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
The New York Times’ poll-aggregating oddsmaker Nate Silver currently puts the chances of President Obama winning the Electoral College at about 86%, but his chances of winning the popular vote at only 51%.
In other words, there is a very real chance — a 6.9% chance according to Silver — that President Obama could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote, as happened to President George W. Bush in his race against Al Gore in 2000.
In case you were sleeping through the film strip in Civics Class the day they covered the Constitutional Convention and the Virginia Plan, the Electoral College is what counts. Quite incredibly, the United States of America is the only democracy on the planet where candidates can and do become the national leader without having won the highest number of votes. Continue reading
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
“The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses.
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, the laughed at the Wright Brothers.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
– Carl Sagan
Michael Brodkorb, former top political strategist for Minnesota Republicans, recently made it perfectly clear that the Republican-proposed gay marriage ban amendment was motivated by politics, not principles.
As WCCO-TV’s Pat Kessler reported:
In an interview with WCCO, Mr. Brodkorb Continue reading
In the Halloween season it’s always fun to tell far-fetched scary stories. This one is pretty darn scary, and may not be as far-fetched as some.
What if the opponents of Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage inadvertently helped unseat the first President in history to endorse gay marriage?
Here is how it could happen: Continue reading
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
Groucho Marx once observed “I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.”
I am having a similar reaction after browsing the coverage of last night’s final Presidential debate. Continue reading
“I’m fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.”
George McGovern
1922-2012
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.
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
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney privately told his supporters that he has written off Americans who are not currently paying federal income taxes. Those Americans aren’t worth the bother — too whiney, too dependent. But he assures his uber wealthy funders that he’ll win in places with more “makers” than “takers.”
If that were the case, Minnesota would look to be Mitt Territory. Mitt-esota even. After all, only 30% of Minnesotans are not paying income taxes, which puts the state in a national tie for fifth in that category.
Surely, Romney is leading in a state with 70% of what he would classify as “makers,” right? But according to the most recent poll done in Minnesota, Romney is trailing Obama by a healthy margin, 44-51.
Ironically, most of the states with the highest percentage of Americans that Romney bitterly dismisses as takers are in Republican-dominated states, mostly in the deep south. For instance, according to numbers from the Tax Policy Center, 45% of Mississippi citizens have no income tax liability, a much higher rate than the national average (36%).
But curiously, “taker” state Mississippi is a Republican stronghold. In 2008, Republicans won Mississippi by a whopping 13 points. I’d share a 2012 poll with you, but Mississippi is considered so far in the bag for Romney I can’t even find anyone who is polling there.
Romney’s assertion that our fellow Americans who are not currently paying income taxes won’t take personal responsibility for their lives is insulting. These folks are retirees who worked their entire lifetimes, military personnel who are stepping up to serve their country, and poor people struggling to get their families out of a hole. Moreover, most of these Americans are paying payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and/or sin taxes. In fact, some of them are paying a larger proportion of their income in taxes than the wealthiest Americans.
Moreover, 100% of Americans are guilty of the sin Governor Romney described in his private rant, the sin of being dependent on government. In fact, every citizen of every modern society on the planet is dependent on government. Government funded military, police and fire personnel protect us all. Government funded environmental, safety and consumer protections safeguard us all. Government funded infrastructure, education and research fuels the economy that supports us all. Because we all benefit from government, we are all dependent on it. We are all in this grand American experiment together. That’s not scandalous, that’s just how successful modern societies work.
But substance aside, let’s return to Governor Romney’s electoral strategy. If Romney was correct that he will do best in states with a high percentage of voters with income tax liability, I have just one question for him: What about Minnesota?
– Loveland
I hate to admit when Governor Mitt Romney is correct. But when he said 47% of Americans are dependent on government, I have to face the facts. Romney had it right.
He just understated the claim by 53%.
After all, 100% of us are dependent on government, and it’s been that way for the entire history of the nation. One hundred percent of us are dependent on publicly funded national defense, roads, highways, bridges, police, fire, water, sewage, environment and health protections and education. We can’t compete and succeed without those things. We are dependent. Continue reading
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
Okay, I’m officially conventioned out. I watched too much, and slept too little. Thank goodness they only come along once every four years. Anyway, to help me move on, I need to give voice to some of the things I’ve been mumbling about to myself the past two weeks.
Convention Dislikes
Boos. Mere mention of an opponent or his policies brings a chorus of forced, obligatory “boos” from hyper-partisan activists. Canned convention boos are like laugh tracks on a bad sitcom — automatic, artificial, and mindless. Conventions should be about winning over the moderate swing voters who will decide the General Election. Well, for middle-of-the-road viewers who tune in to see if the party in question is serious about solving the country’s problems, or just planning on more petty partisan gamesmanship, the boos give them their answer. So self-defeating.
Revisionism. In the alternative universes that exist in political convention halls, Reagan wasn’t too liberal to be nominated by the GOP today. Clinton never pissed away the opportunity to pass progressive policies over a cheap thrill. JFK wasn’t a relatively unaccomplished President. Those realities are glossed over. At conventions, parties ignore historical reality, and build up their Presidential icons and lore. For people who care about accuracy in history, it’s excruciating.
Call and Response. This is when the speaker makes a series of red-faced claims, and the crowd is trained to respond with a canned line, such as “yes,” “no,” “that dog won’t hunt,” or, I don’t know, “set it and forget it.” Maybe somebody did it before Ted Kennedy, but he is the first person I remember using the now tired call-and-response gimmick at conventions. I get that the crowd likes to be involved after sitting through 500 consecutive speeches saying roughly the exact same thing. But the tactic is badly overused by both parties. While people inside the hall apparently love call-and-response games, to viewers outside the hall, it makes Tampa and Charlotte look like Jonestown.
USA, USA, USA. Ostensibly, this chant that both parties love so much is supposed to translate into “we love our country,” which is touching. But let’s be honest. The actual translation is “we love our country more than the America-haters in the other party do,” and that is tiresome and ugly. Enough.
Convention Likes
The JV. It’s kind of fun to watch Junior Varsity pols get some playing time on the national stage, at least on C-Span. Usually they’re barely watchable. Occasionally they’re terrific. Either way, it’s entertaining to see someone other than the overexposed top-of-the-ticket politicians.
Real People Speakers. They can’t speak off a teleprompter in a natural way. They step on every applause line. They sweat through their brand new clothes. But after listening to 500 consecutive speeches by over-programmed elected officials, reality TV is a real treat, and it reminds us that policies impact real people, not just politicians. I didn’t cry when Old Yeller died, but a couple of these ordinary folks made me mist up. Love them.
The Unexpected. Very little about conventions is unexpected. They are heavily scripted and choreographed. That’s why it is so delicious when brief moments of spontaneity creep in. For instance, sometimes an old man starts talking non-sense to a chair in prime time. How cool is that? Or sometimes the crowd applauds at an unexpected spot for unexpected reasons, such as when the crowd went wild over Obama pointing out that he is the President. Let’s face it, we all secretly watch NASCAR hoping for crashes, and attend weddings secretly hoping the flower girl picks her nose to liven up the starchy ceremony. Similarly, I watch political conventions hoping for the handlers’ orchestration to fall apart.
Delegates. Conventions make for great people watching. When TV cameras pan the delegates, I’m always struck by the fact that: 1) We’re a wonderfully diverse nation; 2) These delegates truly are the unwashed masses, and not just the privileged elites; 3) Whether you agree or disagree with them, these folks really care about their country. The delegates and their actions are not always beautiful, but if you worry whether Americans still give a damn about their democracy, political conventions offer a beautiful answer.
There. Now I feel better. RNC and DNC, I’ll see you in four more years…four more years, four more years.
– Loveland
Note: This post was also featured as a “best of the best” on MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.
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.”