn't reject any absentee ballots because they weren't told what the criteria was for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots.
Additionally, according to Dolan and 2 other election judges, they counted votes if they determined that the person lived in the precinct and if the person didn't vote the day of the election. While the left argues that that's reasonable, it isn't. Here's the criteria codified into Minnesota state election law regarding accepting or rejecting absentee ballots:
The election judges shall mark the return envelope "Accepted" and initial or sign the return envelope below the word "Accepted" if the election judges or a majority of them are satisfied that: (1) the voter's name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application; (2) the voter's signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot, except that if a person other than the voter applied for the absentee ballot under applicable Minnesota Rules, the signature is not required to match; (3) the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a properly completed voter registration application in the return envelope; and (4) the voter has not already voted at that election, either in person or by absentee ballot. There is no other reason for rejecting an absentee ballot. In particular, failure to place the envelope within the security envelope before placing it in the outer white envelope is not a reason to reject an absentee ballot.
Reporter Alvarez says that he found dozens of absentee ballots that the voter didn't sign or that didn't include the witness' signature that were accepted. These votes would've been rejected without hesitation had these judges followed the law. I still haven't seen anything that indicates that Rep. Severson wants to eliminate a student's right to vote. Have you? Rep. Severson wants to establish a central absentee ballot counting center to guarantee the uniform counting of absentee ballots. That can't possible be misconstrued as wanting to eliminate a student's right to vote. I'm betting that the vast majority of Minnesotans would agree with that statement. After all, establishing a central absentee vote counting center would be invisible to voters. It wouldn't have anything to do with letting students vote. Its only function is to determine whether a ballot should be accepted or rejected according to current Minnesota election laws and to count the votes. Nothing more, nothing less. This is proof that Minnesota's progressives will say an do anything to mischaracterize Rep. Severson's beliefs. That isn't surprising since DFL State Party Chairman Brian Melendez has a habit of doing the same. Here's part of what he said in his statement after Rep. Severson received the MNGOP endorsement for Secretary of State:
The Secretary of State's most important duty is protecting the citizens' right to vote, that crown jewel of liberty that safeguards all other rights. But Dan Severson would toss up barriers to citizens voting. His rhetoric is disrespectful to the hard-working election officials who, county by county, community by community, shepherd our democratic processes. Severson is a radical partisan who is unsuited to the office of Secretary of State.
Here's what I said in this post on the subject of "throwing up barriers":
What Chairman Melendez calls barriers, most people call SAFEGUARDS . In Minnesota, we pride ourselves in high voter turnout. Unfortunately, the DFL seems to think that every absentee ballot, whether it's filled out correctly or not, should be counted.
Minnesota's election laws are clearly written and easily understood. Bright Fourth graders could follow the instructions with ease. Yet Chairman Melendez appears to argue that complying with straightforward, clearly written election laws is unreasonable. What Chairman Melendez appears to be saying is that Minnesotans are incapable of complying with Minnesota's election laws. I reject that theory. Furthermore, I'm disgusted that the leader of a major political party would think that little of the people he wants to vote for his candidates. This November, Minnesotans will have a clear choice for who will be their chief elections officer. That choice comes down to Mark Ritchie, a man who refused to look at the absentee ballots Mark Alvarez showed him, or Rep. Dan Severson, the man who has investigated the irregularities encountered on Election Day and who has put together a reform agenda that he's prepared to get enacted the day he's sworn into office. That's a pretty clear choice between someone, Mark Ritchie, who couldn't be bothered to look into possible voting corruption and the man, Rep. Dan Severson, who wants to restore integrity to our voting. Technorati: Reforms , Absentee Ballots , Election Integrity , Photo ID , Vouching , Election Laws , Investigations , Mark Alvarez , KSTP-TV , Mark Ritchie , Brian Melendez , Corruption , DFL , Dan Severson , MNGOP , Election 2010
Originally posted Tuesday, May 4, 2010, revised 06-Mar 11:32 PM
No comments.
Rep. Ellison Defends the Indefensible
Rep. Keith Ellison has a habit of branding his opponents as fascists. This past weekend, Rep. Ellison was at it again, this time calling the Arizona law " a fascist, racist law ":
The Minneapolis congressman said Congress urgently needs to pass immigration reform in light of Arizona's new law giving police more rights to detain people whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Borrowing a word normally reserved for Tea Party protests these days, Ellison called the law "fascist."I expected this from Rep. Ellison because he's a reliable mouthpiece for the Democrats' spin even if what he's saying is utter nonsense and not based in the truth. First things first: Rep. Ellison should invest in a good dictionary and use it daily. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of fascist:
"The fact is that we have to fight against these repressive laws in Arizona," Ellison said. "They want to say that everybody is a criminal. They will stop anybody. We've got to stop these fascist, racist laws [inaudibule]."
A reactionary or dictatorial person.That definition exposes Rep. Ellison's mischaracterization of Arizona's law. I'm fairly certain that Rep. Ellison's mischaracterization was intentional because a lawyer who's read the law would know that Arizona's law prohibits racial profiling.
Rep. Ellison's mischaracterization might also be to deflect attention from the real problem, which is that the federal government's border enforcement efforts have been pathetic at best.
Let's hear Rep. Ellison explain how passing new laws will eliminate or even marginally reduce the violence currently happening in Arizona. Let's hear Rep. Ellison explain why the laws currently on the books aren't sufficient to stop the rampant violence in Arizona.
Most importantly, let's hear Rep. Ellison explain why Democrats take campaign contributions, and marching orders, from NCLR, an organization committed to open borders policies.
Is Rep. Ellison's mischaracterization of the Arizona law intentional? Let's consider what Pinal County, AZ, Sheriff Paul Babeu told Greta van Susteren about the dramatic uptick in violence in Arizona:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. All right, what happened?If that's got your attention, it gets worse:
BABEU: Well, he was out there, found some actual backpacks of marijuana and some other suspicious activity. And now, this is a known corridor for smuggling not only of drugs but of illegals. And so he radioed back to dispatch to call for support, and he continued to track the direction because he's highly skilled in this as a search-and-rescue deputy.
As he was pursuing these five; he didn't have them in sight yet; they had realized that somebody was tracking them. And so they left the rear guard behind and took cover and concealment as our deputy approached. This last suspect, who was armed with an AK-47, popped up and started shooting at our deputy, who was in uniform. They clearly knew he was an officer of the law.
And our deputy engaged. He had not only his handgun that he emptied the magazine, he also had his AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle that we often carry. And he returned fire, and that's when he was shot. And he believed that he hit one of the five suspects. There was two AK-47s and they had handguns, as well.
VAN SUSTEREN: Sheriff, was he alone? I mean, because -- I mean, he was -- was he out there by himself? You don't mention anybody else.That there are paramilitary units operating within the United States should shock every American's senses and infuriate them, too.
BABEU: Yes, he was alone at that time, and this is often...
VAN SUSTEREN: Why? I mean, that's -- I mean...
BABEU: Well...
VAN SUSTEREN: I -- you know, in the streets of D.C., where it's a little different than the desert of Arizona...
BABEU: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... the officers work in tandem because of the great danger. And I'm surprised to hear an officer would be or a deputy sheriff would be alone.
BABEU: We haven't seen this type of aggressive posture against law enforcement before in our county, and this is where it's reached a level that it is truly concerning, not only to be outgunned, the fact that they would ambush a deputy. This hasn't happened before.
So now I've given direction to all of my deputies that if they're out in remote areas and they're doing tracking such as this that there's at least two deputies. And they're always to be highly armed with their AR-15, as well as their sidearm, and for us to have other deputies in the area.
So this was something that was highly unusual. We're not a border county. We're several counties away, and we're the last county before, which 80 percent of all the illegals who come into Arizona have to cross through our county. So this is what is most concerning in that we in law enforcement now, we have been calling for Senator McCain, Senator Kyl, for their plan to deploy 3,000 soldiers immediately to secure our border with Mexico.
Rep. Ellison surely knows that we don't need additional laws on the books to act against paramilitary units operating within the United States. Rep. Ellison surely knows that we've got sufficient laws to prosecute paramilitary units operating within the United States who are committing acts of violence.
Then again, Rep. Ellison has a habit of coddling violent criminals , criminals like Kathleen Soliah and others:
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.It's common knowledge in Minnesota that Rep. Ellison didn't hesitate in defending Kathleen Soliah's murder of Myrna Opsahl and the planting of pipe bombs in L.A. Forgive me if I discount Rep. Ellison's use of the term fascism. It isn't the first time he's intentionally used incendiary language.
Ellison praised Soliah for "fighting for freedom." At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was "Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people." Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She's now serving a long prison sentence.
But Ellison's call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. "We need to come together and free,all the Saras," he proclaimed.
The nation is reaching a consensus that goes against the Progressive Democrats' doctrine: that we must secure the border and eliminate the drug cartel-related violence that's being perpetrated in Arizona. We don't need new laws for that, just a president who's willing to get serious about enforcing existing laws.
Unfortunately, thanks to enablers like Rep. Keith Ellison, we don't have one of those right now.
Posted Tuesday, May 4, 2010 6:57 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-May-10 09:36 AM
I would not rely on that simplistic definition of "fascist."
Things are a little more intricate and sophisticated than that.
However, I do not see much of my admittedly limited understanding of what is or is not properly included within the notion of "fascist" fitting with characterizing the Arizona situation.
Xenophobic is the better term. Fearful, perhaps.
And "racist" is an unclear word to me also.
The Arizona dislike of Mexicans seems centered upon language, culture, and national origin - with economic dimensions at play.
Imposing severe sentencing and removing judicial discretion for those knowingly employing illegal residents is the answer. It would deter, if some roofing contractor got a mandatory 20 years, without chance of early release.
A message would resonate, at least by the fifth or sixth imprisonment of those who exploit illegal immigrant labor.
Who Knew: Racial Profiling Is In The Constitution?
According to MPP's Joe Bodell, racial profiling is unconstitutional , meaning that the Constitution talks about racial profiling:
Emmer did call Arizona's newThe Constitution doesn't say anything about racial profiling. First things first: the Constitution deals with the federal government's structure and responsibilities. PERIOD. If Mr. Bodell wants to argue that the Bill of Rights talks about racial profiling, I'd love to hear Mr. Bodell cite which amendment in the Bill of Rights talks about racial profiling.immigrationracial profiling law a "wonderful" step in that state's social progress, and has not yet issued a statement on similar efforts in Minnesota .
On one hand, it's kind of ridiculous that we have to ask gubernatorial candidates "where do you stand on unconstitutional racial profiling laws?" On the other hand, don't we deserve to know?
Secondly, and more importantly, the Arizona law isn't about racial profiling. If a law enforcement officer spots someone breaking a traffic law, like speeding or reckless driving, the law enforcement officer will ask for the driver's license and registration. That's done whether the person is Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian- or African-American.
If a person doesn't produce a license or registration, the officer is then trained to ask whether the person is in the country legally. Again, that's done whether the driver is Swedish, Hispanic, Asian- or African-American. According to the new law, the inquiry ends the minute the driver produces a drivers license.
Why does Mr. Bodell think that's racial profiling? Better yet, does Mr. Bodell think that's racial profiling? If he doesn't, then the next question is whether he's just saying that in an attempt to put mainstream conservatives like Tom Emmer on the defensive for the campaign or to establish a negative narrative.
It's just a hunch but I suspect that the DFL is attempting to paint all Republicans as extremists. In following that pattern, the DFL is actually painting itself into a corner much like Jimmy Carter did during the 1980 campaign against Gov. Reagan.
For those of you too young to remember that campaign, Jimmy Carter tried painting President Reagan as unstable, trigger-happy, too unstable to "have his finger on the button." That wasn't all that successful prior to their only debate but it got exponentially worse during the debate.
Americans watching that night saw Gov. Reagan as being a positive, upbeat and measured man. Immediately, President Carter's main argument disappeared.
The DFL is painting a similar picture of Tom Emmer and Dan Severson. That's to their peril because both men are advocates for reasonable policies. Tom Emmer thinks that government hasn't been responsive to the people's needs. Most people share that opinion. They've told DFL lawmakers that they're taxed too much.
Instead of keeping taxes stable, the DFL annually passes tax increase legislation. Annually, Gov. Pawlenty vetoes it and the GOP House sustain Gov. Pawlenty's veto. Last year, Gene Pelowski, a DFL chairman, took the DFL to the woodshed for passing tax increase legislation.
If anything, moderate DFL legislators are moving in Tom Emmer's direction. Does that mean they're extremists, too?
But I digress.
The subject was whether Arizona law enforcement officers should have the authority to protect Arizonans from the Mexican drug cartels' violence. Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen sent out an email to her constituents on the testimony taken in committee prior to passing Arizona's law enforcement law:
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.Does Mr. Bodell want to argue that Arizona law enforcement officers shouldn't deal with these violent criminals? After all, that's supposedly the federal government's responsibility.
The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property. One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles .
Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.
One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.
If Mr. Bodell wants to argue that it's illegal for law enforcement officers to protect the citizens they're sworn to protect or that that's a view outside the mainstream, I'd love hearing him justify that position.
Just four words on how that's likely to go: Good luck with that.
Posted Tuesday, May 4, 2010 9:35 AM
Comment 1 by Lassie at 04-May-10 09:47 AM
How sad that we're painted as extremist enemies, when the real ones are in front of their noses - attacking and killing police officers here, and placing bombs in Times Square.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-May-10 10:00 AM
Don't worry. This, too, shall backfire.
Comment 2 by jim at 04-May-10 07:58 PM
"the Constitution deals with the federal government's structure and responsibilities. PERIOD."
The Bill of Rights? Remember those, they are part of the constitution. If you want to live in a country where the police can demand papers from anyone (who looks a certain way, in this case), anytime, for any reason, and detain them if they do not have them, then go somewhere else, because that is not America. That is Nazi Germany.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-May-10 01:03 AM
Jim, It's true that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution. That doesn't mean there's anything in the Bill of Rights that has to do with racial profiling. Racial profiling isn't part of the Bill of Rights.
You might not like that it's done but that doesn't mean it's part of the Constitution.
As for the reference to Nazi Germany in connection to Arizona's law, aren't you being just a little over-emotional? Have you bothered to read the bill or are you just basing your emotions on what people like Keith Ellison or special interest groups like La Raza have told you?
In the very opening pages of the bill, it's codified into law that the only time a law enforcement officer can ask whether you're illegally in the country is after they've stopped that person for doing something, such as speeding, reckless driving, etc.
As I said in the post, at that point, every law enforcement officer will ask the driver for their drivers license & vehicle registration. They'll do that regardless of whether the person is Caucasian, Hispanic or African-American.
That doesn't sound like racial profiling to me. Why does it sound like racial profiling to you?
Further, Arizona law enforcement officers & residents are under seige because of drug cartels are operating with the efficiency of paramilitary operations. Many are being murdered. Others are kidnapped. These operations are ruthless.
I pray that you aren't suggesting that we shouldn't be using everything in our arsenal to arrest or kill these people. (Arrest when captured, kill if they refuse to be captured.)
Comment 3 by jim at 05-May-10 07:57 PM
Section II says that state and local law enforcement officials must verify a person's immigration status "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."
That is my understanding of the bill. If correct, no matter why they have been stopped, on what basis would the officer determine whether to have a reasonable suspicion? By the way they look. Is there any other reasonable basis? If that is not racial profiling, then what is?
Comment 4 by Kosta at 31-May-10 12:30 AM
First off, thanks for blogging. I think open discourse about issues like this are very important.
I actually just finished reading Arizona's Immigration law SB1070 because I am about to blog about it as well. I think you glazed over the real problem with this bill. You said that it is designed for situations when officers see someone doing something illegal then they get their ID etc. However, the actually bill states,
"WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
This allows officers to pull anyone over when they are suspicious of that person being illegal. That is the real problem. The racial profiling comes in when you ask what an illegal looks like or how does one suspect an illegal? Mexicans and dark skinned people are going to suffer because this law gives officers the right to pull them over without any real reason.
That Sucks: Paul Kohls & Laura Brod Retiring
When Republicans retake the House majority in January, 2010, they'll do so without 2 of their most promising stars: Paul Kohls and Laura Brod. Here's Rep. Brod's statement announcing that she won't be running for re-election:
Dear Friends,Few people know this but Laura Brod was the person that got me interested in state politics. Prior to the 2006 disaster, if I focused on politics, that focus was almost entirely on national politics. The closest I came to caring about local politics was with U.S. House seats.
Over the past 8 years, I've been honored to serve as your State Representative in District 25A.
With your support and encouragement, I focused my efforts on the issues that impacted our daily lives. My efforts were directed to policies that I believed fostered an economic climate that was conducive to job creation and economic growth. I fought against excessive regulations that choke investment in our state and undermine the innovation and creativity of our private sector to generate the type of economic climate we need and demand.
Without your support, I could not have enjoyed the opportunity and the honor to serve that I have had for the past 8 years.
My belief has always been that we are a state that values a citizen legislature, and that there comes a time for other citizens to serve their community.
It is my belief that the time for others to serve in the Legislature for our district has come, and my time to find other challenges and ways to contribute is upon me.
It is in that spirit I announce that I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2010 for the State Legislature in District 25A.
There is a real change going on right now across the country. Finally, perhaps for the first time in thirty years, government is once again hearing from "We the People."
While I will not be running for public office this fall, I have every intention of being involved in public policy in the future. There are many issues in which Democrats, Republicans and Independents can agree upon and many that have great differences; all of which require a conversation to move our nation forward. I hope to be a part of that conversation in some way, and am proud of the friendship I have developed with you and so many others in this great state we call home. I have a passion to serve, and a strong and resolute belief in the power of the people of Minnesota to build a better state for themselves and their families.
I have been given unbelievable opportunities by you, our party, Governor Pawlenty, and my colleagues in the House Republican Caucus during my tenure. Serving in the minority and the majority, I have seen the importance of every vote and every minute of hard work necessary to ensure prosperity and liberty for our state.
My own parents instilled in me a strong belief that participatory democracy is the cornerstone of our democratic society, and each and every day I served in the Minnesota House of Representatives, I've tried to remember their words of encouragement and support.
We truly do live in a remarkable state and an incredible nation. For a kid from New Prague, Minnesota to have been given the honor to work in our state's capitol, I can't begin to fully express my appreciation for the past 8 years to serve the people of my community. On behalf of my family, I want to thank you for your support and friendship. We have been honored to be a part of the great experience of public service.
I look forward to continuing to stay in touch and to work and support candidates who share our beliefs in a conservative approach to governance. With so much to look forward to in the days, the weeks, the months and years ahead, I am grateful for your friendship and your support over the past 8 years.
Warm Regards,
Laura Brod
Following the 2006 disaster, I resolved to fight a different fight, that I wouldn't fight for unprincipled RINOs. I resolved that I'd gladly fight alongside principled conservatives every time the opportunity presented itself. Little did I know that Rep. Brod was the first politician that I'd fight the good fight with.
During the first week of the 2007 session, with the House debating tax conformity legislation, Rep. Brod proposed an amendment to cut taxes. Speaker Kelliher, wanting to protect her freshmen from voting against a tax cut, ruled that Rep. Brod's amendment wasn't germane to the legislation.
To say that Rep. Brod wasn't letting it go is understatement. Saying that Laura's feistiness was a breath of fresh air is also understatement.
That's when I regained confidence that some Republicans were still willing to fight for time-tested conservative principles. Not being the bashful sort, I emailed Rep. Brod, introduced myself as a blogger in St. Cloud and as a conservative activist who appreciated her fighting the good fight. Within minutes, I got a reply, thanking me for standing with House Republicans in their fight.
A month later, I joined several local BPOU members in meeting Reps. Brod, Dean, McNamara and Greg Peppin in St. Cloud. After that meeting, I was hooked on following state politics.
During those dark days of 2007, I started noticing a strong conservative nucleus emerging in the House, including Reps. Brod, Dean, Buesgens, Emmer, Kohls, Seifert, Severson, Gottwalt and Holberg.
Back then, Republicans I spoke with locally kept living in the past, saying that there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." When I'd hear that, I'd just tell them about this nucleus of conservatives and how they were fighting the good fight. Inevitably, I'd tell the person that they should study what was happening.
Last year, I had the good fortune of meeting Paul Kohls when he was running for governor. Paul struck me as a man with a quick wit and great principles. He's the first person I heard talking about "living within our means." Saying that Paul's conservative credentials are impeccable is understatement.
Now we're faced with replacing most of that group. The good news is that the candidates that've been recruited seem very capable of filling some very big shoes.
Posted Wednesday, May 5, 2010 3:03 AM
No comments.
