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
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
About 16-months ago at Minnesota-based Target Corporation’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh, an embattled Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel stressed that Target would heretofore remain neutral on the issue of gay rights, but would continue to make political donations. A June 9, 2011 Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal headline characterized the balancing act Steinhafel was attempting:
CEO: Target will be neutral on marriage vote, will still give politically
Steinhafel’s neutrality pledge came on the heels of a customer backlash prompted by the corporation making a large political donation to anti-gay rights Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Remember all the news stories, boycotts, social media rants, and flash dance protests?
At the time Steinhafel made this announcement in Pittsburgh, I wondered how Target could possibly manage to support political candidates while keeping its neutrality pledge, since virtually all candidates take positions on gay rights issues. After all, the world community would no longer consider Switzerland neutral if it was funding a combatant.
So, what is Target doing now? In the 2012 election, what candidates are being funded by Target, or has Target decided to stay out of politics altogether?
My drive-by Googling can’t find the answer to this question. After all that coverage and controversy in 2010 and 2011, could it be no business or political reporter has followed up with Target?
When proponents of the photo ID constitutional amendment burst onto the scene, they identified themselves as “reformers.” As a result, many reform-minded Minnesotans initially accepted their reform claim at face value. In June, a poll found the proposal was backed by nearly six-out-of-ten (58%) voters.
But over the course of the summer and fall, Minnesotans began to scrutinize the “reformer” claim more closely. Many discovered that the alleged “reformers” were trying to deceive them with what amounts to a really bad fake ID.
As the non-partisan League of Women Voters and many others have pointed out, the voting “reformers” are actually voting restricters, intentionally seeking to suppress the votes of people least likely to have photo IDs – seniors, minorities, poor people and college students. This message is finally starting to get out.
Who is figuring it out the fastest? Non-white Minnesotans. Though I earlier noted that 68% of non-white Minnesota voters supported the photo ID in an early June 2012 Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey, that number has decreased dramatically to 55% in an October PPP survey. Clearly minority voters, whose families have endured literacy tests and scores of other procedural barriers to keep them from voting, are beginning to smell another voter suppression rat.
Seniors are catching on too. The support of Minnesotans older than 65 years old has decreased from 55% in June to 45% in October. This is a key development, because Minnesota has a lot of seniors, and they are more reliable voters than many other groups.
Independent voters are also getting it, though a bit less slowly. In June, 58% of self-identified Independents supported the photo ID amendment, and this month that number had decreased a bit to 52%.
Michael Brodkorb, the Republican Minnesota Senate Communications Director who was fired for having an extramarital affair with former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo), is in the midst of a media blitz to frame his firing as being nothing more than collateral damage from a “palace coup” on behalf of Senator David Hann (R-Eden Prairie).
Those darn Republican l’élite politique francophiles, always showing off their French. To translate for the commoners: The bard Brodkorb claims Prince David used the royal tryst as a political weapon to clear the way for him to take possession of Queen Amy’s throne.
Brodkorb’s palace coup d’état allegation is not implausible. But beyond Brodkorb’s assertion, my guess is that there were multiple motives behind Brodkorb’s firing:
The current Republican Senate leadership wants Minnesotans to think this was ALL about them being proper business managers doing what any by-the-book corporate HR Director would do. But it is difficult to believe that there wasn’t also an element of Koch coup, Brodkorb coup, and political damage control involved in their decision to fire Brodkorb.
My speculation is that political damage control was the top motivation for the firing, not a burning desire to oust Senator Koch, and not workplace law propriety. But no one can know for sure.
The other interesting thing about Brodkorb’s media tour is the timing of it. The timing was driven by the judge in Brodkorb’s lawsuit lifting a gag order on Friday. But a guy like Brodkorb, who lives and breathes electoral politics, also is fully aware that he is bringing the Repubilican’s most humiliating story back to the front pages just three weeks before the Republicans have to face surly voters, who already give the GOP-controlled Legislature the lowest approval rating on record.
It may or may not be true that Hann was using the Brodkorb-Koch affair as a political weapon in a palace coup. But it certainly is true that Mr. Brodkorb is using a potent political weapon in his current media tour.
– Loveland
Photo by Talking Points Memo (TPM)
Note: This post was also featured as a “Best of the Blogs” in the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report, and a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.
A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released this week finds that 46% of Minnesotans support the gay marriage ban amendment, but 74% of Minnesotans think that gays should either be able to marry or form civil unions.
The large group of Minnesotans who support gay civil unions but not gay marriage are mostly not anti-gay. In some ways, it is encouraging to know that about half of the people supporting this moronic amendment actually support extending additional rights to gay people. It’s also very bad news for Republicans that only one quarter of Minnesotans support their position.
Still, those Minnesotans who support gay civil unions but oppose gay marriage are wrong, wrong in a way that preserves inequality. The fallacy of their logic needs to be exposed, because these folks are the persuadable swing voters who will determine the outcome of Minnesota’s constitutional amendment election.
Those who support gay civil unions but oppose gay marriage are misguided in two fundamental ways.
“Marriage” v. “Civil Union” Differences. Many naively believe that civil unions bestow the same rights and respect as marriage. Wrong. The General Accounting Office (GAO) says the government provides 1,138 benefits to married couples that are not available to others. Tax benefits. Immigration rights. Medical decision-making advantages. Death benefits rights. It’s a long list of legal distinctions that impact finances and quality-of-life.
But the equality difference between marriage and civil unions goes much deeper than the 1,138 benefits.
If the government told my wife and me today that it had stripped us of our marriage status, our first concern wouldn’t be about the loss of those benefits. Our more heartfelt concern would be that we were being stripped of society’s sacred recognition of our commitment and love.
Marriage is honored and cherished in our society in a way that is absolutely unique. It is put on a pedestal. The stigma that would come if my wife and I were banned from claiming that special relationship status is what would most make us feel most unequal and stigmatized. That’s what gay couples face.
Marriages bestow more legal and social benefits than civil unions. In a nation built on the notion that all are created equal, it’s just not okay to have such inequality baked into one of our society’s most revered institutions.
Semantic Slavery. Beyond those who mistakenly believe that marriage and civil unions are legally and socially equivalent, others essentially have a language hang-up.
In their minds, heterosexuality has always been at the core of the definition of the word “marriage,” and it just feels incongruous to them to adjust the definition. The vast majority of these folks don’t seem to hate gay people, or wish inequality on them. They just can’t seem to get their head around that semantic shift.
I understand this position, because it was the position that I was taking when I was first exposed to this issue in the 1990s. Ultimately, I realized that my reasoning was silly.
After all, dictionaries are not written in stone. Every year, scores of definitions are added, deleted and adjusted, based on how society’s use of the language is changing. Languages evolve as societies evolve. Therefore, we shouldn’t be denying people something as sacred as equality based on what lexicographers say. Lexicographers take their cues from society, not vice versa. If a democratic society declares, in the name of equality, that marriage is open to everyone, then it is, and dictionaries will adjust accordingly. Dictionary definitions shouldn’t rule the day. Equality should rule the day.
Unlike the 24% of Minnesotans who oppose any kind of legal recognition for gay couples, I’m convinced that many of those who oppose gay marriage but support gay civil unions are “persuadables” when it comes to the constitutional amendment. If they aren’t written off as “homophobes” and “haters,” some of them can be convinced that separate but equal doesn’t work any better for civil unions than it did for segregated schools.
– Loveland
Note: This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.
Americans spend something like $5 billion per year on Halloween. Dressing up in costumers has become an increasingly popular form of escapism for stressed out adults. In fact, some retail outlets now report that more costumes are sold to adults than children.
This led us to wonder what our favorite Minnesota Republican politicians are dressing up as this year? Wry Wing Politics did a little investigative reporting:
Kurt Bills. The rarely spotted U.S. Senate candidate challenging popular Senator Amy Kloubachar is reportedly going as Waldo, of the Where’s Waldo puzzle books. Mr. Bills is out there in one of Minnesota’s 87 counties. Can YOU find him?
Mary Franson. The state legislator who infamously attempted to draw a parallel between not giving families in need Food Stamps and not feeding wild animals, is dressing up as a wild game hunter.
Michelle Bachman. The Member of Congress who maintains that we need to “wean” Minnesotans off of popular programs such as Social Security and Medicare, is going as a, um, weaner.
Michael Brodkorb. Brodkorb is the Minnesota Senate staffer who admitted to having an affair with a married Senate leader, and is threatening to commit mass politicide by naming others at the State Capitol who Brodkorb says also had extramarital affairs. Mr. Brodkorb is dressing up as the personification of death, The Grim Reaper. Will anyone answer the door when he comes knocking?
Allen Quist. Allen Quist is a former state legislator, current congressional candidate and ever creative Creationist who edits a website that says that dinosaurs lived alongside human beings as recently as the 12th Century. To educate more Minnesota children about this little known scientific fact, Mr. Quist is dressing up as Pope Innnocent III’s papal pet “Barney.”
Kurt Zellers. The Minnesota House Speaker who created confusion at the Capitol last year when he announced that he was going to oppose the Vikings Stadium bill, but hoped that it would pass, is dressing up as comic book figure Two-Face.
Tim Pawlenty. Former Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty is dressing up as, get this, a banking lobbyist. Eeeek! For a nation that has suffered mightily since the banksters’ wreckless practices caused a financial meltdown, it doesn’t get much scarier than this.
Norm Coleman. Former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman is going scary too. He is dressing up as a slimey leader of a corporate Super PAC. This costume is all the rage this year with little Republicans. With millions of Americans hiding from the political pollution brought to us by Super PACs like Coleman’s, the Super PAC Man is the new Freddy Krueger.
What a fright! Then, six days after Halloween, Minnesota voters will face the same question posed on October 31: Trick or treat?
Loveland
SAINT PAUL, MN — The lead group pushing to ban gay Minnesotans from marrying announced today that it plans to expand its efforts to protect traditional marriage.
“We don’t hate gays, we just believe traditional marriage is about procreation, something gay couples simply cannot do,” said Homer Fobe, a spokesman for Minnesotans for Our Kind of Marriage (MOKM). “So to prove the 2012 initaitive isn’t about gay bashing, in 2014 we’re also going to push to nullify marriages for heterosexual couples who are not having children.”
Fobe said the group would propose a ballot initiative to amend the Minnesota Constitution to nullify marriages of Minnesota heterosexual couples who reach the age of 44 without bearing any children. Continue reading
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
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.
U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar’s virtually invisible campaign opponent Kurt Bills borrows many of his policy ideas from his mentor, libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul. One of the least discussed of Bills’ proposals is his call for Minnesota to consider issuing its own currency.
Like Congressman Paul, Mr. Bills backs a national return to the gold standard. In addition, Bills has sponsored state legislation to study whether Minnesota should adopt an alternative currency. Bills’ bill (H.F. 1664):
“A joint legislative committee is established to study the adoption of an alternative currency by and for the state of Minnesota and its citizens, in response to the abdication by the United States Congress of its constitutional duty to regulate the value of its money, which it has failed to do through the Federal Reserve System.”
Financial experts are not so sure about Mr. Bills’ state currency idea. For instance David Parsley, a professor of economics and finance at Vanderbilt University was quoted by CNN saying:
“Having 50 Feds” could debase the U.S. dollar and even potentially lead the country into default. The single currency in the United States is working just fine. I have no idea why anyone would want to destroy something so successful — unless they actually wanted to destroy the country.”
Despite the naysayers, the prospect of having a cool new state currency raises many creative possibilities for Minnesotans.
Name. For instance, what would we call the new Minnesota currency?
MinneDollar quickly comes to mind, but that seems much too obvious. Plus, if the dollar collapses, as Mr. Bills foresees, “MinneDollar” wouldn’t inspire much confidence, now would it?
Alternatively, perhaps Minnesota’s dollar could be called “ “The Viking,” to symbolize our ability to dust ourselves off after humiliating defeats, and come back for more humiliating defeats, without ever seeing the epic futility of it all. Very Minnesotan.
Or, the corporatist Republicans controlling the Legislature might prefer to sell off the naming rights of the new Minnesota currency for a price, to someone like Twin Cities Federal (TCF) Bank, which already owns the naming rights to a largely taxpayer-funded stadium, and is run by a former GOP Party Chairman. Yes, Minnesota’s equivalent to “the dollar” could be called “The TCF.”
Finally, there is always “The Gopher.” What better name to carry on Minnesota’s rich tradition of picking really humiliating names to represent our state? Plus, “Golden Gopher?” Gold standard? Get it?
Faces. After we name our new currency, we, of course, need to put a good face on it.
America’s first President, George Washington, preferred faceless money. He was staunchly opposed to putting President’s images on U.S. currency. Modest George thought doing so was too self-aggrandizing, elitist and monarchical. In other words, George was a socialist.
However, something tells me that the likes of Jesse Ventura and Tim Pawlenty wouldn’t let modesty get in the way of monetary immortality for themselves. So we’ll let those former Governors fight it out to determine whose face is on our new Minnesota currency.
Why did I leave current Governor Mark Dayton off my list? Ah shucks, Modest Mark doesn’t need that. (Owning most of the new currency is good enough for him.)
Motto. After our currency has a name and a face, it would need a motto, something akin to the saying on U.S. currency, “In God We Trust.”
If we go with selling off the naming rights, as contemplated above, I guess we’d need the new currency motto to be “Your convenience bank.” Stop whining, it will grow on you.
“In Ron Paul We Trust” also could work, since Mr. Paul is the brainchild of all this, and because he is treated like a deity by his adoring followers.
But given the Minnesota Republicans’ obsession with proving they are tighter with the Almighty than everyone else, the GOP-controlled Legislature would probably make the motto something more like “In God We Trust, Unlike the Godless Liberals.” Bam. On-message.
The more I think about it, though, the more I think my vote for the new Minnesota currency name goes to “The Loon.” I know it’s hackneyed. But loons are graceful creatures with a gorgeous call that is closely associated with Minnesota’s iconic lakes. Loons are our State Bird. “Common Loons” are both beautiful and “common,” just like the great people of Minnesota.
Besides, “The Loon” perfectly captures the merits of the Mr. Bills’ idea.
– Loveland
Note: This post was also featured in the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report “Best of the Blogs” feature, as well as a “best of the best” in Minnpost’s Blog Cabin feature.
Republican Minnesota House member Kurt Bills, who is running for U.S. Senate against Senator Amy Kloubachar, is serious about reaching out to Minnesota’s growing minority community. He is so serious that he hired a new Director of Minority Research.
Good for Mr. Bills. Not many Republicans are so proactive about trying to diversify their white male dominated party.
So, pray tell, who did Mr. Bills select for this role? Drumroll please…
A white male. Over the next few weeks before the election, Mr. Bills has directed former Minnesota House member Dan “Doc” Severson (R-Sauk Rapids) to reach out to Minnesota’s minority communities on his behalf. Mr. Severson was opposing Bills earlier in the year, but withdrew from the race. In 2010, Severson lost in a bid to become Minnesota Secretary of State.
Look, I have nothing against white guys. Some of my best friends are white guys. As a matter of fact, I’m a white guy in good standing. I know most white guys are not bigots, and want to see minorities treated fairly and have equal opportunities. I have felt the sting when people have assumed otherwise about me, and so I in no way mean to suggest that Mr. Bills and Mr. Severson are anything but well-intensioned.
But I do mean to suggest they have a tin ear on this issue. Bills’ representative would have much more credibility with the target audience if he or she had walked in their audience’s shoes, or something approximating them. Minorities would be more apt to listen to Bills’ Outreacher-in-Chief if that person understood first hand what it’s like to adapt to a land with an unfamiliar language and culture. They might be more willing to trust someone who knows what it’s like to be held back in life because of pigmentation, spiritual beliefs, chromosomes, or an accent.
After all, would Mr. Bills appoint a career government employee to reach out to businesspeople? Would he appoint a Jew, Muslim or non-believer to reach out to evangelical Christians? Would he appoint a non-veteran to reach out to veterans?
Mr. Severson looks to have done many worthwhile things in his life, such as serving in the military, in business, and as a substitute teacher. He’s probably a good guy.
But as Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is often, effectively, the message. When a candidate does a statewide search of our increasingly diverse state and concludes that a member of the majority race and privileged gender is the single most qualified Minnesotan to reach out to minorities, it does indeed send a message. And it’s perhaps not the message Mr. Bills hoped to send.
– Loveland
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.
When you want to know why political hacks are doing something, don’t listen to the answer they give in public. The pols’ public answers are carefully cleansed, and the truth often shrinks or disintegrates in the spin cycle. Instead, listen to what they say in private. That’s where the truth comes out.
Take Voter ID. When you ask Minnesota Republicans why they are pushing a state constitutional amendment to require voters to produce photo IDs, they swear it is to limit voter impersonation. But when you learn that they can’t produce any evidence of a single case of voter impersonation in Minnesota, you start to wonder if they have an unstated motive that is less pure. And when you listen to what the revered “father of the conservative movement,” Paul Weyrich, said to conservative leaders in private, the truth emerges:
In a democracy, I can’t think of any words more dangerous than Weyrich’s words:
How many of our Christians have what I call the “goo goo syndrome?” Good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our (Christian conservative) leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the motive to the photo ID crime. The reason why Minnesota Republicans want to send voters without photo IDs – disproportionately Minnesota’s oldest, youngest and most pigmented voters, according to the Minnesota League of Women Voters – on a bureaucratic wild goose chase can be found in the words of the father of the modern conservative movement. They “don’t want everybody to vote.”
Yes, you say, but that was a long time ago. Conservative patriots can’t possibly still be so cynical that they would attack the very bedrock of our proud American democracy for crass self-serving reasons. But fast forward to 2012, and listen to what they say to each other when they think no one else is listening. This is from Pennsylvania state Representative Mike Turzai:
Again, we learn that the motive is not preventing the non-existent problem of voter impersonation. The motive is voter suppression of non-conservatives.
So to really learn why Republicans are so in love with this idea of photo IDs for voters, forget what they say in public. Instead, be mindful of the words of legendary country singer Charlie Rich,
“And when we get behind closed doors,
Then she lets her hair hang down.”
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
The last time a Minnesota DFL Governor was able to appoint a State Supreme Court Justice, the Cold War was still officially underway. Bill Clinton was an obscure Governor of a small state, a quixotic wannabe instead of an accomplished elder statesman. Arnold Schwartzenegger was a cartoon character in The Terminator 2, instead of a disgraced former Governor. In fact, 1991 was so long ago that the Twins actually won a World Series that year, and something called the “Minnesota North Stars” was in the Stanley Cup Finals.
Twenty-one years is too long for any state to go with one party thoroughly controlling it’s State Supreme Court. So, let’s celebrate Governor Dayton’s historic appointment of Minnesota’s first female African American Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, Wilhelmina Wright. But let’s also celebrate the long overdue movement towards a return to balance in Minnesota’s judicial branch.
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
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.
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.
Relief workers in the front lines have described conditions as “horrific.” Continue reading