September 27, 2011
Sep 27 02:58 Debunking DTLM's Myths Sep 27 04:55 DTLM's Racism & Deception Sep 27 06:09 Dave Durenberger & the Department of Refrigerator Inspections Sep 27 08:36 Mitt's Romneycare Dilemma
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Debunking DTLM's Myths
Draw the Line Minnesota, aka DTLM, is doing their best to convince the courts to ignore previous Minnesota Supreme Court Rulings on redistricting. I wrote here that DTLM's priorities aren't mainstream Minnesota's priorities:
The campaign seeks to create a better redistricting process in Minnesota that uses the following principles:
1. The redistricting process should be independent and nonpartisan, to minimize the influence of elected officials and political parties in creating districts to their own political advantage.
2. The redistricting process should be transparent to the public.
3. The redistricting body should provide data, tools, and opportunities for the public to have direct input into the specific plans under consideration.
4. The redistricting process must be reflective of the diversity of the state, especially racial and ethnic diversity .
5. Redistricting plan should preserve communities of interest wherever possible, where communities of interest are groups of people concentrated in a geographic area that share similar interests and priorities, whether social, cultural, ethnic, racial, economic, or religious.
They don't even match Gov. Dayton's priorities . Why should the redistricting process reflect the "diversity of the state, especially racial and ethnic diversity"? Right now, there's 20 urban districts in the state legislature. With population growth essentially nil, there's a distinct possibility that one or more of those districts will disappear.
This is a couple paragraphs from the 2001 Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on redistricting :
Before reconfiguring Minnesota's eight congressional districts, we obtained information and contributions from a number of sources. Initially, the four parties to the lawsuit each presented a potential congressional redistricting plan. The plans represented different sets of interests, including those of Republicans (Zachman Plan), Democrats (Cotlow Plan), Minnesota's governor (Ventura Plan) and Minnesota's Democratic legislators and members of congress (Moe Plan). We also recognized that, although all Minnesotans have a stake in redistricting, not every interest group is represented in this lawsuit. We therefore conducted public hearings around the state and received written input, including a few additional proposals, from a number of citizens, election officials and community leaders.
We considered all of these contributions and reviewed different options, knowing that no plan would please everyone. Some political subdivisions, even small ones or cities that specifically requested to left intact within the same district, would have to be split. Additionally, while communities of interest could frequently be kept intact within a district, the diverse interests of the state might result in multiple communities of interest within any one district. Having considered these issues, we now set forth a plan that is different from any plan submitted by the parties, but ultimately balanced, "fundamentally fair and based primarily on the state's population and secondarily on neutral redistricting principles.
DTLM's principles state racial and ethnic diversity should be the Supreme Court's primary considerations, the opposite of what the Supreme Court's 2001 redistricting ruling says. That majority opinion says that the state's population should be the primary consideration.
The DFL and its shadow group allies at DTLM are frightened that population, not diversity will guide the court's redistricting process. If population is the Court's primary consideration, that will favor the GOP in a big way. That's the DFL's worst nightmare. The more seats they have to compete for in nonurban districts, the more uphill the fight is for the DFL to win seats.
Contrary to DTLM's statement that they want competitive districts, DTLM's real mission is to give the DFL as many easy seats as possible. This isn't about good governance. It's about the DFL's attempt to ignore the will of the people, who 'voted' with their mortgages to get out of DFL legislative and congressional districts.
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2:58 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 27-Sep-11 08:41 AM
Landmark Supreme Court decisions of the 1960s established the one-person, one-vote principle. While many states have a redistricting commission, none has subcontracted the process to ultra left special interest groups like Draw the Line Minnesota.
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16617
Comment 2 by Politics Matters at 27-Sep-11 01:51 PM
Fred Hudson, 2nd Vice-Chair of the Virginia Democratic Party, discusses redistricting and gerrymandering on the locally-produced Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter: http://bit.ly/pm-hudson. The current program features Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia's Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, discussing journalism and the media.
Comment 3 by eric z at 27-Sep-11 02:51 PM
The Sixth District is a Gerrymandering examplar, and Jesse did that in hopes his crony Dean Barkley could be elected to something somewhere. If that brain fart is reformed somehow, fair to each side with Barkley having proven himself a non-issue as a third rail or whatever, then people adjust and move on. It will be an exercise with both parties having wet yellow shoes from the other, and the courts deciding.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-11 03:39 PM
It's a myth to say that MN-6 is gerrymandered. Here's the definition of gerrymandering:
the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible. The district had to be drawn that way to live up to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To have done things differently would've diminished the voting strength of a number of communities of interest.
DTLM's Racism & Deception
The title is certainly provocative and eye-catching but the information on DTLM's own website is sufficiently provocative to warrant the title. Here's the specific statement that warrants investigation:
Why Get Involved
The way that voters are grouped into districts directly influences the outcome of elections and who politicians are accountable to. Yet the way these districts are drawn is fundamentally flawed. Incumbent legislators have a strong incentive to draw district lines that allow them to hold onto power. Historically, redistricting has been done out of the public eye, without meaningful public input, and used to dilute the voting power of communities of color. Minnesota has a reputation for fair and clean government, but we believe we can do better.
First, it isn't a stretch to think that DTLM is being deceptive when they say that redistricting has historically been done "without meaningful public input" and "has been done out of the public eye." It's irrelevant that's what's happened historically. What matters is what's happening this time.
What's shocking, though, is DTLM's statement that redistricting has been used "to dilute the voting power of communities of color." That's the only time that this accusation is put on their website. No proof is offered to validate this accusation. The accusation is made, then never mentioned again.
It's entirely irresponsible, and possibly racist, to make that incendiary of a remark with anything to substantiate the accusation.
Based on that provocative accusation alone, DTLM's motives and character must be questioned. Unfortunately, that isn't ther only dishonest statement on their website. Here's another prime bit of proof from their website:
This year's legislative redistricting process in Minnesota has demonstrated how truly broken the process is. Legislative and congressional maps, produced by the majority party behind closed doors with little public input, have received the Governor's veto.
That's a bald-faced lie. According to the House Redistricting Committee's website , 15 hearings were held at the Capitol. Additionally, 3 public hearings were held, one each in Rochester, Marshall and Hermantown.
Far from redistricting being a secretive process, it's difficult to imagine a more transparent, public-oriented process. The fact that the legislature's bill was vetoed by Gov. Dayton is totally unsurprising. It would've been totally surprising if it hadn't been vetoed.
This paragraph contains some major whoppers:
This year, Draw the Line Minnesota has created a true Citizen's Commission, initiated for and by the people . We are committed to being independent and nonpartisan, transparent, having a chosen body that reflects the diversity of the state.
First, this "Citizen's Commission" wasn't "initiated...by the people." It was initiated by corrupt organizations like TakeAction Minnesota. Next, saying that this coalition of corrupt organizations wants to be "independent and nonpartisan" is preposterous. TakeAction Minnesota is part of the ABM coalition that's funded mostly by Gov. Dayton's ex-wife .
DTLM is to independence what John Dillinger was to bank security.
What's more is that DTLM wants the [DFL's] Commission to be part of their redistricting reform agenda. That's totally unacceptable. Minnesotans should reject their agenda without giving them a hearing.
We have two primary goals: (1) to produce maps through a fair, open and participatory process that can inform that courts about this year's maps, and (2) to model a process that can inform discussions about reform after this year's redistricting.
TakeAction Minnesota's member organizations reads like a who's who of corrupt organizations that form ABM. Their member organizations include special interests from Minnesota's poverty industry, public employee unions and militant environmentalist organizations. All are part of the DFL's special interest coalition. More importantly, all rely on growing the size and influence of government.
Limited government conservatism doesn't just scare DTLM's corrupt coalition. Limited government conservatism poses a potential existential threat to their 'industries.'
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:55 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 27-Sep-11 08:33 AM
Stealing a redistricting map is the next best thing to stealing an election.
DTLM, et al., are just another special interest cabal for whom the Minnesota Constitution is an annoying anachronism.
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Sep-11 02:46 PM
Same old, same old. Plus, more of the same.
When during your lifetime or your parents telling you of theirs has redistricting NOT been a political football?
Give it up, as a public issue. The Courts will decide. Timmy's done a lot of appointments, so who's to say the GOP will come out of it unhappy?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-11 03:45 PM
Eric, Pull your head out of your ass. Of course, redistricting is a partisan issue. The issue here is that DTLM is attempting to steal a congressional district while keeping their urban core together in the state legislature. Their goal is to ignore the census finding. They're attempting to ignore where the population shifts happen. HD-58A throughh 67B need to grow by 60,036 people, an average of 3,000 people per district. Meanwhile, outstate districts have grown immensely.
Are we to say that population shifts should be ignored just so the DFL can keep its last bastion of support together for political purposes only? If that's your message, I've got a message for the DFL. Take a hike. No deal.
Dave Durenberger & the Department of Refrigerator Inspections
Dave Durenberger has a dilemma. He needs to deal with it ASAP. The solution might be difficult to find, considering his dilemma stems from making conflicting statements about Obamacare . The reality is that there's no way out for him without him admitting he was talking gibberish:
Take it from politician-cum-professor Dave Durenberger: "All health care is local."
Don't get him wrong. The former Republican U.S. senator, founder of the National Institute of Health Policy and University of St. Thomas prof is a strong supporter of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which politicians in his erstwhile party call "Obamacare."
But the real work of improving America's health and controlling costs won't be done in Washington, no matter who wins the next election, Durenberger told a Minneapolis church audience last week. It will happen in those places where local political and civic leaders put better, more affordable health high on their own agendas. They're best positioned to see what's driving local health care costs and how to change course.
It's difficult to see how a top-down, bureaucrat-driven plan like Obamacare fits with a local plan whose mission is to detect health care cost drivers, then shift course to make adjustments to keep health care costs low. In fact, Obamacare is the opposite of a localized, flexible sytem.
Still, both systems are fatally flawed because they aren't patientcentric or market-driven. Without those components, it's difficult to imagine a system whose costs are stabilized.
Durenberger's difficulties in squaring his statements is child's play compared with Linda Berglin's daunting task:
Then there's the big-picture kicker that befits Berglin's credentials: This project aims to be a model that "is sustainable and can be replicated throughout the state and in other parts of the country."
In other words, Hennepin County is setting out to revamp Medicaid, not just in Minnesota, but for the nation. And if Hennepin can do that right, it will also be showing how Medicare might more affordably serve seniors. And that in turn might change the practice of medicine for everyone, for the better.
That's why a little Hennepin County health care project for 12,000 people is worth watching, even as presidential candidates debate the merits of the 2010 federal law.
"The idea is to pay to do what's needed to keep people healthy," Berglin said, not more and not less.
For example, it could involve making sure that someone who is prescribed expensive medicine that must be kept in a refrigerator actually has a refrigerator, so the medicine isn't wasted. Or paying more to shelter and clothe the homeless, so taxpayers can spend less on emergency-room services. Or beefing up mental-health services, so taxpayers can spend less on hospitalization and jails.
Micromanaging health care down to the point of making certain that people who use "expensive medicine that must be kept in a refrigerator" has a refrigerator. Is Ms. Berglin proposing that her Hennepin County office hire a refrigerator inspector? What salary would this refrigerator inspector make? Would property taxes need to be increased? Or would police officer or firefighters get cut to pay for the refrigerator inspector?
Saying that Ms. Berglin's plan faces some implementation challenges is understatement. Saying that Ms. Berglin's plan, refrigerator inspector and all, will need a massive bureaucracy is understatement, too.
Apparently, Ms. Berglin thinks money grows on trees watered by R.T. Rybak's artistic drinking fountains. The chance that this ambitious program will save Hennepin County taxpayers money is slim, especially when you factor in the cost of the bureaucracy needed to sustain the program.
It's time for Dave Durenberger to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth. More importantly, it's time to shut Linda Berglin's bureaucrat-centric plan down before it bankrupts Hennepin County.
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:09 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 27-Sep-11 08:24 AM
The new position of County Cooler Instpector seems destined to be filled by a graduate of St. Cloud University's Master's Degree Program in Social Responsbility.
Nutty needs are the mother of nutty invention.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Sep-11 08:44 AM
That might be true, although it might be that the Refrigerator Inspector position might require a Ph.D. in Social Responsibility. If that's true, which program will SCSU cut, Accounting or Nursing? Surely, it wouldn't be Art History.
Mitt's Romneycare Dilemma
Thus far, Gov. Mitt Romney has gotten kid glove treatment, mostly because the media hasn't focused on Gov. Romney's health care dilemma. Because the media won't do their jobs, Gov. Perry is launching ads to force Gov. Romney to respond :
Reeling from dismal showings in back-to-back straw polls over the weekend, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came out with guns blazing on Monday, accusing rival Mitt Romney of "an integrity problem" in a statement and video.
"Mitt Romney has an integrity problem, as evidenced in the video, Words Have Meaning," the Perry campaign said in a statement, providing a link to a web video attacking Romney.
Perry's campaign charged that Romney changed the wording of his book, "No Apology," between the hardcover and paperback editions in order to hide the fact that the former Massachusetts governor's health care plan served as the model for President Obama's national health care law.
"Mitt Romney is trying to run from the fact that President Obama used Romneycare as the model for Obamacare," the Perry campaign said.
Perry first unveiled his line of attack in Thursday's Orlando debate, pointing out that the hardback version of the book included the line, "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." The first part of the sentence, referring to a nationwide health care plan, was later deleted from the paperback edition.
Politifact rates the ad as "mostly false":
An article by PolitiFact, a fact-checking service run by a newspaper consortium, rated Perry's attacks "mostly false" because the full context of Romney's words in the hardcover edition of his book talked about the importance of states developing a health care plan. PolitiFact's analysis: "My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens," Romney wrote on page 177. "States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own."
Politifact's argument is feeble. Just because Gov. Romney said that he'd prefer "to let each state fashion its own program" on one page, then said that the Massachusetts model could be done nationwide.
Most importantly, his argument that state governments have the authority to tell people that they have to buy something they might or might not want as a condition of their existence is a joke. Dictatorships might get away with that but that won't fly in the US of A.
Predictably, Romney's campaign fired back:
"It has been widely proven that Rick Perry's weak claim on Mitt Romney's book is just a tall tale," said Andrea Saul, spokeswoman for Romney, in response to Perry's Monday statement and video.
I'd love hearing Ms. Saul explain how something that's contained in Gov. Romney's book "is just a tall tale." Is she saying that Gov. Romney's book is filled with tall tales or is she giving a pro forma defense of Romneycare?
Either way, Mitt's got a credibility problem. The bad news for Gov. Romney is that it starts just outside DC's Beltway. Erick Erickson's article highlights it perfectly:
But look outside the Beltway, and Romney has a serious problem, and has had that problem for some time.
In Florida, Romney, who is polling in second place in the state, came in third in the straw poll (a poll in which people pay to cast a vote), beaten by Herman Cain and Rick Perry. Romney chose not to participate, instead focusing on Michigan.
In Michigan; he's a native of Michigan, where his father was governor; Romney came in first in a straw poll, followed by Perry and Cain. Romney captured 50% of the vote, his strongest showing. But the Michigan primary comes after the caucuses and primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire (where he is ahead), South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, whose popular governor just endorsed Perry.
In Iowa, Romney came in behind Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Cain, and Perry, who'd only become a candidate a few hours before the poll closed. As in Florida, Romney chose not to actively participate, but did participate in the Iowa debate prior to the straw poll.
Romney won't do well in Iowa or South Carolina, states with alot of conservatives. It's still too early to tell what his chances are in Florida but he's vulnerable on Social Security with younger voters.
The Beltway pundits aren't taking into account voter intensity, something that isn't working in Gov. Romney's favor:
As long as the field remains crowded and Perry, as the guy most likely to consolidate the anti-Romney field right now, remains uninspiring and unredeemed from his last debate performance, Romney benefits. But he benefits not as the candidate who excites the base, nor the one whom the base wants to fight for, but as the candidate whose attributes no one in the grass roots wants, while the rest of the pack divides up over all the attributes the base does want.
Voter intensity matters, as does connectivity. Gov. Romney's likeability factor is akin to a dead fish. It's easy to detect how crowds connect with Gov. Perry, Speaker Gingrich or Rep. Bachmann. There's something more than just a resume with all the appropriate boxes checked off. That's Romney: Mr. All the Appropriate Boxes Checked Off.
His flip-flopping is a major difficulty, too, something that hasn't been the topic of discussion yet. When that comes up, expect Gov. Romney's numbers to plummet.
Credibility matters, which is why Gov. Romney's book is so damning.
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2011 8:36 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 27-Sep-11 10:35 AM
Gary, unfortunately the media is doing its job regarding Romney.
They are trying to choose him as the Republican candidate, carrying water for Barack. He'll never get properly vetted by the national media regarding Romneycare.
The media know full well that Romney is the only candidate who will make the Republican base stay home.
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Sep-11 02:41 PM
Bob J. -- Who is "the Republican base" these days?
The Jesus Jockeys, climbing on the Lord and riding him as far as he'll carry, using spurs like Bachmann picking Hammond help, what, who?
The Tea Party discontents? The Sorehead vote? Sore whatever.
Wall Street?
Fortune 100 corporations and corporate interests?
NRA?
Chamber?
I see Chamber, NRA, Wall Street content with Romney. Corporations make assault rifles and handguns, and Romney probably owns Browning and Colt stock. As a globalist, Glock and Sig-Sauer need not worry. Fortune 100 and Wall Street think alike. Tea Party string pullers will see that rank-and-file do as told; being better set there than union officers on the Dem side. Does anyone seriously contend the insurance industry is anything but tickled pink by O'Romneycare? Obamnycare, whatever Tiny Tim called it? The cash cow's never flowed better.
Bob J., are you simply saying if it's Romney the Jesus Jockeys will stay home, is that all? So what?
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 28-Sep-11 11:05 AM
Hello, Eric:
As I would define it, the Republican base today is the same as it was when Reagan was elected -- fiscally and socially conservative citizens who tend to be, but are not exclusively, defense hawks.
Romney appeals to none of these groups, with the possible exception of the third.
Anyone who could come up with the idea of Romneycare is not a fiscal conservative, and his stands regarding abortion and gay marriage as governor of Massachusetts are well known, in addition to his judicial appointments.
In the eyes of more than a few conservatives I know, there's no "there" there with Romney. He's a liberal Republican who is tacking right for the primaries, as all liberal Republicans do.
Hence, he's an attractive candidate for liberal-leaning media. He's one of them.
And by the way, to a Christian there's no such thing as a "Jesus Jockey". He holds the reins. Have a good day.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 30-Sep-11 05:08 PM
Bob J. - This means you are not a Ron Paul supporter, yes, no?
