Category Archives: Minnesota Legislature

The Truth Behind the Minnesota GOP’s Opposition to Early Voting

Posted on by

Newly minted Minnesota House Elections Committee Chairman Steve Simon (DFL-St. Louis Park)  may be trying to bring early voting to Minnesota.

Hallelujah.  After all, a goal of any democracy should always be to foster democratic participation.  Early voting improves democratic participation by 1) expanding the participation time window to fit more voters’ busy schedules and 2) mitigating Election Day barriers, such as chaotic environments and long waiting times.

Still, you can bet that Minnesota GOPers will cry “fraud” and “savings” as reasons to oppose early voting.  But if you want to know what GOPers are really saying to each other behind closed doors when they talk about why to oppose early voting, listen to the remarkably candid remarks from a top Republican leader in a state that has recently dramatically cut back on early voting: Continue reading →

Minnesota Republicans And That Old Egyptian River

Posted on by

“It’s not that Republicans have the wrong message…” – Amy Koch, GOP Former Senate Majority Leader

“As I read you some state spending cuts being considered to fix the budget deficit, please tell me which one would be most acceptable to you.

8%:  Reducing health care assistance for lower income people, the elderly and disabled
13%: Reducing aid to cities and counties
15%: Reducing aid to colleges and universities”

Star Tribune Minnesota Poll

“…it is how we are delivering the message…” – Koch

“By a whopping 2-1 margin, Minnesotans blame the Republicans who control both houses of the Legislature for Continue reading →

What 2014 Swing Voters Want From the New DFL-Controlled Legislature

Posted on by

There are  hordes of leadership consultants out there offering advice, and a lot of the advice is pretty much the same:  Set a goal for the result you hope to achieve, and make a plan to focus all of your future efforts toward achieving the goal. Duh.  It’s not a unique insight, but it does work.

Therefore, as the incoming DFL-controlled Legislature prepares its agenda for the 2013 legislative session, I have some mind-numbingly  stale advice to offer them:   Think about the one sentence reply that you want to be able to give when 2014 swing voters ask “Why should we re-hire you?” Then build your 2012-2014 legislative workplan around that reply, and stick to the plan.

Continue reading →

A Thank You Note for Minnesota Republicans

Posted on by

Dear Minnesota Republicans:

We just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for the gift of your marriage ban amendment.  Such a thoughtful idea!

We must admit, we didn’t appreciate your gift to its fullest when we first unwrapped it last spring.  To be candid, we thought it was kinda ugly.  We wanted to throw it away.  But we couldn’t.

As it turns out, though, it was one of the most beautiful gifts we’ve ever received. Continue reading →

Three Reasons For The Silence On The Campaign Trail About Vikings Stadium Subidies

Posted on by

In 2012, the dominant issue in the Minnesota Legislature was the debate about public subsidies for the Vikings Stadium.  No issue was more emotionally charged.  No issue was more polarizing.  No issue was more heavily covered in the news.

So just a few months later, why is this marquee legislative issue such an insignificant factor in the campaign for control of the Minnesota Legislature?  After all, based on last year’s debate, you might expect that  it would be The Issue out on the stump.

But I’m not seeing it.  The issue hasn’t been raised once in any of the many political direct mail pieces that have clogged my mailbox, or cable TV ads flooding my living room.  Moreover, I Googled “Vikings Stadium and election,” and found no stories where the mother of all legislative Issues was playing a prominent role out on the political hustings. Continue reading →

Governors Glum and Glummer Team Up In Voter Restriction Ad

Posted on by

In an era of extreme partisan polarization, DFL Governor Mark Dayton and Republican former Governor Arne Carlson have teamed up in an interesting bipartisan effort to defeat the highly partisan voter restriction constitutional amendment.

While I admire the integrity of both men, let’s just say these are not two of the more perky pitchmen you’ll ever hear. Minnesota has been host to the filming of Grumpy Old Men, Grumpier Old Men, and, now, Grumpiest Old Men. Continue reading →

Why Minnesotans Might Re-hire the Worst Legislature in History

Posted on by

Most Minnesotans like their kids’ teachers, but not the overall K-12 system.

They like their doctor, but not the overall health care system.

They like the individual they can connect with personally in their immediate sphere, but have disdain for the individual’s institution.  Once we have looked someone in the eye, pressed their flesh, and heard their life stories, we form human connections that drown out our critical thinking.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more prevalent than in politics.  In politics, people often express emphatic disapproval for legislative bodies, yet they keep returning their own representative to that body.

And then they wonder why nothing changes in the legislative body.  What’s that old definition of insanity? Continue reading →

Minnesota’s Government Spending Is Neither “Skyrocketing” Nor “Slashed,” But It Is Insufficient

Posted on by

In this year’s battle for control of the Minnesota State Capitol, Republicans and DFLers alike hyperventilate over government spending.  DFLers maintain Minnesota has drastically cut state and local government.  Republicans claim that state and local government spending is skyrocketing out-of-control.

Candidates on both sides exaggerate.  Over the last decade, Minnesota has had divided government – with Governor Dayton checked by a GOP-controlled Legislature and Governor Pawlenty checked by a DFL-controlled chamber of the Legislature.  Divided government has produced a remarkably flat price of state and local government for Minnesotans, hovering right around 15% of average annual income. Continue reading →

Why Are Top DFLers Outperforming DFLers in State Legislature?

Posted on by

Minnesota’s top DFLers got good news from a recent Public Policy Polling survey.  They are receiving public support that dwarfs Minnesota’s leading Republicans.  The approval rating for Senator Al Franken stands at 49% and the approval rating for Governor Mark Dayton is at 48%, while the favorability ratings for former Governor Tim Pawlenty (40%), former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (35%), and U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (29%) are much lower.

Moreover, Franken would handily defeat any of the three top Republicans if the election were held today.  Franken would defeat Bachmann by 12 points, Pawlenty by 7 points, and Norm Coleman, who Franken barely defeated two years ago, by 7 points.

Why are top DFLers polling so much stronger than top Republicans?  Some might theorize that these DFLers are simply more talented and charismatic politicians, and that explains the gap.

But in terms of being articulate media magnates, the top three Republicans are more accomplished than the top two DFLers. Former comedian and talk show host Franken is obviously capable of being articulate and grabbing the spotlight.  But the fact is, Franken has been very low key since becoming a U.S. Senator two years ago.  Dayton is an earnest but awkward communicator, and is easily the most low-key of the bunch.  At the same time, Pawlenty, Coleman and Bachmann are very articulate leaders who regularly get themselves on national news programs.   But despite the charisma gap, Franken and Dayton are much more popular with Minnesotans.

If political talent and charisma don’t explain why top DFL politicians are more popular than top GOP politicians, another theory might be that ideology is behind the gap.  That is, maybe Minnesota is becoming a more progressive state these days.

However, that doesn’t bear out in PPP’s polling on state legislative races.

When asked who they are inclined to support in a state legislative race in their district, Minnesotans are split, with the generic DFL candidate chosen by 47% of the respondents and the generic GOP candidate chosen by 44% of the respondents, a 3% margin that falls within the 3.4% margin of cerror.

So, what explains the difference between the strong performance of top of the ticket DFLers and the mediocre performance of the DFLers in the state legislature?

It’s far from the only explanation, but one big factor is messaging.  The messaging of Franken and Dayton is clear and consistent, and it is proving to be compelling with Minnesotans.  On the other hand, DFL legislative candidates are offering up a cacophony of scattershot messages that each individual candidate crafts on their own to appeal to their respective districts.

I’ve argued that legislative candidates should unite under a common statewide campaign theme along the lines of “replace the worst legislature ever,” to make the election into a referendum on the unpopular GOP-controlled Legislature.   After all “worst ever” is the verdict Minnesotans have given the current GOP-controlled Legislature, with a 19% approval rating, which appears to be the lowest level ever recorded.  That kind of sticky, unifying campaign umbrella would convert the the legislators’ confusing cacophony into the kind of consistent messaging that is benefiting top-of-the-ticket DFLers.

Whether caused by messaging or something else, the gap between the performance of the upper echelon DFLers and the DFLers in the State Legislature is striking.  DFL legislative candidates would be wise to study the approaches of Franken and Dayton, and replicate them.

– Loveland

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

Will GOP-Backed Ballot Questions Help or Hurt DFL Candidates?

Posted on by

This year, Minnesota Republicans are pushing two controversial constitutional amendments on the ballot, requiring voters to have photo IDs and banning gay Minnesotans from getting married. Why? Well, political operatives typically add constitutional amendments to the ballot for three primary reasons.  The first two are fairly well-known:

CONVICTION.  First, many genuinely believe in these issues.  Much of the rationale for ballot initiatives is borne of politics, but some of it is borne of values and conviction.  Some really do view unfamiliar forms of love and commitment as a personal or cultural threat, for instance. It’s grossly misguided conviction, but it’s conviction nonetheless.

 PARTICIPATION.  Second, impacting turnout is also a primary goal of ballot initiatives.  Political operators want the existence of the ballot questions to lure like-minded voters to the polls to help their candidates win.  For instance, Republicans know that some on the Christian right hate gays more than they love Romney, so promoting an amendment to take away the rights of gays is their back door way of ensuring that unenthusiastic conservatives show up to hold their nose and vote for Romney.    (And of course, in the case of the photo ID amendment, conservatives want to suppress long-term electoral participation of groups with an annoying propensity to vote against them.)

Finally, there is a  third, less discussed, reason ballot initiatives are promoted:

DISTRACTION.  Beyond conviction and turnout-related motivations, ballot initiative proponents often hope to distract their opponents from the primary electoral task at hand.  In 2012, Republicans put the photo ID and marriage ban questions on the ballot to spread liberal donors and volunteers thin, and distract them from other important campaign tasks.

I was reminded of this distraction motive when recently visiting with a friend who is very involved in supporting a school levy referendum issue in his community.  While my friend is a strong opponent of the idiotic marriage ban amendment promoted by Republicans, he was lamenting the fact that it was difficult to get liberal volunteers and donations for the school funding campaign, because there is so much energy rightfully flowing into playing defense on the Republicans’ marriage ban.  I’ve heard candidates say the same thing.

I’m not arguing that civil rights is less important than school funding, or vice versa, I’m just pointing out that the conservative ballot initiative shenanigans do, to some extent, tie liberal activists into pretzels.  When liberals are playing defense on attempts to deny marriage and voting rights, they have fewer volunteers and dollars to play offense when it comes to Issue A and Candidate B.  It’s subtraction by addition, and it’s very intentional.

But the question remains, will it work out as Republicans intended?   GOP amendment sponsors should be wary of that old Law of Unintended Consequences.  The marriage ban amendment has lit a fire under a large, passionate and well-funded army of GLTB-supportive donors and volunteers, and that army will be driving turnout on Election Day that will help liberals up and down the ballot.  A polarizing issue like gay marriage generates more turnout on both sides.  Historically, it has produced a net benefit for conservatives.  But polls show that the popular tide is rapidly turning on that issue, and this could be the year that the existence of this GOP-sponsored issue on the ballot actually helps liberals more than conservatives.

– Loveland

 

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

Ballot Language Ruling Easily Could Come Back To Bite Minnesota GOP

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the GOP Legislature’s ballot wording for two proposed constitutional amendments, endzone-dancing Republican leaders should keep something in mind.

The Supremes did not rule in favor of the Republican Party.  They ruled in favor of the legislature branch.   Important difference.

Here is what the Court said:

The proper role for the judiciary, however, is not to second-guess the wisdom of policy decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches.

…

The Secretary of State exceeded his authority … when he provided titles different from those passed by the Legislature.”

Granted, that’s good news for Republicans this year, because they’re the ones currently controlling  the legislative “policy decisions” of which the Court speaks.

But in future years, the same ruling could easily turn out to be very bad news for Republicans.  After all, the way Minnesota’s long-term demographics are trending – with the most rapid population growth happening in demographic groups historically more supportive of DFL candidates – the prospect of permanent GOP control of the Legislature is far from certain.

Future DFL-controlled Legislatures, stinging from the constitutional word games Republicans have played during their leadership reign, could do something equally absurd, or even more absurd.

For instance, a DFL-controlled Legislature could propose a constitutional amendment to require an enormous tax on the wealthiest Minnesotans to finance, let’s say, vacation homes for DFL leaders, or something else completely reckless.  Furthermore, taking a page out of the GOP’ 2012 playbook, the DFL-controlled Legislature could then deceptively present this proposal to voters on their ballots in benign-sounding euphamisms:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to support fairness in housing financing in Minnesota, effective July 1, 2015?”

As I understand yesterday’s ruling, the Supremes wouldn’t overrule that kind of a hypothetical ballot wording scam.  Not their job.  I exaggerate in my example, for I am a blogger and exaggeration is what we do, but you get the general idea.

This is not a problem that is going to go away under the status quo approach to wording ballot questions.  The majority party in the Legislature will probably continue to play word games in their drafting, and, again, the majority party may not always be to Speaker Zellers’ liking.

A few days ago I proposed what seems to me to be a more fair way of drafting ballot questions.  Whether the reform comes off of my cocktail napkin, or from someone who actually knows what they’re doing, reform of the current ballot initiative drafting system is needed.   If Minnesota politicians are going to persist in continually trying to amend the State Constitution to tickle their political fancy — and it seems pretty certain that they are — we need to at least get the proposals described to voters clearly and fairly.

– Loveland

Beyond Duluth Flood, Minnesota Legislature Must Address Quieter Everyday Disasters

Posted on by

Last Friday, following the Minnesota Legislature’s passage of $160 million in flood relief for the Duluth area, House Speaker Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove) was in full self-congratulatory mode about the body’s decisive bipartisan action to help Minnesotans in need:

“When bad things happen to people … the last thing you want is a bunch of politicians bickering in the Capitol.”

My goodness, no, we don’t want THAT!

But, Mr. Speaker, “bad things” aren’t limited to buckets of water falling from the sky on the Duluth area.

Every day, “bad things” quietly happen to ordinary Minnesotans.  Every day, Minnesotans go untreated, undertreated, homeless, unprotected, undereducated, abused, underemployed and unemployed because of “a bunch of politicians bickering at the Capitol.”

Those “bad things” are often due to events that, like Duluth’s storm of the century, are not the fault of the victim:  Being born into poverty.  Being born into an abusive or otherwise non-functioning family.  Having your job sent overseas, or eliminated due to a global financial meltdown.  Discovering a debilitating tumor or aneurysm.  Falling off a ladder, or getting in a disabling car crash.

And when Minnesotans face those “bad things,” your cutting of $7 billion in services over the last decade has made their catastrophes much worse, not better.

So, yes, I applaud Speaker Zellers and the Minnesota Legislature for not bickering at the Capitol last Friday when Minnesotans needed help to survive the spectacularly “bad things” that recently befell the great City of Duluth.

But please also remember that most of the emergencies in our state are much less visible than the recent Duluth drama.  Most Minnesota emergencies don’t lead our news.  But they are crises nonetheless, that crush hopes, dreams and lives nonetheless, that require disaster relief nonetheless.

– Loveland

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

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.

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.

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.

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

DFL Statewide Media Campaign Needed: “Replace The Worst Legislature Ever.”

Posted on by

“All politics is local,” Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill famously proclaimed.   To question this proclamation in DFL activist circles is a bit like questioning the Gospel in church circles.

But, unusual times dictate that the DFL candidates for the State Legislature broaden their messaging beyond the predictable O’Neilian “I brought home the bacon” messaging.  After all, the reality of these fiscally austere times in St. Paul is that Minnesota legislators have been bringing home festering carcasses, not bacon, and that is not going over real well locally.

(Incidentally, at the congressional level, New York Times whiz kid Nate Silver makes a compelling case that “all politics is local” hasn’t been true for a long time.)

Therefore, in 2012 I’d argue “all politics is local” is a dumb strategy for for DFL legislative candidates.  This year, the Minnesota DFL should use more of a statewide messaging and media strategy than they typically do.

I nominate this theme for a statewide TV and radio campaign to serve as an overlay for individual candidacies:

“Replace the worst Legislature ever.”

Real subtle, right?  And I’m not kidding.  This rallying cry works because it is simple, provocative, sticky, and, most of all, true.

Just ask the people of Minnesota.  The current GOP-controlled legislature is the proud recipient of a 19 percent approval rating, which appears to be the lowest approval rating  anyone can find on record.

Ponder on that for a moment.  The worst approval rating ever.  This is a truly putrid moment in Minnesota political history.  Therefore, the minority party needs to make “worst Legislature in history” the rallying cry of a unified TV and radio campaign to unseat the majority party that gave this special gift to Minnesotans .

Such a campaign might sound something like this:

 Who says the Republican-controlled Legislature is the worst in Minnesota history?

Minnesotans.  In surveys, Minnesotans give this current Legislature the lowest approval ratings in the entire history of our state.

Not just lousy.   Not just terrible. The.  Worst.  Ever.

Why?

Their shameful use of our local school funding as their own personal ATMs.

Their bizarre obsession with policing Minnesotans’ personal lives.

Their stubborn refusal to take a balanced approach to the state budget.

Their reckless shutdown of our state parks and government.

For the past two years, Minnesotans have watched all of this in horror.

Now, it’s time to send a clear message:  It’s time to replace the worst Legislature in Minnesota history…and move forward with a new Legislature, and a fresh start.

Tying together legislative races into more of a statewide campaign would mean the DFL would need to focus much more than usual on statewide messaging and media, and much less on localized messaging and media.   That’s an extremely unpopular proposition with local candidates, who want the campaign to be more about them personally.  But in times like these, statewide political leaders need to have the courage to seize the historic political opportunity before them.

Many voters – particularly the much larger group of less active voters that turn out in presidential election years – don’t know much, or anything, about the candidates in down ballot races.  A memorable theme can guide them.  “Replace the worst Legislature ever” does that.  “Support good old Senator Bob because he brings home the bacon” does not.

So sorry, Tip, this campaign needs to focus on the smelly statewide whole, not the local parts.  This year, the DFL can, and should, run a unified statewide campaign against the the Republican Party’s Frankenstein — the Legislature that Minnesota citizens say is the worst ever.

– Loveland

 

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

Why DFLers Should Be Happy Scott Walker Won

Posted on by

Minnesota’s DFL Governor Mark Dayton has taken controversial positions that most Minnesotans oppose, such as support for a subsidized Vikings Stadium, an individual health insurance mandate and gay marriage.

So conservatives would be justified in launching a recall election to remove him from office, right?

Of course not.  Whether the target is liberal like Dayton or conservative like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, honest policy disagreements shouldn’t lead to mid-term recalls.  Recalls should be reserved for people who engage in proven criminal behavior.  For policy disagreements, we have a tried and true solution — regularly scheduled elections.

If a recall had succeeded in Wisconsin, more mid-term recalls would surely start to sprout around the nation, funded by corporations and billionaires who no longer are limited in their political spending.

And  what would policymaking look like if we were in a constant state of policy-based recall elections?  Chaos. You think the Minnesota State Capitol is chaotic, polarized and ineffective now?  Imagine it in perpetual recall campaign mode.

The other destructive outcome of a policy-based recall epidemic would be leaders who are even more afraid to take positions that don’t have strong majority support, for fear that doing so would make them a target of a multi-million dollar recall drive.

And here is the problem with leaders not questioning majority viewpoints:  Many times, the majority is just flat wrong.  The majority was very wrong on slavery and civil rights for a long time.  It was wrong on the Iraq War, trickle down economics, no new taxes, and single payer health care.  We need leaders who are not afraid of questioning the majority viewpoint.

What distinguishes Democrats from Republicans is that Democrats want government to be functional, because they know a dysfunctional public sector can’t help ordinary people pursue the American dream.   For that reason, they should oppose these policy-based recall elections that thrust government into mid-term chaos.

– Loveland

Buffaloed By Bills

Posted on by

Minnesota Republicans endorsed State Rep. Kurt Bills to challenge Democratic Senator Amy Kloubachar in November.  His nomination win was an impressive feat, fueled by support from delegates supporting Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate who promises to legalize heroin, cocaine, and prostitution under the banner of “the party of traditional family values,” which makes perfect sense.

Republican Convention delegates seemed particularly smitten with Bills’ anger at the federal debt.  Anger is the coin of the realm at party conventions, and, make no mistake, Bills is hopping mad about the debt.  (Not the debt that he put on Minnesota schools as a member of the State House, a different debt.)

Fair enough.  The federal debt is a big issue.  So let’s take a look at the causes of it:

In summary, to address the causes of the skyrocketing debt, the answer is pretty clear:  Undo what Bush did.    If you do that — cut off war spending and the Bush tax cuts — the debt trend line very quickly flattens.

What are Rep. Bills’ positions on these issues?  Well, I couldn’t tell a lot from his slim website position paper or media clippings.  There looks to be a good reason why MinnPost’s Erik Black recently wrote a piece called “Guessing Where Kurt Bills Stands on The Issues.”  (Black can’t get an interview.)  So guess we must, along with a little help from his website.  From what I can tell, it doesn’t look like Rep. Bills is too keen on putting the breaks on the primary drivers of the debt increase:

  • BILLS WON’T CUT BUSH’S TAX CUTS.  It doesn’t appear Rep. Bills supports eliminating the Bush tax cuts, the largest cause of the debt increase.
  • BILLS WON’T CUT BUSH’S FOREIGN WARS.  If Rep. Bills is for immediately withdrawing from the middle east wars, another big driver of the debt increase, he doesn’t mention it in his website foreign policy section.

I imagine Rep. Bills was opposed to the Recovery Act.  But you can see the Recovery Act cost is a much smaller contributor than the Bush wars and tax cuts.  Moreover, the up to 2.4 million jobs the Recovery Act created prevented additional debt that would have been caused by an even more severe economic meltdown.  Finally, the Recovery Act is now done, so in terms of Rep. Bill’s future debt reduction plan, it is a mute point.

Instead of undoing what Bush did to create the debt, Rep. Bills seems to want to double down on Bushonomics — tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of high flying industries and aggressive use of the military.  If that’s true, “Bills” could end up being a prophetic name.

– Loveland

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Minnesota Legislature

Posted on by

The one thing that Vikings Stadium proponents and opponents in the Legislature should be able to agree on:  The debate was very bad for all of their reputations.

Why?  Because there was an audience.  While the masses usually are mostly blind to what happens in legislative floor debates, a sizeable audience of casually involved Minnesotans were engaged enough in the high profile stadium issue to seek out legislative coverage on TV or the Internet.   My sense is that they were appalled.

Legislators didn’t really act much worse during the Vikings Stadium debate than they typically do at the end of any session.  It’s just that they usually behave badly in relative anonymity.  Usually, the only witnesses are jaded Capitol insiders, who can no longer be shocked.  Capitol dwellers – legislators, lobbyists, reporters and staff – take it for granted that legislators are breathtakingly rude and disrespectful to each other.  Every day, they see legislators use shallow “if she is for it, then I MUST be against it” policy logic.  To Capitol dwellers, self-serving partisan pranks are de rigueur.

But this is news to ordinary Minnesotans.  They hear about it, but they don’t often see it.

“I hardly ever watch the Legislature, but I tuned in for some of the big stadium debate…,” friends have been telling me.  Then their eyes bug out, and their mouths gape, as if they had just caught a glimpse of Lobster Boy and the Elephant Man at the carnival’s side show.  “Oh my.  I had NO idea.”

This reaction came regardless of how the individual felt about the outcome of the Vikings Stadium debate.  In a way, winners still felt like losers.

Lobster Boy indeed.  Half-baked Plan Z’s were sprung in the closing hours of a decade long debate.  The House’s top “leader” declared he was voting against the bill, but hoped it would pass.  Reckless amendment after reckless amendment were added, making the bill read like the contents of an elementary school Suggestion Box, instead of the product of a decade’s worth of expert study and analysis.

In the midst of a blinding blizzard of amendments, freshman Rep. John Kriesel plaintively held up a sign from the House floor reading “Help!”  From Baudette to Blooming Prairie, ordinary Minnesotans’ on both sides of the issue were collectively nodding at the sentiment.

A recent SurveyUSA poll found that only one of five (21%) Minnesotans approves of the job the Legislature is doing.  That number might be even smaller among those who watched a chunk of the Vikings Stadium debate.  Incidentally, Governor Dayton’s approval rating (56%) is about three times higher than the Legislature’s, despite the fact that he was in the center of the bruising stadium debate.  Demeanor probably explains some of this difference.  Dayton wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t Lobster Boy.

When Dorothy of Kansas was shocked by what she found behind the Wizard of Oz’s curtain, she declared “you’re a very bad man.”  After Minnesotans pulled back the curtain of public indifference that usually covers up St. Paul’s secrets, they may be feeling the same way.

But most of the legislators aren’t bad people.  It’s just that powerful special interests, partisan bullies and fatigue don’t bring out the best in them.  Sometimes good people can be bad leaders.  As the Wizard of Oz sheepishly responded in his defense, “Oh no, my dear.  I’m a very good man.  I’m just a very bad wizard.”

Loveland

 

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