Who is the adult? Governor Dayton who is willing to compromise or the GOP (Greedy Old Party)?

In the “you have got to be kidding me” political world that we unfortunately seem to be living in right now, Republican leaders and right-wing bloggers are attacking Governor Mark Dayton for saying he is willing to compromise on the budget.  He is willing to go halfsies!  $1.8 billion in raised taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Minnesotans and $1.8 billion in Republican tax cuts.  That seems like a very adult and very logical reconciliation to a budget problem that they have less than a week to solve without paying legislators more and thus costing taxpayers more for a special legislative session. 

I don’t completely agree with it necessarily, but at least Governor Dayton is being the grown up in the room trying to resolve the problems of the whiney and time wasting Republican legislators acting like selfish toddlers.    

Let’s see, one side wants to negotiate (Governor Dayton) and one side WILL NOT compromise because they are greedy and want to get their way (Republican Legislators.)  Who is the public going to blame if there is a shutdown?  I suspect it won’t be the party that was willing to negotiate and for weeks asked Republican leaders for a full budget to at least get the negotiations started (yeah, let’s not forget that Republicans still have not submitted a full budget plan.)  No, I suspect the Republican led legislature who refused to compromise will be the ones getting blamed, and they should. 

63% of Minnesotans support a budget that includes both tax increases and cuts.  27% of Minnesotans support at cuts only budget.  So who are the Republican legislators trying to please here, the majority or their base? 

Republicans who refuse to compromise will be loved by their base, what’s that 27% of the voters?  But when the campaigns kick into gear in a few months, it will be the DFL Party, the party of progressives, farmers and workers, as well as education, compassion and compromise, against the GOP, not the Grand, but the Greedy Old Party, the party of the richest Minnesotans, CEOs and pawn shops, as well as the party of taking away rights, fiscal meltdowns and selfishness.

I guess if we can survive the next legislative session led by selfish Republican legislators, it should be slam dunk in 2012 for the DFL.  Amy Klobuchar will crush Dan Severson, Chris Barden, Dave Thompson, or whichever candidate the Greedy Old Party picks.  And she along with President Obama will lead a ticket that retakes both Minnesota houses, which will be led by forward thinking politicians in Paul Thissen and Tom Bakk.  Governor Dayton, Speaker Thissen, Senate Majority Leader Bakk… I’m dreaming of a golden age of growth and improvement in Minnesota, truly a better Minnesota, but we need to get through this mess and past these selfish Republicans right now.

Spread the word about who is willing to compromise.  Now is not the time to be a timid Democrat.  Speak up.  Call Governor Dayton’s office and tell him to stand strong, and tell him you support him on the budget.  We can’t sit back and just wish or hope for a Better Minnesota, otherwise we will end up in the struggles Wisconsin is fracturing under.  Even a baby step out of the political closet is a positive step toward a Better Minnesota.  Do it!

Should it really be a hard choice for Republicans to play nice?

I have some real problems with the political leadership in my area.  It isn’t specifically that they are Republicans.  If that were the reason I wouldn’t like most of my family or many of our friends.  It is the political demeanor so many of the political leaders seem to possess.

The overriding character to be politically successful in the area seems to include a bit of disdain for opposition or at least disrespect for opposition, a little snobbishness, a touch of nastiness, smart alecky, globally uncaring and maybe even a bit hypocritical.  In my opinion, at least some of those traits fit each of our legislative representatives in Senate District 36. 

What got me thinking about this was a recent Bible study discussion about the end of Matthew 5.  At the forefront of my thought has been the idea that I am to live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward me.  Do any politicians do that?  I read an article in Politics in Minnesota about Rep. Mary Liz Holberg.  In the article Briana Bierschbach quotes former Republican State Representative Neil Peterson describing Mary Liz Holberg as:

“She can really be nasty. I know we didn’t agree on some things, but she dealt with things in her own, specific way.”

The article was not about Holberg’s nastiness, but that quote really struck me.  Should a person directly representing 40,000 Minnesotans, and indirectly the entire state, be nasty and vengeful?  Or should that person be generous and gracious?  I guess it is just my opinion, but I think a person we elect to represent us should be kind, circumspect, empathetic and maybe even a little chivalrous.  I know that is asking a lot and maybe the nature of politics preclude that, but am I wrong to say that should be the ideal? 

Is it kind for Dave Thompson or Pat Garofalo to lob insults at a leader elected to represent a large group of people simply because they disagree?  Is it considerate to say in “Dave’s perfect world” you don’t exist to a Labor leader?  Is it good-mannered for Pat to go on MPR and demand a personal thank you from education leaders for funding education, something I think he is elected to do and required by law to do? What does it say about Mary Liz Holberg when she got so upset that the Override 6 were not punished enough by Speaker Seifert, that she quit attending caucus meetings and joined Tom Emmer in trying to embarrass him and the rest of Republican Leadership? 

The political negativity goes on at every level in the district.  There is a popular school board member in Farmington who admits he is not nice to the administration or the rest of the board.  In Lakeville the Mayor wouldn’t accept a generous gift from a council member because of politics.  And in our district, Republican leaders worked to unseat Pat Garofalo in 2006, attempting to replace him because he wasn’t Republican enough.  Pat learned his lesson and has been loyal ever since, but what have the rest of us learned? Is that what we want?

Whether Republican or DFL, shouldn’t we hold the political leaders we nominate and elect to a higher standard?  When we consider a leader shouldn’t they be both effective and respectful?  I hope we can all agree that insults, egocentric actions and revenge are not the best ways to be respectful or to be leaders.

A current Republican legislator, who wished to remain anonymous in the Politics in Minnesota article said of Holberg’s decision to lead the Ways and Means Committee and to be effective:

“She would have to play nice a bit more, I’m sure the choice wasn’t easy, but she made it.”

Should it really be a hard choice to make to play nice?

Matthew 5: 46-48 – The Message
“If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. In a word, what I’m saying is, grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.”

A Democrat’s take on the 2012 GOP Presidential Field

 

Last week, the FOX network continued its push to replace President Obama with its first official piece of business, the first FOX Republican Presidential candidate debate.  While many of the top contenders decided not to attend, five middle and lower tier candidates showed up and excited national Republican political junkies.

Despite the low candidate turnout, and the absence of the most controversial candidates, this particular debate was a bit controversial.  Not just controversial in that 4 of the 5 candidates in attendance said they would support torture as a President… (pause for shake of head)… but it was controversial in that the Associated Press and Reuters chose not to attend because of restrictions placed by the FOX Network on other news gathering organizations.  I guess it just proves that Sirius/XM was correct in their recent reclassification moving FOX “News” from the News station category to the Political station category.

Anyway, it was the first event of the 2012 presidential race.  We will have a better picture of what to expect as we approach the summer and fall. There should be candidates beating down the door to take on President Obama the way Republicans talk about how bad a President he is. I think the reality is that potential candidates realize it would have been really hard to beat Barack Obama even before the recent political events.

Here is my uneducated take on the field of Obama’s potential challengers.

The Serious Presidential Challengers:
Mitt Romney
Former Governor of Massachusetts, dogged within the party for RomneyCare and past “liberal” stances. Most recent polls have him closely behind poll leader Mike Huckabee, second, just like he was to John McCain.  Romney lost to Ted Kennedy in a Senate race not long ago.  In that race Senator Kennedy joked that Romeny flipped and flopped so much that if the election lasted long enough, Mitt would vote for Kennedy instead of himself. Ted Kennedy also joked saying “I am pro choice, Mitt is multiple choice.” I think that flip-flop aspect of his history will keep him in second, regardless of who wins the nomination.  But, if he gets the nomination, he might have a better chance of winning than a lot of these candidates.

Jeb Bush
I included Jeb Bush in the serious challenger list, but not Mike Huckabee, go figure.  Huckabee is obviously a serious contender, I’m just unsure he will run.  I think Jeb will run.  He is obviously hurt by Bush 43 as well as Bush 41, by 43’s policies and result, and 41 along with 43 by the monarchal aspect of a third Bush as a President.  Those are the only reasons he wouldn’t run, but if he jumps in, especially at the last minute into a crowd of dull, lifeless contenders, he immediately becomes a star.  I don’t think he can win the presidency because of 41 and 43, but he could easily get the nomination. 

The Dark Horses:
Paul Ryan
Like Bush, he isn’t necessarily an expected candidate, but neither was Barack Obama.  He is a Midwesterner liked by Tea Party and Republicans, and he has already established a fiscal campaign against Obama. He is technically a dark horse because he isn’t a candidate yet. If he jumped in, I think he would move to the serious challenger level and be labeled by some the second coming of Ronald Reagan (which would be completely inaccurate, don’t get me started.)

Tim Pawlenty
He seemed to be the winner in the recent FOX Network debate according to other’s accounts.  He could win by default because he is non-controversial nationally, yes, he did raise his hand in support of torture.  Of course, how he left the State of Minnesota could really hurt him in a national debate.  But if Mike Huckabee stays out of the race, and he wins Iowa.  He could run away with the nomination a la Bill Clinton. 

Mitch Daniels
Ditto on Tim Pawlenty, but he actually did the things Pawlenty didn’t, like solving a state budget deficit. He also is seen as a little more independent that would appeal to moderates with his decision to avoid controversial social wedge issues, which is a negative to hard core Republicans.  Maybe a good national pick, but might have a hard time getting the Republican nomination.

Michelle Bachmann
I know she got a zero in a recent Iowa poll, but ths is a very shrewd and hard working politician. I consider her a dark horse, not because I think she can win, but because she can get some serious attention and raise a lot of money.  The problem is she has a really good thing going where she is right now, so I question whether she would want to leave the House, especially if her district borders remain unchanged as they appear to be in the first redistricting attempt. On the other hand, if she does enter the race and doesn’t win the nomination, she is poised to fully concentrate on taking on Sen. Al Franken in 2014.  That makes me think she might not mind getting in.

The Not So Likely:
Newt Gingrich
He announced he is in today.  He is a fundraising powerhouse and he WAS a political powerhouse. I think the “was” aspect is weighing on his ego.  He can make a run, and if he loses, but does well, he gets the extra attention to sell books and continues to get calls from the FOX network to be an analyst.  If he happens to win, even better for Newt.

Herman Cain
Herman Cain was the fan favorite at the FOX Network debate, and to his credit, he was the only candidate who said he would not support torture.  He doesn’t have much of a chance.

Sarah Palin
Fierce loyalty among fans, but doesn’t seem to the have the skills or desire to seriously compete for the GOP nomination, let alone the Presidency. Plus, a bad loss would seriously diminish her ability to be taken seriously on the FOX network…

Ron Paul
Might have a better chance to win the presidency than some of these guys, but he can’t win the GOP nomination.  Plus, there is his son…

The Jokes:
Donald Trump
He was a registered Democrat, vied to run as the Reform Party candidate for president, toyed with running for New York Governor, and now is threatening to toss his hair in the ring this year for President. It is all a publicity stunt to increase his wealth. After all, is the country really going to elect a man who started life with $400 million that his father left him and has been bankrupt 3 times since, divorced twice, had an affair, and thinks he has the right to judge other’s moral and financial decisions?  Recent polls have put him in his place, close to last.

Rick Santorum
Just Google Rick Santorum quotes. No change. Nothing more to say.

Sarah Palin
Could be included here too.

The could haves, but have better things to do:
Mike Huckabee
He has a good gig going. If he gets in he is a “challenger” but I’ve read that he isn’t necessarily interested.  He leads in the current polls, and he might be the only current potential candidate (not including Bush or Ryan) at the top of the list who could unite the Republican base and challenge Obama. 

Haley Barbour
Already out. He is old and wants to spend the rest of his life enjoying it.  The funny thing is that I read he might be Mike Huckabee’s running mate if he runs.  His exit from the race adds to my feeling that Huckabee is out too.

Overall, at this point in the race it seems like a pretty weak pack. If I were betting, and Huckabee stays out, I would put my money on Pawlenty.  But if Bush or Ryan get in, Pawlenty is toast.  They are probably all toast if Huckabee gets in.

Jottings and Questions VI

Chris Barden

Sen. Amy Klobuchar vs. Chris Barden / Dan Severson
Here is an interesting nugget for people placing bets on who might be taking on Amy Klobuchar next year.  I wrote a post about Chris Barden and Dan Severson being potential GOP nominees.  Four of the last five days, there has been

Dan Severson

some sort of search for Chris Barden that has lead to my website.  No searches for Dan Severson have led to my website since I have been paying attention.  Maybe it is because I don’t have “Doc” anywhere on the site…

Taking a Stand Against Discrimination
The following video is getting a lot of attention nationally, and I think it is deserved.  I’m including it here because I think this 3 minute video really says a lot about what is going on in our society and the major difference between the two main political ideologies right now. 

Whether we are talking LGBT rights, budget, education, taxes, social issues or whatever, the thoughtfulness expressed in the idea that history is bending “towards justice, fairness, wholeness and openness and compassion” is exactly what separates the two main political ideologies right now.

Kudos to Representative Steve Simon.  This proposed amendment is in reality a law mandating discrimination, almost exclusively based on religious grounds.  As an American, I feel like we should never again mandate discrimination in law.  As a Minnesotan, I feel like we are better than this.  And as a Christian, I have a hard time believing this is how we were taught to express love.

I have no problem with him calling out the moral force of this anti-freedom argument, or even saying the people that vote for this bill will have to live with shame in the future.  I think it is true and I think it is shameful.

If you would like to show your support, consider giving a small donation to Representative Simon’s campaign.  But he won’t need as much money as the organizations that will be fighting this amendment will.  So also give a donation to The Minnesota DFL and Outfront Minnesota.  The best option is to give all three a little donation.  Also, take a moment and sign OutFront Minnesota’s petition against this amendment.

Recap of Republican Sen. Dave Thompson’s first town hall meeting

Attendance was low at the first local town hall meeting organized by Senate District 36 state Senator Dave Thompson.  Less than ten people showed up at Farmington High School for the meeting, including the Senator, his legislative aide and local journalist Derrick Williams.  Among the remaining attendees was Farmington School Board Vice Chair, and active Republican Party member Brian Treakle, leaving just a handful of unaffiliated constituents.

It isn’t uncommon for such a low turnout at a meeting like this in a place like Senate District 36.  This is a safe Republican district with a low voter activist level on either side.  Republicans in the area feel safe and Democrats feel secluded.  However, it is surprising that Sen. Thompson didn’t organize a couple more local supporters to attend, at least for photos.  I’m sure that will change in the future.

Despite being as he described it, a “small “L” libertarian, which I can only assume means he believes not in the Libertarian Party, but the political philosophy that seeks to eliminate all but the most basic laws protecting people from being physically harmed and having their property stolen, Sen. Thompson contradicted himself on couple of “small ‘L’ libertarian” points.

While he stated he was against the Department of Education and the smoking ban (libertarian speak for shrink government bureaucracy and let people choose to make their own bad decisions,) he also stated he is against letting people make their own choice as to who they marry, and against the public being allowed to make their own bad decision to gamble here in Minnesota.  (I’m sure Gamblin’ Pat Garofalo (House 36B-R) and him don’t see eye-to-eye on that.)

He talked about the negative social impact of gambling being important, while hypocritically ignoring the social impact the smoking ban has in protecting the health of the majority of people (including children) who don’t smoke. 

Can you believe the hypocrisy in that simple idea that gambling has a negative social impact on our community while ignoring that smoking does too?  Or worse yet, the hypocrisy that he is concerned at all about any negative social impact when he is more concerned about keeping the wealthiest Minnesotans at their current income level than the social impact cutting medical, employment and basic aide items from the budget would have on children, low income families, single mothers and people with disabilities and their families. 

It might lead one to believe that a negative social impact isn’t the important aspect of his concern at all.  The contradictions are evident in his actions in the Senate.  So what’s the deal with the hypocrisy?  Ego?  Bigger political plans?  Warped sense of humor?  What?

Senator Dave Thompson is up for reelection in 2012, along with the entire Minnesota legislature. 

In 2012, let’s correct the mistakes we made in 2010.

Crossposted by Steve Quist at the DFL SD36 Website

What should we do about gas prices?

How do we solve the current problem of high gas prices?  Who solves the problem of high gas prices?  Are taxes a part of the problem?  Is the President to blame?

Several years ago, 1999 or 2000, when gas prices were topping $1.60 a gallon, then presidential candidate, Texas Governor George Bush said the president “must jawbone OPEC members into lowering prices.”

How’d that work out?

Admittedly, I criticized President Bush on that statement, and the resulting huge increase in gas prices ($4 per gallon) that curiously increased between elections, and dropped at election time.  So is the President to blame?  Was George Bush to blame?  Is Barack Obama to blame now?  George Bush deserved criticism for his statements and lack of knowledge about gas prices, if you recall, he didn’t even know the price of gas was almost $4 a gallon when a reporter asked him about it at one point during his presidency, but the president wasn’t and isn’t specifically to blame per se.

I’m sure I could find blame, and I guess if we had another president like Teddy Roosevelt who took on corporate crooks, the president could be a solution, but the problem is Wall Street investors buying oil futures as a short-term investment, not the president. 

Can you name one product that drives our economy as much as the cost of gas?  Not only do prices of products rise with the price of gas, but if I spend $40 more dollars on gas each month, with profits going to a foreign company, that is $40 less I am spending at local businesses that create jobs.  That means I’m not buying a pizza at Casa Nostra in Lakeville or taking my wife on a date to go see a movie at the Lakeville Movie Theater.  It means I’m not buying as much fresh locally grown produce at the grocery store, or splurging on a steak at Kowalski’s.  It means I wear my shoes longer and let me hair grow out a little more between cuts.  

Should a resource that dictates the economic success or failure of small businesses, and our country in general, as much as oil and gas do, really be an item that makes Wall Street investors rich?  When Wall Street traders think oil prices will increase, they bid more, increasing the price of oil.  So as we pay more and more, oil companies, many of them foreign, who have no significant additional costs to produce a barrel of oil, make more and more money.

I guess there are two solutions.  Drilling more won’t work, first it won’t stop speculation, and second we already have a glut of oil.  OPEC is slowing down drilling because they can’t sell it all.  So, we can work to either eliminate the use of oil and gas, or we can begin regulating investment in oil futures to some degree.  I don’t know whether either would work.  I doubt we would see a big decline in gas prices, after all, how often do we see gas prices go down 20 cents in a day like they go up?  It’s business, and it is not likely.  But regulation on oil speculation that limits gambling on oil would at least make our gas prices dependent on supply and demand rather than based on Wall Street profits.  Well, that is until radical governments take over the entire Middle East and cut us off completely…