Author Archives: Joe Loveland

About Joe Loveland

I've worked for politicians, a PR firm, corporations, nonprofits, and state and federal government. Since 2000, I've run a PR and marketing sole proprietorship. I think politics is important, maddening, humorous and good fodder for a spirited conversation. So, I hang out here when I need a break from life.

The True ID of The Photo ID Proponents: Partisan Hacks

Posted on by

Minnesota Republicans are hell bent on solving the problem of voter impersonation.  This might be a worthy effort, if there was a big problem. However, the Minnesota League of Women Voters, the earnest non-partisan group dedicated to the integrity of our voting system, has concluded:

The only type of illegal voting that a voter photo-ID can prevent is voter impersonation. There is no evidence of voter impersonation in any Minnesota election. In two statewide recounts in 2008 and 2010, our election system was put under a microscope as lawyers from the two major parties looked for problems. They didn’t find any; they did find that Minnesota’s election system is remarkably sound and transparent.

In other words, the biggest problem with this solution is there is no problem that requires solving.  There is no roving gang of thugs engaging in voter impersonation en masse.

Of course, if there were  highly motivated roving gangs of impersonators, or even a lone serial impersonator, they would have no problem overcoming the voter ID proposal.  The Economist reminds us what all of us who have kids, or were kids, know: 

A study in 2009 of American university students found that 17% of freshmen and 32% of seniors owned a false ID.

So if there were a voter impersonation problem, which there isn’t, the photo ID requirement wouldn’t solve it.  Motivated impersonators could still find it easy to impersonate.

While the photo ID requirement doesn’t solve an existing problem, it does create a huge and dangerous one — voter suppression.

Americans are highly motivated to drive, and therefore willing to spend a few hours and dollars to get a drivers license with a photo on it.  But many Americans are not at all motivated to vote.   We know this because we have spent billions of dollars over the years enticing citizens to vote via TV ads, radio ads, mailings, phone calls,  and rides to the polls, and a shocking 90% to 50%  of the population, depending on the election, still does not vote.

With that kind of baseline apathy, it clearly doesn’t take much to get more people to sit out Election Day.  For many, the addition of a bureaucratic scavenger hunt to secure an official photo ID card will do the trick.

People who have photo IDs tend to assume that everyone has them, so the Republicans’ photo ID proposal would merely require voters to take what they already have out of their wallets or purses.  But according to the non-partisan Minnesota League of Women Voters:

Approximately 11% of the voting population does not carry a photo ID that meets these rigid requirements. The percentage is higher among certain groups: the elderly (18%), younger adults (18%), minorities (25% of African-Americans) and people who are low-income (15%).

Hey, wait a minute.  Old, young, minority and poor people?  Aren’t they all groups that tend to vote disproportionately against Republicans?  Could it be that the Republicans want to solve a different problem than the non-existent problem of voter impersonation, the problem of citizens who vote against Republicans?

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the blogs” in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report.

Anti-Marriage Ban Ads Are Rove-esque

Posted on by

Bare knuckles political consultant Karl Rove was famous for advising former President George W. Bush and other conservative clients to attack their opponents’ strengths, rather than their weaknesses.  For instance, Bush’s 2004 opponent John Kerry was a war veteran and hero, while Bush got a draft deferment.  But before Rove was done, Kerry’s heroism somehow was twisted to be a political weakness, rather than the strength it should have been.

Fortunately, gay marriage supporters have taken Rove’s strategy to heart, and this time are using the power of the strategy for good instead of evil.  Two ads they recently released go directly at the strengths of the groups trying to ban the freedom to marry – the skepticism of the elderly and aggressive opposition of some religious leaders.

These ads counter the conventional wisdom that religious leaders and seniors are universally opposed to gay marriage.  It frames the issue as a referendum on love, individual freedom and religious freedom.  It shows that skeptics’ opinions are evolving, and that even historic opponents are seeing the issue in a new light.

These are outstanding ads, alternatively moving, funny and thought-provoking.  And again, they go directly at the strengths of the marriage banners.   If he could manage to get over his anti-gay bigotry, Karl Rove would approve.

– Loveland

What if Romney Picked Bachmann To Be His Running Mate? He Did.

Posted on by

Congressman Paul Ryan comes across well.  He’s attractive, smiles a lot, wears the presidential uniform well, and has a ready string of impressive-sounding statistics on the tip of his tongue.

But beyond the candidate packaging, what does this guy stand for?

When trying to understand something new entering our lives, the natural tendency is to seek out a local point-of-reference.  For instance, when Minnesota Timberwolves fans recently asked “who the heck is Alexy Shved,” a player the Wolves’ brain trust acquired this summer, Wolves PR people explained “He’s the Russian Rubio,” referencing their talented point guard Ricky Rubio.

Whether or not the “Russian Rubio” description turns out to be an apt description of Shved’s ability and style of play, it connected with Minnesotans, because it took something unknown and linked it to something known.

So with the Russian Rubio example in mind, what’s the Minnesota parallel to Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan?

Since he’s a popular, moderate-feeling Republican, is he “the Wisconsin Jim Ramstad?”   Since the Beltway media often labels him a “serious” numbers guy, is he “the Wisconsin Arne Carlson?”

Try “the Wisconsin Michele Bachmann.” An analysis of congressional voting patterns by DW-Nominate found that Paul Ryan’s voting record is nearly identical to  Michele Bachmann’s, the local politician who most consistently embarrasses Minnesotans with her ideologically extreme positions.

(Incidentally, another analysis found that Ryan was the most extreme conservative vice presidential nominee — the furthest from the center — since at least 1900.)

Ryan’s tone may be less grating than Bachmann’s, but once you remove the packaging, his policies are almost identical to Michele Bachmann’s.  Paul Ryan is Michele Bachmann, just with more lip control and less lipstick.

Knowing that, ask yourself this question: “If Mitt Romney had chosen Michele Bachman for his running mate, would that make Minnesotans more or less likely to support Romney?”  Because, substantively, that is the question Romney has now effectively posed to Minnesotans, and Americans.

Though Michele Bachman continually gets reelected in one of the most conservative parts of Minnesota, she is remarkably unpopular with Minnesotans as a whole.  A January 2012 PPP survey found that only 34% of Minnesotans view her favorably, while 57% view her unfavorably.  She would get crushed by a whopping 23 points in a head-to-head race versus U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar.

In other words, Governor Mitt Romney just picked the ideological twin of one of Minnesota’s least popular figures to join his ticket.  Good luck selling that in Minnesota.

– Loveland

Five Freedoms Citizen Pawlenty Can Now Enjoy

Posted on by

To politicians, losing is agonizing.   I can empathize with the pain of a lifelong dream lost, but I always wonder if a part of them isn’t just a little relieved.  After all, losing does give politiicans back the freedom they surrendered when they decided to become a politician, with all of the artificiality and risk averse programming that is baked into that lifestyle.

I sincerely hope Tim Pawlenty is feeling some of that relief after seeing his presidential and vice presidential dreams slip away.  Because though he has lost at the hands of McCain and Romney, he has also gained.  As Citizen Pawlenty, Tim now will gain back the freedoms most of us take for granted.

THE FREEDOM TO SAY THE WORD “TAX.”  As Governor, Pawlenty was strictly forbidden from saying the word “tax” in association with his own policies.  To do so, would, Continue reading →

Can Paul Ryan Put Wisconsin Into Play For Romney?

Posted on by

The political whiz kids at the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog are reporting that Paul Ryan’s elevation to the national ticket has significantly improved Republicans’ chances of Romney winning in neighboring Wisconsin this November.  In fact, chances have almost doubled.

But before folks get too excited about that, they should look more closely at the prognostication.  Before the Ryan announcement, FiveThirtyEight put the odds of Romney winning Wisconsin at 12%.  Post-Ryan announcement, Romney’s chances rose to 20%. Here’s their reasoning:

Those improved odds are based on a two percentage point bonus that the model accounts for in the home state of each vice-presidential candidate — the average bump that a running mate has added since 1920, according to a previous FiveThirtyEight analysis.

But the effect a vice-presidential candidate has had on his or her home state has varied widely. Is there any inherent aspect to Wisconsin’s political geography that might provide clues as to whether Mr. Ryan will have a larger, or smaller, impact on the Nov. 6 vote in Wisconsin?

…

Mr. Ryan has not represented an overwhelmingly conservative district. It has leaned slightly to the right, but Mr. Obama was able to carry the First District in 2008, albeit, with just 51 percent of the vote. Winning a district doesn’t earn you any points if you lose the state, but Mr. Ryan’s ability to win easily in a not-so-easy area suggests that he has some skill in winning over a skeptical audience — at least in Wisconsin.

Both Gov. Scott Walker and Mr. Obama have net positive approval ratings in Wisconsin. That suggests that there is a group of true independent voters in the state, who can be influenced to vote for either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama…

In other words, moving up to 20 percent is real improvement.  Wisconsin is no longer in the “snowball’s chance in Hell” category for Romney.  It’s now more like snowball’s chance in Packers Training Camp,” which merely feels like Hell to Minnesotans.

– Loveland

Pawlenty Can’t Compete With A Guy Who Cuts The Boss’s Tax Rate To 1%

Posted on by

I must admit, I felt sorry for former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty this weekend.

Governor Pawlenty traveled the country cheerleading for Mitt Romney.  He swallowed his pride and lavishly praised one of the least likeable presidential candidates in modern history, hoping to finally move up from Groomsman to Best Man.   He had the power tie Double Windsored, and was pumped to be on the Sunday talk shows, with the pundits predicting he was the frontrunner.

But alas, it was not to be.  Again.

Four years ago, when Pawlenty was passed up for Sarah Palin, he recalled this glum little scene somewhere on an Eagan cul de sac:

 Just after I got off the phone with McCain, I took our dog out for a walk so she could do her dog’s duty…As I put the little bag over my hand and bent down to pick up her poop, I thought to myself, Well, this is the only number two I’ll be picking up today.

But this time, Mr. Pawlenty should have seen the brush off coming.  After all, how in the world do you compete with a guy who cuts the boss’s tax rate to 1%?

Actually, 0.82%.  That’s the effective tax rate, Mathew O’Brien at The Atlantic points out, that millionare Mitt would pay under Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, instead of the 13.9% he paid under the Bush tax rates.  Now, a 14% tax rate for a multi-millionaire might seem plenty shameful to most of us, but Congressman Ryan was savvy enough to sweeten the deal, and win the race to the bottom.  The Atlantic explains:

 “How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.”

In the Republican Party, “1% for the 1%” is a proposition that is nearly impossible to top.  It makes the hearts of millionaire candidates and Super PAC funders go pitter-patter.

So, Governor Pawlenty, as you bent over the family dog’s offering this weekend, I hope you took solace in the knowledge that this time you never stood a chance.

– Loveland

Poor Kurt Bills Needs To Learn Modern GOP Fundraising Tactics

Posted on by

I’ve got a tip for poor Kurt Bills or any Republican candidate out there running low on cash:  Say something really, really bizzaro.

I don’t mean a mere gaffe, or run-of-the-mill lie.  I mean the kind of batty stuff that used to get people drummed out of politics.  Because in the increasingly outlandish Republican Party, such rantings are a money magnet.

In today’s Republican Party, if you caterwaul “YOU LIE!” at the President of the United States during a quiet moment of a formal occasion, you no longer will be interrogated by the authorities and have a lifelong security clearance flag on your record.  Instead, you will receive a quick infusion of $200,000 from adoring Republicans.

If you state as incontrovertible fact that 80 Members of the United States Congress are members of the Communist Party, with much less evidence than disgraced Joe McCarthy brought forth, you will no longer be marginalized in American politics.  Rather, you will immediately use your hallucination as fundraising fodder, and be rewarded with a seven-figure avalanche of cash.

If it comes to light that you sexually harassed numerous women while married, you will no longer be ostracized by vigilant marriage-defending Republicans.  You will immediately receive a flood of $400,000 from them, and see your poll numbers spike.

And if you give voice to your reckless McCarthyesque delusions about terrorists infiltrating Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, you will no longer see your career fade to irrelevance the way McCarthy’s did.  Instead, you will open your mailbox to find a cool million waiting for you.

All of which is to say, Minnesota congressional candidate Mike Parry is a political genius.  Because now that he has viciously accused the Governor of being a drug addict with absolutely no evidence, and even ultra-conservatives in his own party contradicting him, he will not be quietly walked off the Republican stage before he does the Party more damage.   Instead, he will probably see Minnesota Republican activists flock to him with wallets wide open.

Therefore, look for U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Bills, now sitting on a mere 6,000 bills, to say something kooky in the coming days to revitalize his somnolent campaign.  I’m talking even loopier than “look at me, I’m Paul Wellstone!”  Perhaps he could accuse Senator Kloubachar of being a cleverly disguised blood thirsty space alien pedophile cannibal commie intent on overthrowing God, and Smith & Wesson, through provisions she has secretly inserted into the tax code, in invisible ink.

That ought to get him a seat on Hannity tonight, and several million dollars in the bank by morning.

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured as part of the “Best of the Blogs” feature in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report.

What A Pill: Parry the Puerile Pill Policeman Pops Off

Posted on by

Today, Republican congressional candidate Mike Parry charged that Governor Mark Dayton is “scary” because Parry supposedly witnessed the Governor taking 15 or 16 pills at a breakfast meeting.

Then the news cycle takes off:  Dayton says the claim is a lie.  Parry says that it may not have been that many pills, but doesn’t back off the rest of his statement.  The Star Tribune notes that Dayton takes anti-depression medication, and that Parry stopped short of calling the Governor a drug addict.

All of the sudden, the Governor has to deny he is a drug addict?

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You want to know what is truly “scary?”  It’s scary that anyone would even think to make the alleged taking of medication before a meal an issue.  Though the Governor says Parry’s story is not true, and we should take him at his word, SO WHAT if it was true?

Go ask some of your older friends and relatives how many pills – prescription, over the counter and supplements — they take every day.  You may very well hear a number that could be approaching 15, or could be mistaken by nosey onlookers as being in that range.

And you know what?  That makes them neither scary nor a drug addict.

I have a confession to make.  I too am “scary.”  Today, I took three fish oil capsules, a baby aspirin, a multivitamin, over-the-counter allergy medicine, and two types of prescription asthma medications.  If someone who hated me was watching me take my handful of daily meds, he might delude himself into believing that this handful of pills makes me a scarry drug addict.

Despite those eight medicines, I run about 20 miles per week, have healthy vital signs, and only am certifiably crazy when I hear about things like Mike Parry’s  accusation.

I suspect that the inneuendo game Parry is playing is to remind his fellow Dayton haters that Dayton, gasp, takes depression medication, something Dayton long ago disclosed, prior to be elected Governor.  I suspect that in Parry’s very small mind, taking depression medication somehow equates to “scary.”

But may I remind the wannabe Congressman that about 10% of the population – 27 million people – take depression medication, and the vast, vast majority of them function extremely well in their chosen fields.

Unless I’m missing something here, Mike Parry owes an apology to the Governor, the millions of people who are responsibly and effectively treating their depression and the millions more who take multiple medications per day to keep themselves healthy.

If Mr. Parry must worry about addiction, maybe he should worry about his own apparent addiction to childish personal cheapshots.

– Loveland

Twenty Debates? Oh No, Mr. Bills!

Posted on by

“Less is more,” minimalist designers tell us.  “The law of diminishing returns,” economists explain.

And so it goes with campaign debates.

Campaign debates serve a lot of important purposes for our democracy. They are a more efficient way to communicate with voters than door-knocking or pressing the flesh one clammy hand at a time.  They get candidates off-script, which captures rare moments of candor, humor, humanity, intelligence, stupidity and reality.  They cover more issues than ads, direct mail and other forms of political communications, which exposes candidates’ depth, or shallowness.

But clearly, there can be too much of a good thing.  In the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, Mark Dayton, Tom Horner, and Tom Emmer debated and debated, and debated some more.  They debated an eye-glazing 25 times.  Most of the debates ended up getting ignored by reporters, and just about everyone else, because they became complete and utter re-runs. I mean, even if you love Gilligan’s Island, and who amongst us does not,  the 25th time you see a re-run about Gilligan’s pedal powered bamboo car is significantly less riveting than the first 5 times.

As Washington University political scientist Steven Smith observed about the 2010 marathon debate-a-thon:

 “…there is a point of diminishing returns and I think in the Minnesota case we may have reached the point in the last month where there have been so many debates that the individual debates just don’t receive much attention.

Now in 2012, State Representative Kurt Bills wants to debate U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar 20 times over about 90 days.  This desire likely has less to do with Bills‘ love of debates than it does with the fact that his campaign is broke and having a difficult time delivering his oddball Wellstonian-libertarian fusion messaging.

Though Kloubachar is a bright and skilled debater, her campaign strategists would prefer to keep the popular incumbent in highly controlled settings until Election Day, to preserve her large lead.  Therefore, so far they have agreed to two debates.  For context, former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman agreed to debate challenger Al Franken five times.

Somewhere between Kloubachar’s 2 and Bills’ 20 is a reasonable number.  I’d say the number is no higher than 10.

Here is my rationale:  Most of what is learned by undecided voters through debates is conveyed through news coverage.  After all, the people actually attending the debates, or monitoring them start-to-finish on TV or radio, are predominantly voters who made up their minds long ago.  So, when the news coverage stops, the debates pretty much stop yielding benefits for undecided voters.

Minnesota’s newsrooms continue to shrink dramatically, and are decreasingly willing to cover politics, particularly broadcast news outlets.   Given those unfortunate trends, I find it difficult to believe that the Minnesota’s press corps will give decent coverage to more than about 10 debates.

So, I’m all for debates.  And two is not enough.  But oh no, Mr. Bills, not 20.

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

A Better Way to Write Minnesota’s Ballot Questions?

Posted on by

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of the debate over the wording of Constitutional Amemdment summaries appearing on Minnesota ballots.   Secretary of State Ritchie’s wording seems significantly more clear and descriptive of the actual amendment content.  But I’m not sure if a Secretary of State has authority to change the language that the Legislature passes.  Soon, the Minnesota Supremes will clarity that question.

But regardless of what the justices say about authority, I wonder if there is a better way to draft clear and accurate ballot language in the future?

I have a rough idea that I recently developed over a few adult beverages.  What, you think the Founding Dads didn’t scribble on the occasional ale house napkin?

Anyway, here is my idea:  The Legislature and Governor could pass a statute to create a “Ballot Initiative Commission,” or some such proper sounding name. The Commission’s job would be to develop the wording of ballot summaries, which means neither the Legislature nor the Secretary of State would have drafting authority in the future.

Sample Commission details:  The Governor could appoint three members, and legislative leaders could appoint three members.  None of the members could be current elected officials or government employees, or have served as an elected official or government employee for the past 10 years.

To help get the focus on clarity, the first draft of the ballot language would be developed by whoever is the current head of the University of Minnesota’s Department of English.  The English Department Chair’s role would be advisory only.

The Commission could alter the draft however it collectively wanted.  There would need to be a majority vote of the Commission supporting the final wording before the language would be conveyed to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot.  There would be deadlines to ensure they got their work done in a timely fashion.

The Commission’s wording obviously could still be challenged in the courts, as is happening now with the status quo system.  But the big change would be that the language would originate from this less partisan Commission that is structurally required to compromise, not elected officials in either the Legislature or the Secretary of State’s office, or their staffs.

I don’t feel especially strongly about the details of the proposal.  The pointy-heads at the Capitol can add all the “whereases,” “in lieu ofs” and “heretofores” they want.  The underlying principles are what matter:

REDUCE THE POLITICIZATION OF THE DRAFTING PROCESS.  Get ballot language drafting out of the hands of elected officials, who will always be tempted to be more concerned about partisan advantage than clarity or accuracy.   Instead, get the drafting into the hands of less partisan Minnesotans.

BAKE THE NEED FOR BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE INTO THE PROCESS.  Numerically speaking, structure the Commission so that the Legislature’s appointees can’t attain a majority without winning over at least one vote from a gubernatorial appointee, or vice versa.

PUT MORE INITIAL FOCUS ON CLARITY.  At least begin the process with a writer who is paid to be clear, not a writer who is paid to win elections.

A perfect process?  Of course, not.  Games would still be played.  But it would be much better than the current process that is currently in the throes of a messy food fight in the State Supreme Court.

Anyway, if anyone out there is interested, I think I still have the napkin.

– Loveland

 

This post was also featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Sponsor a Starving Minnesota Republican Party Leader Today

Posted on by

Just pennies per day.

That’s all it will take to sponsor a starving Minnesota Republican Party official suffering under the most brutal fundraising drought in years.

Drought conditions in the troubled land of AynRandia have reached catastrophic proportions.

  • Beluga sturgeon caviar at GOP fundraisers is being rationed with Death Panel-like barbarity.
  • Tri-corner hats for Tea Party rallies are in desperately short supply.
  • GOP leaders’ extramarital liaisons are having to take place at mere four-star hotels.

Relief workers in the front lines have described conditions as “horrific.” Continue reading →

Pawlenty and Romney Both Benefit from Third Party-Related Luck

Posted on by

In Minnesota, we know a little bit about the power of a third party to swing an election, even when the third party doesn’t reach double digits in electoral support.

After all, Tim Pawlenty never would have been a two-term Governor, and subsequently on the verge of being nominated to be a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world, without a lot of help from third parties.

In 2002, prominent DFL career politician Tim Penny won 16% of the electorate and Green Party Ken Pentel took another 2%.  That may be why Pawlenty was able to defeat DFLer Roger Moe 44% to 36%.   I’m not completely convinced about that, because Penny had more Republican appeal than a typical Democrat, but a former Democratic and Green candidate siphoning off 18% of the vote did look to be a net positive for Pawlenty.

In 2006, however, I’m convinced.  Third parties clearly prevented Pawlenty from being swept out of office.  Independence Party candidate Peter Hutchinson, who had served for years in prominent roles in DFL administrations, and Green Party candidate Ken Pentel combined to win 7% of the vote.  With DFLer Mike Hatch only losing to Pawlenty by 1%, 46% to 45%, Pawlenty clearly would have lost the 2006 race without Hutchinson and Pentel on the ballot.

University of Minnesota political scientist Larry Jacobs concurs with this conclusion in a recent Nation article:

“Both elections featured Independent candidates, which exit polls showed drew more votes from Democrats in close races,” says Jacobs. “I looked closely at the data and there’s no doubt that Independence Party candidates accounted for Pawlenty’s margin, particularly in his re-election (in 2006).”

All of which leads me to one of the most significant, and underreported, political developments of 2012, the quiet demise of the potentially game-changing third party Americans Elect.

Americans Elect was the national third party movement that was to choose its nominee via an Internet-based “convention” this June and place them on the ballot nationally.  It burst onto the political scene with fanfare, and the reform halo the news media tends to bestow upon third party movements.  As New York Times columnist and bestselling author Thomas Friedman breathlessly described Americans Elect:

              Make Way for the Radical Center

“What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in.”

Such hyperbole aside, the Americans Elect movement was gaining momentum.  It was on the ballot in 28 states, including several swing states, such as Florida, Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.  The party-hating party was starting to look like a serious force in American presidential politics.

But the Americans Elect revolution crumbled before it formally began.  Under Americans Elect rules, to win the nomination candidates had to first prove their viability by winning a minimum number of preliminary votes of support via a complex Internet voting system.  As it turned out, no candidate met the viability threshold.  So on May 15th, Americans Elect unceremoniously folded its e-tent, and will not have a nominee on any ballots after all.

Meaning, May 15th may turn out to be the luckiest day of Mitt Romney’s political life.

Here is why:  The candidates who were leading contenders to get the Americans Elect nomination were Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Republican Governor Buddy Roemer.  As I understand it, both Paul and Roemer supporters were fairly close to achieving the Americans Elect qualification requirements.  (The Roemer campaign maintains that website irregularities held him back.)

If either of those Republicans had gotten on the ballots as Americans Elect candidates in key swing states, it’s not hard to imagine that they could have impacted the outcome of the General Election in President Obama’s favor, even if the Americans Elect nominee’s level of support stalled in the single digits.

Both because Roemer and Paul are Republicans, and because the polls show that Republican Romney is not generating as much enthusiasm among his supporters as President Obama is, it would have been very bad news for Romney if Paul or Roemer had gotten their names on 28 state ballots.  Unenthusiastic Romney supporters would be tempted by a Republican-leaning third party alternative right now, and it wouldn’t take very many defectors to impact what is expected to be a razor thin race.

Because third parties are rarely a threat to win elections outright, it’s easy for pundits and political reporters to cavalierly dismiss their relevance.  But if you want to understand what a difference a third party winning “only 7%” of the vote can make, and what a huge bullet Mitt Romney dodged on May 15th, Minnesota’s Mike Hatch could explain it to you.

 

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Missing: Kurt Bills

Posted on by

If anyone has seen this man, please notify the authorities immediately.  His name is Kurt Bills, and he has been missing since the moment in mid-May that he was endorsed by the Minnesota Republican Party.

It is feared the man is squandering his donor’s money on bizarre, inscrutable ads that are invisible to the swing voters that he needs to win over in order to have any hope of defeating overwhelmingly popular U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar.

The man is likely dressed like Rod Sterling, muttering about the gold standard, and attempting to use “Minnesota Dollars” to purchase additional cryptic ads.

His Party is worried about him, and would appreciate any clues about his whereabouts.

Brodkorb Alleges Steamy Sexcapades, But Can He Prove It In Court?

Posted on by

Throughout the Senate Sexgate scandal, GOP former Minnesota Senate staffer Michael Brodkorb has been threatening to disclose the names of Senators and staffers who have had sexual relations with each other but were not fired for their behavior, as Brodkorb alleges he was.  The former author of “Minnesota Democrats Exposed” now is preparing to effectively author what could be called “Minnesota Fornicators Exposed.”

As a non-lawyer, my legal opinion is worth roughly as much as readers are paying for access to this blog.   But it would seem Brodkorb’s tell-all threat is a stronger negotiating weapon than  courtroom weapon.

As a negotiating tactic, Brodkorb’s disclosure threat probably caused many with lipstick on their collars to favor a prompt and generous settlement for Mr. Brodkorb.  Because in the court of public opinion, and the court of spousal opinion, such disclosures certainly would pack a punch.

But in the court of law, Brodkorb now has to PROVE the affairs actually happened, long after-the-fact.  Proving them could be difficult.  The DNA evidence is long gone, the parties to the porking may not be truthful, and the odds of there being eyewitnesses to any of the lustful legislative liaisons would seem slim.

Again, I don’t deny that threats about rumors were powerful motivators in settlement negotiations.  But in the court of law, Mr. Brodkorb now faces a burden of proof more rigorous than what is used in the blogosphere and Capitol hallway gossip sessions.

Anyway, if it looks like the Capitol Building’s Rotunda walls are a bit concave these days, it may be because so many the building’s inhabitants are collectively sucking in their breath.

Why Aren’t Minnesota Reporters Asking: ‘What the Frack Is Pawlenty Up To at Smart Sands?’

Posted on by

The new Bain of Tim Pawlenty’s existence is a corporation called Smart Sands.  Smart Sands provides Wisconsin sand for fracking,  a very controversial method of extracting natural gas from the ground that potentially contaminates groundwater supplies and causes earthquakes.   Since Pawlenty’s political wells all went dry, Smart Sands has become his financial fracking gambit.  Pawlenty was named a Smart Sands Board of Director in June 2012.

While news outlets such as the Saint Paul Pioneer Press have noted that fracking is “increasingly controversial,” they haven’t asked the kinds of questions national reporters will ask if Pawlenty becomes Mitt Romney’s choice for the GOP vice presidential nomination:

  • How much is Smart Sands paying Pawlenty?
  • What major local, state and federal regulatory issues is SmartSands facing?
  • Has Pawlenty made any contacts to government officials on the company’s behalf?
  • Is the fracking industry subsidized through the tax code, or through other means?
  • Is Smart Sands involved in any controversies?
  • How is the safety record of Smart Sands, and fracking in general?
  • How is the environmental record of Smart Sands, and fracking in general?

Whether or not Pawlenty is chosen, Minnesotans and Wisconsinites derve to know what the frack Governor Pawlenty and Smart Sands are doing.

The NRA’s Political Silencer

Posted on by

“You’re using this tragedy to your political advantage.”

That’s the standard line used any time a politician discusses ways to reduce the odds of tragedies like the Batman massacre occurring.

It’s a very effective way to silence all debate, because no one wants to look like they’re insensitive to the victims. The NRA and its supporters know this, which is why they use this rhetorical weapon with AR-15-like speed and repetition. Continue reading →

The Unofficial Backgrounder For Getting To Know Tim Pawlenty

Posted on by

For the national news media scurrying to cover Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s impending Vice Presidential nomination by Mitt Romney, here are a few facts that may not be included in the Romney for President news release:

The “Fees”.  Like any obedient GOP presidential aspirant, Tim Pawlenty HATES him some taxes.  He will stress this fact dozens of times per speech.  But the less publicized aspect of our former governor is that he actually loves him some “fees.”  GOP former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson points out that Pawlenty actually passed the largest tax increases in Minnesota history.  But national reporters should not listen to people like Arne Carlson.  Fees are revenue collected from citizens by government so the government can provide services, and national reporters should understand that is completely different from a “tax.”  Reporters covering Pawlenty will need to take a crash course on how to speak Pawlentese. Continue reading →

Dayton: Even a Flat Tax Better Than Minnesota’s Current Regressive Tax System

Posted on by

Not so long ago, there was a strong national consensus in favor of progressive taxation.   In the 1980s, conservative Ronald Reagan was running around telling his followers:

 “We’re going to close some of the loopholes that allow some of the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.  In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable.  But in practice, they sometimes make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver is paying 10% of his salary, and that’s crazy.

…Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?

(Crowd:  “More!”)

That was then, but this is now.  Now, conservatives call conservative Reagan’s pro-progressive tax position “socialism” and “anti-American,” a sign of just how radicalized Republicans have gotten in their desperation to pander to conservative talk radio hosts, wealthy donors, and Tea Party primary challengers.

Among the most radical things that Republicans now push is a flat tax.  While a flat tax is attractive at first blush because it is simple compared to the maddeningly complex federal income tax, it is the polar opposite of the progressive income tax that Reagan championed.  While a progressive tax is designed to take a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals, the flat tax takes the same percentage from everyone, whether you are a bus driver or a billionaire.

As the Founding Father of the modern conservative movement said, “That’s crazy.”

Yesterday in a Minnesota Public Radio interview, Minnesota Governor Dayton made an interesting point on this subject.  When asked what kind of tax reform he favors, Dayton said:

 I still believe in a progressive income tax.  But I sure don’t believe in a regressive income tax, which is what we have now.  …Conservative Senator Rod Grams was always talking about a flat tax.  Well that would be an improvement in Minnesota!  We have less than that now.

Ponder that.  A flat tax – which embodies the radical anti-progressive notion that conservative icon Ronald Reagan not so long ago mocked as “crazy” to the delight of his conservative followers – actually would be an improvement over the regressive tax system that Minnesota currently has on the books today.

Millionaire Mark Dayton is often characterized, by opponents and even by mainstream reporters, as favoring a “soak the rich” ideology.  That’s a silly characterization, because what Dayton actually proposes is not to “soak” the wealthy.  What Dayton recommends is simply a return to the common sense notion of progressive taxation supported by a strong majority of Minnesotans, and even the founder of the modern conservative movement.

 – Loveland

Grover Norquist: Pawlenty Is “A Little Scott Walker”

Posted on by

Yesterday’s New York Times brings us an interesting quote about Minnesota’s favorite son candidate for the GOP veep nomination, former Governor Tim Pawlenty.

"A little Scott Walker"

Grover G. Norquist, who leads the group Americans for Tax Reform, said the full scope of Mr. Pawlenty’s record was strong, despite the tax increase. He pointed to his leadership on a 44-day transit strike in 2004, where he won a fight over compensation and retirement benefits.

‘He was a little Scott Walker before Scott Walker,’ Mr. Norquist said…”

The GOP primaries and caucuses are over, so hard core conservative voters are no longer Romney’s biggest need.  At a time when Republicans desperately need help winning over middle-of-the-road moderate Republicans and Independents, it’s not helpful for TPaw to be compared to a perhaps the most polarizing political figure in the Republican Party by one of the most polarizing conservative ideologues in the nation.

Why Aren’t Healthy, Wealthy and Wise Minnesotans Happier?

Posted on by

The news media loves state rankings and report cards.  A constant array of news stories continually lets states know how well they’re keeping up the with the Jones’s in their national neighborhood.

This coverage often leads to the vigorous debates between political activists and leaders about which ratings matter most?  Many conservatives prefer measures such as “best business climate,” “most free,” “most religious,” and “lowest taxes.”  Many liberals covet measures such as “healthiest,” “best educated,” “best quality of life,” or “best child wellness.”

Who is right?  Nobody and everybody, of course.  It depends on what each individual values most in life.

That’s why the ultimate state ranking is Gallup’s Life Evaluation Index, which measures the proportion of a state’s citizens that self-report that they are “thriving.” I like this measure, because it focuses on happiness bottom lines, not the variables that research designers speculate are the ingredients for happiness. Continue reading →