March 28-31, 2012
Mar 28 02:26 President Obama's anti-coal obsession Mar 28 02:15 Michele Bachmann exposes Agenda Media's complicity in hiding Obamacare's faults Mar 28 02:02 St. Cloud loses a giant Mar 28 03:01 Will Bill Parcells coach the Saints? Who cares? Mar 28 16:13 This bonding bill MUST shrink Mar 29 00:37 Mark Levin, Landmark Legal Foundation, give Obama administration ConLaw lesson Mar 30 02:56 Ritchie's anti-Photo ID campaign doesn't belong on SoS website Mar 31 02:36 Wasn't it 'for the children'? Mar 31 14:27 Jim Neuberger wins GOP 15B endorsement
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
President Obama's anti-coal obsession
It's never been a secret that President Obama has wanted to kill the coal-mining industry. I wrote here about the furor that then-candidate Obama caused when he said that people could open coal-fired power plants, they'd just go bankrupt doing so:
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
President Obama's anti-coal agenda will cost him Ohio's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes. It'll cost him Indiana's electoral votes, too. President Obama won those states in 2008, adding 52 electoral votes in those states. Losing those states alone drops his EV total to 286. President Obama is likely to lose North Carolina and Florida, too, dropping his EV total to 237.
Now he's pushing the issue again. Here's what the Sierra Club said about the crippling new regulations:
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, an advocacy group fighting coal-fired power, said in an interview that the regulation shows that President Barack Obama is moving to a cleaner energy future.
"It's a strong move," Brune said. "It means there will never be another coal plant built without new technology and it probably means even those won't be built because they can't compete."
TRANSLATION: Coal will eventually go out of business because the EPA's regulations will artificially drive up the cost of coal-generated electricity. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is subsidizing proven energy failures like Solyndra to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Minnesota voters should notice that their senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, aren't opposing these regulations even though they'll drive up the cost of heating a home.
The Democrats policies have driven the cost of heating one's home and putting gas in one's car through the roof. In short, they're killing the middle class with excessive regulations driven by their unwillingness to say no to their special interest puppetmasters.
That's the gentle way of saying they're gutless politicians who won't stand up for the middle class.
Tags: EPA , President Obama , Coal , Regulations , Gas Prices , Electricity , Cap And Trade , Militant Environmentalists , Sierra Club , Democrats
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:26 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Mar-12 07:34 AM
What's really crazy is that, for the pollutants EPA is SUPPOSED to regulate-- things like mercury and sulfur-- the best way to reduce them is with the new technology that comes with a new power plant. While the thing they are NOT supposed to (or even allowed to) regulate-- CO2-- is the inescapable byproduct of adding O2 to C. It's inescapable, fundamental physical chemistry. And all done in defense of a theory of "global warming" that has been repeatedly proven to be a hoax. The solution is to put these nutjobs out to pasture ASAP.
Michele Bachmann exposes Agenda Media's complicity in hiding Obamacare's faults
When Greta van Susteren interviews Michele Bachmann, the sparks fly in terms of the public learning things they wouldn't otherwise learn. That's what happened last night when Greta interviewed Michele Bachmann about Obamacare's regulations, costs and impacts.
Here's the transcript of the first outrageous thing we found out about Obamacare:
GRETA: I made a list of things that were sort of promised to them. One was that the cost would go down and that 30,000,000 who weren't insured would be insured. Right now, those 30,000,000 don't have health insurance because the mandate hasn't kicked in yet.
REP. BACHMANN: They don't have it but here's worse. Last week, the government, though the Congressional Budget Office, said that at least 20,000,000 people would lose their health care because their employers were going to drop them because their costs are escalating so fast.
GRETA: What would you do? Under your plan, would everyone have a health plan?
REP. BACHMANN: Here's what I think we should do. I put a bill together a couple of years ago that says this. We should let any American buy any insurance policy they want anywhere in America...
GRETA: You can't now?
REP. BACHMANN: You can't. You can only buy health insurance in your state under your state's mandates.
GRETA: Why not?
REP. BACHMANN: Well, because there's something called the McCarren-Ferguson Law at the federal level and it creates health insurance monopolies in every single state. We'vev got to knock down these barriers and think about the consumer and let the consumer buy any insurance policy they want anywhere in America with no minimum federal requirements and then...
GRETA: Let me ask you this. The insurance companies are making. Are they making out like bandits like this because of this monopoly?
REP. BACHMANN: Well, they've got a monopoly in each state. What does that tell you?
GRETA: That tells me alot.
Rather than let Americans make their own health insurance and health care decisions, the federal government and state governments put in place regulations that created monopolies for the insurance companies and diminished people's health insurance options.
What's worse is that the people who wrote this bill are responsible for creating the health insurance companies' monopolies. Occupy Wall Street should be protesting in front of the Democrats' offices. They should be staging sit-ins in Leader Pelosi's offices. They should be criticizing Harry Reid, Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar and Ben Nelson for selling people out.
As awful as that information is, this information will cause people to go vesuvial:
GRETA: I'll tell you what I find troubling. I find that this 2,500 pages -- and Leader Pelosi said that you have to read it to find out what's in it -- the bill is actually incomprehensible. But then those 2,500 pages were then shipped over to HHS and then unelected people created these rules, this complex set of rules were created by unelected people. These unelected people are really writing the health care...
REP. BACHMANN: This is a bill that will never finish being written. The 2,500 pages is chump change. There's already been over 10,000 pages of regulations that have been written and there's over 1,200 places in the bill that you know...I remember the night you brought it in here.
GRETA: It was that high (about 18" tall)...
REP. BACHMANN: That's just the bill. Then take that by a factor of 10 and you'll have the beginning of the regulations. It will never end. The employers will never know if they're a criminal or not a criminal or if they're in compliance or not.
Every mandate the federal or state government imposes on people through the insurance companies drives costs up. In Minnesota, state government imposes 65 mandates on health insurance companies. As a result, there are few companies competing for the business.
Each mandated coverage is a new risk adding into health insurance premiums.
Thanks to Greta for this interview and to Michele's detailed understanding of the atrocities in Obamacare, Americans now have a better grasp of what a worthless, dangerous bill this is.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , Greta van Susteren , HHS , Obamacare , Regulations , Interview , SCOTUS , Monopolies , President Obama
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:15 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 28-Mar-12 07:19 AM
When the Logical Husband and I lived in Wisconsin we had wonderful insurance that was good and inexpensive. It was less than our contribution to our employer based policy through Blue Cross Blue Shield. It allowed us to choose our doctors, our neighborhood clinic, area hospitals and it was run by doctors so those that were making decisions on what was covered or not, did so from a clinical position - not an actuarial position. I was heart-broken to have to leave it behind when we moved to Minnesota. It would do so much to bring down end user costs if we could have that kind of inter state portability.
LL
St. Cloud loses a giant
St. Cloud lost a giant in the history of the city when Larry Haws passed away Tuesday. He was 72. During his short time in the state legislature, Larry was the workhorse who got things done. Tarryl Clark had the higher profile but Larry's the one who got the work done.
Larry was in his first full term in the House when he submitted a lengthy list of items for that year's bonding bill. Unlike other legislators, though, Larry's projects were mostly maintenance items of state buildings, something clearly within the state's list of responsibilities.
I had a pair of tussles with Larry but it was impossible to not respect his commitment to serving St. Cloud. He was an educator, a sports coach, the leader of St. Cloud's Park & Recreation Department.
Larry even sat in for conservative talk show host Dan Ochsner occasionally. That's just who Larry was.
My prayers & sympathies go out to Larry's family. I can only imagine the pain they're going through. AFter all, it isn't easy losing a giant.
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:02 AM
Comment 1 by #6 at 28-Mar-12 10:57 AM
I'd also like t offer my condolences to the Haws family. As I said to Larry on election night 2010, at the end of KNSI's coverage, "I may not have always agreed with you, but I've ALWAYS respected you. I hope you enjoy your retirement, and may you have a long and happy retirement".
Sadly his retirement wasn't long, but I'm sure, in spite of the health issues, it was a happy one.
Rest in Peace Larry.
Will Bill Parcells coach the Saints? Who cares?
When I think of whether Bill Parcells will accept the interim head coaching position with the Saints, my first thought is "Who cares"? In his post-NY Giants career, Bill Parcells' record has been 95-81. That figures out to being a 54% winning percentage.
While it's true that some of his teams were at the start of a rebuilding, it's equally true that he took over the Cowboys at a time when they had the reputation of being a juggernaut, at least with the media.
His last 3 seasons with the Cowboys didn't produce earth-shattering numbers: 24 wins, 24 losses.
The reality is that the only time Bill Parcells was a great coach was when Phil Simms was his QB and his linebacking crew was LT, Harry Carson and Carl Banks.
When that team was broken up, Bill Parcells returned to being average. He's got the reputation. I'm just not sure it's deserved.
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:01 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Mar-12 02:13 PM
Childress.
Comment 2 by eric z at 28-Mar-12 02:33 PM
Kurt Rambis. He proved he could win sixteen, seventeen games the last two seasons with the Timberwolves, without knowing how to be a head coach - now, if he did that as interim coach for a season with New Orleans there'd be no cause to complain.
Comment 3 by eric z at 28-Mar-12 02:35 PM
Parcels - who were his coordinators with the Giants? I would look there too.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Mar-12 03:45 PM
His defensive coordinator was a guy named Belichick.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 29-Mar-12 09:40 AM
I hear Tim Brewster is looking for an upgrade.
This bonding bill MUST shrink
Earlier this morning, I saw some articles talking about the Senate passing a bonding bill that would spend $496,000,000. When I dug into what the money was going to be spent on, I was outraged. Every taxpayer should be, too. Here's an example of what they want to spend money on:
Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Coon Rapids Bioscience and Allied Health Addition and Renovation: $980,000
What it's being spent on: To complete design for the construction of a Bioscience and Allied Health addition and to design, renovate, and equip classrooms and related space.
If that doesn't get you fired up, this will:
North Hennepin Community College Bioscience and Health Careers Addition: $26,292,000
What it's being spent on: "To complete design of and to construct, furnish, and equip Bioscience and Health Careers laboratories, classrooms, and related spaces.
That's $27,000,000 spent on bioscience facilities that are 10 miles apart. Are both of these facilities really needed? I'm betting taxpayers would emphatically say no.
Then there's this spending request:
Ridgewater College, Willmar Technical Instruction Lab Renovation $13,851,000
What it's being spent on: To design, renovate, furnish, and equip classroom, student service, instructional lab, and related spaces and to demolish the Administration Building.
Here's another appropriation for a health center:
St. Paul College Health and Science Alliance Center $1,500,000
What it's being spent on: To design the Health and Science Alliance Center addition and design, renovate, furnish, and equip, existing health spaces.
First, how many community colleges need "health and science" centers? Next, when it says to design something, it means that the project hasn't even been started. What's the need for this health and science center? Is there a need for this health and science center?
Finally, is there a need for this many health and science centers spread across Minnesota?
The Senate bill's foolishness doesn't just include MnSCU projects:
MINNESOTA ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN $ 7,000,000
What it's being spent on: To the Minnesota Zoological Garden for capital asset preservation and betterments to infrastructure and exhibits at the Minnesota Zoo to be spent in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.307. This appropriation includes money to rehabilitate the saltwater dolphin tank and exhibit in Discovery Bay.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL is always talking about taxing the rich. Instead of taxing the rich, why aren't limosine liberals stepping up and paying for these types of spending projects? It would save the state tons of money in terms of interest payments to bondholders.
Wouldn't that be a great win-win situation, especially for taxpayers?
Next are the things that should never get consideration for any type of state appropriations:
Bemidji Regional Public Television Station $3,000,000
What it's being spent on: For a grant to the city of Bemidji to construct, furnish, and equip a regional public television station in the city of Bemidji.
This appropriation is not available until the commissioner determines that a 25 percent match has been committed to the project from nonstate sources.
What purpose does a public TV station in Bemidji serve? More importantly, does it serve a purpose?
Here's a hardy perennial:
Potter Auditorium Remodeling - Chatfield $2,200,000
What it's being spent on: For a grant to the Chatfield economic development authority to predesign, design, renovate, construct, furnish, and equip the Chatfield Center for the Arts in the city of Chatfield. The center includes the George H. Potter auditorium, the adjacent 1916 school building, and the land surrounding the structures owned by the economic development authority. Money, land and buildings, and in-kind contributions provided to the center before the enactment of this section are considered to be sufficient local match, and no further local match is required.
I'd be interested in finding out how many people visit the George H. Potter auditorium and the adjacent 1916 school building. Projects like this shouldn't be a priority for the state. They shouldn't be taken seriously.
While this bonding bill isn't as irresponsible as Gov. Dayton's, it's still irresponsible. There's tons of pork in the Senate bill that should be eliminated. The scary thing is that these specific projects are from the first 19 pages of the spreadsheet. There's 38 more pages of projects after these projects.
Tags: Dave Senjem , Bonding Bill , Community Colleges , Science Centers , Health Centers , MNSCU , Anoka-Ramsey , North Hennepin Community College , Minnesota Zoo , Pork
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:13 PM
Comment 1 by Nick at 28-Mar-12 09:03 PM
WOW!!! This state needs to start spending much smarter than it is right now. Fund projects that REALLY matter such as road and highway maintenance. The state needs to quit funding JUNK degrees, and invest in degrees that have high job placement such as Aviation.
Comment 2 by Jethro at 29-Mar-12 10:01 AM
Unbelievable!! Talk about a LOT of pork in this bonding bill. It would be interesting to hear a response from the MnScu board of trustees on this one. Maybe the trustees will start having town hall meetings with their constituents like legislative members do. Oh wait...that would make sense...scratch that thought.
Comment 3 by Nick at 29-Mar-12 02:48 PM
One of the trustees is in one of my classes. I will ask him and get back to you.
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 29-Mar-12 08:07 PM
Nice research Gary. Why can't Strib or PiPress do this? Further evidence of the significant duplication in MnScu.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-12 02:59 AM
Rex, why expect great things from inferior ideologues 'reporters'?
Mark Levin, Landmark Legal Foundation, give Obama administration ConLaw lesson
This week has been an extraordinary week for constitutional scholars. This week, people of all political stripes heard constitutional arguments from conservatives like Justices Scalia and Alito to liberals like Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.
They heard arguments made by Paul Clement, who represented the 26 states. They heard arguments made by Solicitor General Verilli. Some of the best arguments made in the case, though, were part of the Legal Landmark Foundation's Amicus brief to the court . LLF's brief is a history lesson on the Commerce Clause. Here's part of LLF's brief:
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were on the brink of civil war over New York's refusal to allow any ships or other navigational transports access to the state's ports or harbors other than those owned by New York's designees. The result was escalating transport fees to neighboring states, confiscation of unlicensed vessels and dangerously heightened tensions between New York and its neighboring states. Gibbons, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 184-185.
A national crisis, if not civil war, was averted by the Supreme Court's application of the Commerce Clause, which was straightforward, logical, and obvious:
All America understands, and has uniformly understood, the word 'commerce' to comprehend navigation. It was so understood, and must have been so understood, when the constitution was framed. The power over commerce, including navigation, was one of the primary objects for which the people of America adopted their government, and must have been contemplated in forming it.
The Convention must have used the word in that sense; because all have understood it in that sense, and the attempt to restrict it comes too late.
In other words, the Commerce Clause was codified into the Constitution to give the federal government the authority to resolve trade disputes between the sovereign states. That's a far cry from giving the federal government the authority to tell people or corporations that they must engage in specific types of commerce of Washington's choosing.
Here's another brilliant constitutional argument against Obamacare:
The federal government's flagship case, Wickard v. Filburn, 311 U.S. 111 (1942) has nothing in common with the PPACA's individual mandate. In fact, it underscores its unconstitutionality. In that case, the government did not mandate a farmer to grow wheat. It sought to regulate the wheat the farmer, by his own free will, chose to grow. Moreover, the government did not compel the consumer to purchase wheat, whereas in the instant case it compels the consumer to purchase insurance.
It's impossible not to notice the difference between the ruling in Wickard v. Filburn and the case that the Obama administration is attempting to make supporting Obamacare.
LLF's brief didn't just demolish the Obama administration's argument that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave the federal government the authority to impose Obamacare on people. It, too, taught an important history lesson:
The federal government also invokes the Necessary and Proper Clause to defend what is indeed an unprecedented national police power. The Necessary and Proper Clause, however, does not create any additional congressional power, nor does it expand any enumerated power. See Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1986), Section 208. The individual mandate is not 'a discrete and narrow exercise of authority over a small class of persons
already subject to...federal power.' United States v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct. 1949, 1968 (2010) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Accordingly, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not justify the individual mandate as Congress never has had the authority to compel private parties to engage in private economic activity based solely on the fact of living.
LLF's brief highlights the Obama administration's attempt to stretch the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause beyond anything the Founding Fathers would've recognized.
LLF's research into these clauses is detailed and on point.
Here's the text of the Necessary and Proper Clause :
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States , or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's apparent that the linchpin to this clause is whether the federal government was vested with the authority to impose its will on people or if there are limits on the federal government's ability to impose its will on sovereign states and sovereign individuals.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments say there are limits. Here's the text of the Ninth Amendment :
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Here's the text of the Tenth Amendment :
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people .
The point is that there's a purpose behind these clauses and amendments. Each should be seen as applying to specific situations, not as catch-all clauses to be used to justify the federal government's authority over the nation's activities.
Thanks to this week's Supreme Court hearings and LLF's brief, average citizens are getting taught a great history lesson on the Constitution. How lucky are we for that?
Tags: Health and Human Services v. Florida , Obamacare , Landmark legal Foundation , Interstate Commerce Clause , Necessary and Proper Clause , Ninth Amendment , Tenth Amendment , Constitution , SCOTUS
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Mar-12 10:42 AM
How exactly does any of that cut against single payer, which is what most informed people want.
The VA clinic that opened in Ramsey is proof on the ground. Socialized medicine works. And it should not merely work for veterans. It should be instituted to work for every citizen.
The 71 year olds wanting further extended coverage for their heart transplants can buy extended coverage beyond base coverage, but not one single human needs to go without coverage. Not one single small business needs to fund expensive employee coverage.
All this debate is Republican and Democrat smoke and mirrors to distract from the clear and simple - and clearly Constitutional answer. Cover everyone. Single payer. Pay for it out of general funds. Tax the rich for a change to assure enough income, while scaling down the aggressiveness of the military machine.
What's the problem? Lack of will, people being propagandized and lied to, but over time that will be defeated as the inhumane thing it is.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-12 11:31 AM
Single-payer isn't constitutional. As Pelosi is finding out, & as Justice Scalia highlighted with his questions about enumerated powers, the Constitution didn't give the federal government the authority to be the health insurance industry.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-12 11:20 AM
Single-payer advocates don't think highly of single-payers. I wrote about it here:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:
Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.That's what an advocate of single-payer said. Do you really want a "corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies" that would "lad to a reduction in overall research and development"? Do you seriously want profits removed? If you do, nobody will provide the service.
Comment 3 by Patrick at 29-Mar-12 11:51 AM
Eric Z - funny you should use the VA system as a prime example of the single payer. I am a retired non-combat Vietnam veteran who, despite the promise of my government, is denied care at the VA hospital and clinics. You see I don't fit into a category above 7/8 (depending on how limiting they want to be). Also VA care is not portable - you sign up in St. Cloud - you need to get care at that hospital. You can do the paperwork to change but why should I have to jump through that hoop(s).
I think you confuse "care" with "coverage" - anyone who needs care in this country has access to it...hospitals must treat patients even if they don't have insurance that will not cover treatment. What we need is more people exercising personal responsibility and quit waiting for someone else to take care of them.
Comment 4 by Michael Mielauskas at 26-May-12 11:38 AM
EITHER WE ARE FREE WILLED PEOPLE OR WE ARE NOT
K. MARX DID NOT BELEIVE IN FREE TRADE OUR DEMOCRACY
DOES. INTRASTATE COMMERCE BELONGS TO THE STATES
WHILE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE FEDERAL DOMAIN.
WHEN YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHATS BEST FOR YOUR
NEIGHBOR THEN YOU MUST EXPECT THAT HE WILL THINK HE
KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU THENFORTH WE HAVE A
BILL OF RIGTHS AND A CONSTITUTION THANK GOD.
Ritchie's anti-Photo ID campaign doesn't belong on SoS website
Secretary of State Ritchie's website includes a page titled Elections and Voting . Here are a few things posted on the Elections and Voting page:
- Am I registered to vote?
- Where do I vote?
- Registering to Vote
- Check on your Absentee Ballot
There was something different on Secretary of State Ritchie's website this visit. At the bottom of the "Voter Information" box was a link titled "OSS Estimates of Registered Voters Lacking Valid or Current ID."
The link opens to a spreadsheet estimating the number of registered voters lacking "valid or current ID." The grand total at the bottom of the page is 215,389. Not coincidentally, that's the figure DFL legislators and outside propagandist organizations have cited throughout this debate.
What's troubling is that this report doesn't explain where the Secretary of State's office got this information from. It doesn't say who collected the data. It doesn't say what methodology they used in estimating these figures. The figures in this report aren't footnoted.
There's nothing on the spreadsheet that says a major university or other major organization conducted the study. Since the figures aren't footnoted and the study isn't accredited to a major university, media outlet or other organization, these numbers might be totally manufactured.
In fact, there's no way of verifying whether these totals are anything more than propaganda thrown together to scare people into not supporting Photo ID. What's known about this spreadsheet is that a university didn't put it together. We know that because a university study would be footnoted. There'd be a note at the bottom of the page stating that 'this study was conducted by University X.'
Frankly, putting this propaganda on the SoS's Elections and Voting website at a time when the Photo ID legislation is in conference committee seems like campaigning, not informing. It isn't informing since the information isn't verifiable.
This is an electronic anti-Photo ID protest at the Capitol. Instead of the LWV-MN, Common Cause MN or TakeAction Minnesota leading the protest in the Capitol rotunda or Capitol hallways, it's Secretary of State Ritchie leading a partisan campaign rally on his website.
It's a partisan campaign rally because Secretary Ritchie didn't mention in his 'report' that each of those mythical 215,389 registered voters would be able to get either a drivers license or a state-issued Photo ID.
If Secretary Ritchie wanted to be nonpartisan and informative, he would've noted that the state of Minnesota would do everything possible to make Photo ID available to every eligible voter in the state.
That didn't happen. Instead, Secretary Ritchie threw together a bunch of statistics that weren't footnoted or verified. That isn't a study. It's pure propaganda.
Tags: Corruption , Secretary of State , Study , Photo ID , Propaganda , Common Cause MN , LWV-MN , TakeAction Minnesota , Partisanship , Campaign Rally , DFL , Elections
Posted Friday, March 30, 2012 2:56 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Mar-12 09:54 AM
So, who has the standing to sue?
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 30-Mar-12 10:02 AM
Sent to the SOS office via Email today:
Subj: SOS office violates state election law!
That would seem to be the headline. Posting the 'estimates of Minnesotans not possessing current ID' on your website is deceptive politicking at best, and at a time when Voter ID is being considered by the legislature, it is obviously being done to intimidate or influence on a very particular issue, even if it were NOT deceptive, which of course it is by not saying how many of these people actually COULD obtain a valid ID under the new law. Please, take it down NOW!
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-12 12:32 PM
Great work Jerry.
Wasn't it 'for the children'?
Gov. Dayton's statements on LIFO indicate that the DFL version of education reform isn't about the children. Here's what he said that enunciates the DFL's priorities on education reform:
Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton today (March 30) indicated he would not sign a Republican marque education initiative, Last In, First Out (LIFO).
Indeed, Dayton styled LIFO, a push for allowing school boards to determine the order of teacher layoffs based on teacher effectiveness rather than seniority, as part of a Republican 'onslaught' against teachers and public employees.
Teachers feel 'demoralized,' said Dayton.
Rather than celebrating recent accomplishments in education in Minnesota, Republicans focus on 'negative stuff,' the wrongheaded premise that the state's education system is a wreck, Dayton explained.
I don't give a damn if teachers feel demoralized. My first priority in this is giving school boards the authority to keep the most effective teachers, not those with the most seniority.
What's so brilliant about a system that, theoretically, has the authority to keep a fossil with 35 years experience but then is force to terminate a teacher of the year?
Admittedly, it'll take time to establish verifiable, objective, criteria to judge teacher effectiveness. If that's what's needed to put together an objective set of criteria for LIFO, then let's get started with putting that criteria together.
As for Gov. Dayton's statement that Republicans think that "the state's education system is a wreck", Gov. Dayton isn't telling the truth. Gov. Dayton can't point to a single statement from GOP leadership that reflects that thought.
Gov. Dayton isn't attempting to be honest about why he'll veto the LIFO legislation. This week, he threw another temper tantrum about charities not jumping on board with the Vikings stadium project.
Gov. Dayton will veto LIFO because his union puppeteers told him that it's his responsibility to protect them. This isn't for the children. It never has been. It's always been about protecting EdMinn.
Tags: Unions , EdMinn , Mark Dayton , Cronyism , DFL , LIFO , Education , Reforms , MNGOP
Posted Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:36 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Mar-12 12:37 PM
Do you see this assault on the teachers' union separate from the ALEC inspired constitutional amendment effort, or overlapping, and would you favor the question - either question, being on the ballot as a constitutional issue? And why?
What I see as workable, on the notion of being able to slough off bad teachers with seniority, and the concerns of workers in the schools, as a compromise, would be that the salaries of a school board be aligned highest to lowest, rank order, and if one in the high salary levels is jettisoned, then each below that moves up one salary rung so that the salary savings in any such decision would be the lowest level on that totem pole.
That way the incentive to be chintzy on the part of a school board and adminsitrators is negated, and any firing judgment would be based solely - and properly - on effectivness in handling classroom education.
Yes, there still could be partisan biases at play, but at least remove the economic icentive to screw over those making the highest levels of pay, for that reason and that reason alone. Remove that bias, and it becomes a fairer looking proposal, even if coming from Republicans.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Mar-12 01:47 PM
As I've said, I don't give a rip about the unions. My first priority is making sure that the best teachers, the ones that students learn from, are the people on the payrolls. If there are school cuts, which I hope there won't be, I don't want a fossil who's been there 30 years & isn't effective to stay while good teachers are laid off as a result of LIFO.
As for ALEC, get over it. They're a think tank. If legislators want to use some of their ideas, then customize it for their state, I'm cool with that. The legislation will rise or fall on the merits. That's as it should be.
Frankly, I'd love seeing citizens put in Data Practices Act requests to their school boards. Let's find out how many people are teaching & how many are administrators & consultants. Then let's find out what the administrators' & consultants' responsibilities are & how much they're paid. Why should people's property taxes go up to pay for dead weight that sits in offices? This isn't a condemnation of all administrators & consultants. It's just saying 'let's make sure the taxpayers' money isn't getting wasted.'
My message would be "Pay as much as you need to but don't spend a penny more than you have to.' At this point, Gov. Dayton isn't showing that he's the taxpayers' watchdog. There's significantly more proof that he's the union's watchdog.
That's unacceptable.
Comment 2 by eric z at 31-Mar-12 01:54 PM
"Pay as much as you need to but don't spend a penny more than you have to."
The problem there, experienced teachers, good or bad, end up at the higher pay rates. Don't spend a penny more as an approach says, cut more expensive payroll first, keep the same teacher-student ratios, but with less expensive teachers, quality aside.
I am suggesting an approach that would be payroll neutral. It would frustrate chop the costliest tree first attitudes. Allowing merit to be a larger factor.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 31-Mar-12 02:33 PM
You're missing my point. First, sign LIFO so the best teachers are kept. Next,the point isn't to cut teachers' salaries. It's to eliminate administrators & consultants from crony-approved positions.
My point is that we'd have alot more money going into the classroom if we eliminate crony consultants & administrators.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 31-Mar-12 08:03 PM
Teachers are demoralized? Tough. Why should anyone be able to keep their job just because they have worked some place for 10, 20, or 30 years and aren't performing? I had lots of teachers in school who should have been fired but knew their job was safe due to seniority. Times are a changing and we need real change, and not the Obama kind of change either.
Comment 5 by Jethro at 01-Apr-12 02:57 AM
Maybe it' a high time Gov. Dayton & the DFL get behind a student "union" or a parent "union" instead of a teacher's union.
Comment 6 by Patrick at 01-Apr-12 07:46 AM
Jethro - good point!
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-12 10:26 AM
That works with me, Jethro.
Comment 8 by Rex Newman at 01-Apr-12 10:18 PM
You have to admire Dayton's consistency. If there's a union involved, his position is 100% assured, legal or not. Republicans should be as committed to the taxpayers.
Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 02-Apr-12 01:44 AM
I couldn't agree more, Rex.
Comment 10 by John at 06-Apr-12 10:32 PM
Unions protect teachers from being unfairly fired. For example, if you are a conservative teacher, and you have a liberal principal, which many are, then you can be fired for saying anything conservative in your classroom. By destroying unions, you just end up putting the teachers at the mercy of the principal, who is often a left-leaning socialist. So you should hope that teachers, all teachers, have some protection.
Comment 11 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-12 01:34 AM
I don't want to destroy teachers unions for the very reason you just mentioned. I just want contracts to be written in such a way that a) protects the best teachers & b) establishes a set of objective criteria that guarantees the best teachers are kept.
Jim Neuberger wins GOP 15B endorsement
This afternoon, I got a call from a loyal reader of this blog who was just heading home from the HD-15B endorsing convention.
This loyal reader said that Jim Neuberger had won the endorsement to be the GOP candidate in this fall's general election. The report I received was that Jim had a substantial lead after the first ballot.
At that point, Joan Parsakalla made a quite magnanimous gesture, dropping out and making a motion that a unanimous ballot be cast for Jim Neuberger. I've had the chance to meet Joan. She's a tireless worker for the party. I have nothing but positives to say about Joan.
Still, I'm happy for Jim because I've known Jim since 2008. He's a great guy with a strong grasp of the issues. That's why Jim will be part of the State legislature this time next year.
Jim is staunchly pro-life, a major plus in central Minnesota. Jim's strong on Second Amendment issues, too. In fact, he told the Benton County convention delegates that he and his wife often go shooting at the range.
Jim's been the Deputy Chair of the 6th Congressional District Executive Board. He's worked on lots of campaigns, too. That's why I'm confident Jim will run a strong campaign campaign.
The other thing that's worth noting from the convention was that alot of the precincts weren't at 100% strength. From what I was told, there were more than a few precincts that were at 35-50% strength. Apparently, alot of Ron Paul supporters didn't show up for the convention.
The other thing that this loyal reader said was that there was a little animosity towards the people who didn't show up. Apparently, the Paul delegates didn't learn that there's more to being a delegate than just getting to the state convention and voting for Ron Paul.
Congratulations to Jim for winning the endorsement. He worked hard and got the victory. Joan Parsakalla should be applauded for being a great team player and for her great gesture.
Tags: Jim Neuberger , Joan Parsakalla , Endorsing Convention , Ron Paul Delegates , MNGOP
Posted Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:27 PM
Comment 1 by Dale Powers at 01-Apr-12 02:33 PM
I attended the 15B convention yesterday, and I have to agree with you (sadly, as a Ron Paul supporter) that the Paul delegates didn't turn out. There is a rift in the Sherburne County GOP, loosely based on whether you are a supporter of Mary Kiffmeyer (who supported Joan) or not (loosely supporting Jim). I was active in the GOP (then called IR) from 1978-1990, then dropped out to go to college and start a second career in city/county government. I was a BPOU Chair and CD 6 Vice Chair during that time. There was a rift in the party then, and it still remains.
I find this very troubling. Mary and I have had our disagreements (and contrary to her belief, I AM pro-life!), but I supported Mary for endorsement against Mark Olson (who had some other things to take care of). I supported Jim over Joan, but that was more because of Joan's seemingly rote responses to questions I posed to her (the basis of her 'scaring' me); Jim's responses revealed more depth of knowledge.
If Joan got the endorsement, I would have supported her.
I am a Ron Paul supporter; however, contrary to your opinion that RP supporters do not want to help out local candidates, I am led to believe that the 15B GOP organization does not want nor desire the assistance of RP supporters (or at least, this RP supporter). The incoming BPOU Chair (so I have been told) has said some disparaging comments about Ron Paul. He also saved some of his vitriol towards me as a candidate for BPOU Chair. Fortunately, I've been attacked by better people than Matt Anderson so it all rolled off my back. It reflected negatively on Matt more than me. But, the fact sadly remains that if the RP supporters would have attended this convention, Matt would most likely have lost the race. I do wish Matt well with his new responsibilities. Having been a BPOU Chair, I am intimately aware of the mantel he chose to wear.
To conclude, while I stuck my head back into the Sherburne County GOP tent to see if anything had changed, while the faces have changed the attitude remains the same. It is fortunate that 15B is a very strong GOP seat, and starting in January it will be State Rep. Jim Newberger (R-Becker). The internecine warfare that continues to go on in Sherburne County makes it less likely that I'll be asked to volunteer my time and talents. I was a Clear Lake City Councilmember from 1999-2003, and most likely will run again for that position.
Just wanted to weigh in on this so your readers had a more nuanced version of why RP supporters don't put in the grunt work.
Comment 2 by Amelia Weber at 02-Apr-12 11:18 PM
I have thought long and hard about if I should respond to this or not, and what I should respond with. There are many things I could say, but am instead going to keep it simple.
Simply put, Matt Anderson is a man of integrity who works tirelessly for the Republican Party her in Minnesota and specifically Sherburne County.
In the conversations I have had with Matt he has never once said one negative thing about Ron Paul, and aside from you and one other person, no one has said that he has. Did he actually say these things to you? If not I would encourage you to have a conversation with him before spreading slander.
The things Matt pointed out about you at the convention were true, you were absent from the party for 20 years, something you admitted yourself. That is hardly an attack. Matt was appointed as acting chair because of his involvement and his character, and he ran a smooth convention. Although I have actually only met Matt twice, he has been trying to get me more involved with my local party since he found out in 2010 that I am a very vocal Republican. At the time I was busy with local non-partisan campaigns and efforts at SCSU, so I regretfully did not get involved. This year I contacted Matt with my desire to get involved after becoming a delegate (and he knew of my support for Ron Paul) and he has worked with me to get and keep me involved. I am one of many people he has recruited and brought into the party.
As a convention teller, I will tell you that even if every Ron Paul supporter had showed up you would still not have one, as Matt had more than 5 times as many votes as you did.
I will not discredit your experience and knowledge, and I hope that you do stay active and volunteer. I am sure that the candidates would love to have your help and talents, especially Jim since he has your full support.
Comment 3 by Amelia Weber at 02-Apr-12 11:33 PM
One more thing, you decided to throw your hate into the race for BPOU chair on Friday evening, Matt had spent a great deal of time contemplating this decision. He also knew that he had a lot of support because a lot of people had encouraged him to run.
Also, I'd like to correct a typo, above I used one instead of won...oops!
Comment 4 by Ken Anderson at 03-Apr-12 09:31 AM
It was the things Matt didn't say about Dale but instead forced Sara to say against her wishes that speak directly to character, Amelia. The fact that he took Sara outside the building to get in her face with the demand that she WILL stand at his side and that she WILL say exactly what he told her to say speaks volumes. This was witnessed directly. She didn't want any part of it, he forced her when he could have done that himself if he wished, but rather chose to put on the appearance of staying above that fray while forcing Sara into the muck.
-Ken
Comment 5 by S. Morse at 03-Apr-12 11:41 AM
'Matt was appointed as acting chair because of his involvement and his character, and he ran a smooth convention.'
Correction; David FitzSimmons ran a smooth convention.
Comment 6 by Dave Seitz at 03-Apr-12 12:02 PM
I was also at the convention on Sat and was elected Deputy Chair. Congrats to Jim and hats off to Joan for being a class act all the way. It was harder for me to pick between the two as both were friends you could count on in the party. Both had gone out of their way to help me and instruct and train me in the BPOU. Without their past help I would never have had the courage to run for Deputy Chair. Additionally all the work that I knew Matt had been doing and his encouragement made the decision to run easier.
Once again I will go on record with this statement that I have said before. I see Ron Paul as the only person running who has the facts and knowledge on finance for the fastest turn around of the Nation and Economy. The others who are running except Obama may be able to do it but at a slower pace. The Ron Paul Supporters could be the best thing to happen to the party for energy since Sarah Palin joined McCain. The GOP is aiming for the middle of the road types that inspire no passion in a voters heart, something the RP supporters have and show. IF BIG IF the GOP embraced the RP folks and worked with them as the FUTURE LEADERS we would be VICTORIOUS! With the fiscal principles and returning to a smaller Govt. Along with adhearance to the Constitution this party would be growing a new and continued batch of leaders for generations to come.
Comment 7 by Sara Anderson at 03-Apr-12 12:47 PM
Ken, how dare you say these flat out lies. How dare you attack Matt's or my character and our marriage and family. What I said and did at that convention, was completely of my OWN FREE WILL. How you can be allowed to post such outrageous LIES, not even exaggerations, but COMPLETE LIES, on a blog about private citizens is beyond me. You should be ashamed of yourself. You were kicked out of the convention early during the day. So you are no part of anything regarding this situation. When the vote for BPOU chair was taken, you had been gone for hours. No one forces me to do ANYTHING. Anyone who knows me, knows this... INCLUDING YOU, KEN. This is a done issue. I kindly ask you to remove your comment.
Sara.
Comment 8 by Lisa at 03-Apr-12 01:32 PM
Anyone who actually knows Sara will know that she speaks her own mind, not what is "demanded" of her. Sara checks and rechecks her information before speaking and she would never go in front of a public audience with mis-information. Ken, were you the one who witnessed this confrontation? Or are you using second-hand information? I've known the Andersons for years and I know that Matt would never demand anything of that sort from Sara and he knows that Sara would probably do the opposite of something he "demanded" of her anyway. And how can you say Sara didn't want 'any part of it?' She loves being involved and will always do what she feels is the proper thing to do, whether it brings criticism or not. Since Sara is not running for anything, she should not be the topic of any debate, critique, or slander by anyone. Isn't this a volunteer position anyway? Getting down and dirty for a job that doesn't even pay...
Comment 9 by Brian Fleming at 03-Apr-12 04:30 PM
Having known Sara for the better part of two decades, your description of her Ken does not match the Sara that I know. If Sara says something you can be assured that it's not only her saying it because that's what she believes, but that it's been thought out before she says it.
Comment 10 by Ken Anderson at 03-Apr-12 06:40 PM
I didn't suggest there was mis-information, just that the down and the dirty was coming into play, and further when stepping outside for some private words it's probably a good idea not to do it in easy earshot of other delegates.
Comment 11 by Ken Anderson at 03-Apr-12 06:50 PM
But if you can persuade the owner of this blog to scrub the comments I've no objection, not sure there's any way to un-post.
-Ken
Comment 12 by Kimberly Johnson at 03-Apr-12 10:49 PM
As i read through this blog, im disturbed by what is being said about the Anderson family. I have had many conversation with both Matt and Sara about lots of topics, not just politics. Everytime there is Matt's side, then Sara's. Sometimes they agree and somtimes not. Sara NEVER would allow anyone to "force her into saying something, or doing something she 100% did not want to do.. She speaks the truth! and thats what she did that night. First off lets remember what was being said about YOU Ken.. Its a viral world now days, and what is being said about people will always be part of the internet. The only problem i see here is what YOU yourslef Ken have said on your own page about what you like to do in your spare time. But then having the nerve to try and point the finger at someone else when your dirty laundry is being aired, just shows the world the kind of person you really are. Its really kind of sad, because you now have become a lier, and nobody likes a lier. Sara and Matt are wonderful people that you should have been lucky to be associated with..In every game there is a Winner...and a Loser. You have to be a good Loser to be any kind of Winner.. clearly Matt is was the right choice.
Comment 13 by Ken Anderson at 04-Apr-12 09:32 AM
Not quite sure what you're talking about, Kimberly, I think you're confused as to who is who and what is what. Tempting as it is to lay out the whole sordid story start to finish, just because the entertainment value is about as good as it gets when it comes to BPOU conventions, an outline in more-or-less chronological order will suffice, ignoring a few other wrinkles associated with the endorsement contest:
1) Unlike all other area BPOUs- No proposed rules/agenda/constitution are made available to any delegates in advance
2) Ron Paul campaign calls a 'Paul delegate only' meeting to meet and discuss the upcoming convention, some discussion of the benefits of supporting a slate of Paul delegate candidates in a roomful of competing slates will occur but most of the hour goes towards discussion of and familiarizing first-time delegates with generic agenda/rules documents borrowed from an adjoining district with much the same full plate of business
3) One self-avowed Paul supporter intending to run for exec committee position forwards the meeting announcement email to the temporary BPOU brass, phones start ringing emails begin flying around all over the county; one BPOU activist contacts the Sherburne Paul Coordinator [me] deploring slate efforts. That activist is invited to attend the meeting and offered the floor for a few minutes there to present the case against slated voting efforts, is told he will be asked whether his name has appeared on organized slates in recent election years. Activist declines invite.
4) At meeting one attendee asks whether BPOU Chair is being contested; I'm not in the new district and have no idea and say so. That individual apparently decides to give it a shot, but it is about 13 hours prior to the opening of registration and a long shot to say the least with no time to network with other delegates and seek support.
5) Convention opens, private slates are in abundance; activist slate, Hegseth slate being put together at the table next door to the Paul table, ours, and so on- business as usual with no convention rules in place yet, anything goes. Rules get passed after final credentialing though only delegates have them, since they were never offered at a table for anyone to examine, rather were placed on the delegate seats. Nevertheless they surely contain the usual lit disclaimer language and at this point in time the general distribution of any literature to the convention must have that disclaimer, and any lit without such on the seats may be collected by the Sgt.-at-Arms if brought to the att'n of the convention chair. Of course there are no such generally distributed slate documents on any chair as their distribution was private and an accomplished fact prior to any rules being in place, except for the Hegseth slate which is still rolling off the printer on their table, without disclaimer. One other slate is still being distributed privately via electronic devices.
6) Future sec of state of this 9-precinct fiefdom is seen handing over the Paul slate to the temporary brass, by a guest speaker in attendance. Guest speaker alerts us there is probably trouble in the works.
7) Sweater-vested activist who earlier declined meeting invite takes the mike w/Paul slate in hand to request slate removal and Paul volunteer removal, of course there are no visible slates to remove and no rule in place was ever violated by that individual. TSA has apparently not showed up to shake down the assembly, and no motion to have all in attendance check all clothing, electronics and bags at the door gets moved, seconded, and passed; the first ever slate-free GOP convention conducted in the nude again fails to materialize. Of course that would have meant that all slate activity be dampered, and only one slate raised the hackles of the brass enough to set it in their sights.
8) Unlike all other area BPOUs - a campaign volunteer [me] is ejected on suspicion of the distribution of private slates prior to any rule against or limiting it being in place. And I might add very unnecessarily, as all communications were conducted prior to the implementation of any such rule and like most of the other efforts, were already in place by then and activity had ceased. The other Paul volunteer is not ejected, and the Hegseth slate continues to roll off the printers a few feet away, unimpeded with no disclaimer. Pretty amusing for its sheer and unashamed hypocrisy.
9) Prior to the BPOU Chair election the conversation reported earlier is witnessed outside the building by a seated delegate with no horse in the race, that seated delegate not hailing from within the defined borders of the new BPOU forming. Make of it what you will, I can certainly connect you to that delegate privately if you really wish to hear the first-hand account and decide for yourself.
10) The politicking sinks to new lows as the microphone at the convention is used to air personal crap involving old facebook postings of a candidate, and I might add very unnecessarily, as reported by the teller above this just wasn't going to be a close call in any way, shape or form - last-minute entries never stand much of a chance except for open vacancies lacking an interested candidate until the last minute.
11) This blog reports on the lack of Paul showing; clearly there was considerably more Paul showing than desired by some at least. Not to mention that the convention chair, some guest speakers, activist volunteers who've served one more than one local race committee to elect, were there in abundance, all with present or previous involvement in the liberty, constitutional-conservative movement that Dr. Paul presently is standard-bearer of. All with a solid local involvement history; more than one of them engaging in their own candidacies to the MN legislature, past and presently. No mention of the lack of turnout from other counties with no Paul strength to speak of, I do believe aim was taken at the Paul-rich Benton county delegation in particular while ignoring mostly empty seats from the other county delegations Saturday. Darn Santorum folks never show up to carry the water! ;).
12) After charting the course into murky waters, splashing around in it to their heart's content at the convention itself, certain individuals are awfully quick to whine when a little of the same comes back their way, aren't they. You charted the course, live with it.
Comment 14 by Kimberly Johnson at 04-Apr-12 09:56 AM
My apologies Ken. What i was trying to say was what was being said about Dale and his charater. Not yourself. But that still does not excuse that fact that YOU (ken) have written bold faced lies about the Anderson family. Thats what 90% of this blog is about. You lying and stating that you "were an ear-shot anyway" and heard Matt demand Sara to say things against her fell will. You clearly have no idea what your talking about.
Comment 15 by Amelia Weber at 04-Apr-12 12:15 PM
Those weren't old Facebook posts, they were made within days and weeks of the convention. Also, Dale sought me out on Facebook and sent me a message that said, "Sometimes when you step on the cat's tail, you make the cat really angry........" That can most certainly be perceived as a personal threat to me. I did and do not understand why he sent that to me, but I assume it is because he did not win the BPOU chair position, and because when I was approached by the sargent at arms about whether or not I had received a slate and when I had recieved it, I was honest. I did recieve one, that it came from you Ken and I had recieved it after the rules had been adapted. I had no idea that that wasn't allowed or that it had to have a disclaimer, and I sure as heck wasn't about to lie. I never saw any of the other slates you mentioned and I can't say I trust you at your word after the previous falsehoods uou've reported. The Republican party in general, and Ron Paul and the Libertarian cause are never going to get anywhere of we cannot figure out how to get along in our party. I will say that's the one thing the liberals do well, they save their blame and attacking for those outside their party, wish us Republicans could learn to do the same...
Comment 16 by Ken Anderson at 04-Apr-12 01:46 PM
Again, Kimberly, I was not the delegate that occurred in front of, nor did I say I was, I was a campaign volunteer at the event. But I sure heard all about it. And Amelia, you came by for a copy of the slate well before final credentialing and well before passage of the rules. All slate distribution activity had ceased by then. We get along in the party just fine so long as all get fair treatment rather than being singled out for the cold shoulder, and in fact on the 14th of April we are the party for all practical purposes, since we hold a large majority of those seats.
