The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has moved!

I've moved to a bigger and better blog! Please visit me at http://tcdailyliberal.com/blog

Like this post?
The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has moved!	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman's out-of-touch record: the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill

This is the sixth in a series of weekly articles exposing Norm Coleman's record on the issues. All data in this series comes from CQ Weekly.

---

First, I need to start with an admission: I said we were going to be looking at Norm's record on agriculture. But when I looked into it, there were not many interesting floor votes available on agricultural topics. And what's more, I have to admit, his record was really not terrible. In fact, I was almost feeling downright positive about Norm until I stumbled upon the 2005 Bankruptcy Overhaul bill.

The bill, with Coleman's support, create a means test tied to the median incomes of individual states to determine whether personal bankruptcy filers were able to repay some or all of their debts. That doesn't sound too bad. What's mind-boggling, as always, is some of the stuff Norm voted against.

Norm voted FOR passage of the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 44). But that's not the whole story. Because while the bill was on the floor, he made some mean-spirited votes against consumers and victims of credit fraud.

For instance, he voted AGAINST an amendment that would require credit card companies to issue a warning notification on monthly statements stating that a minimum payment will increase the amount of interest paid and the time it will take to repay the outstanding balance. The amendment would also require companies to disclose the amount required for the consumer to pay off the outstanding balance in three years, if no further advances are made (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 15). This bill would have helped educate Americans about getting out of debt at no cost to the government. Does Coleman want us to stay in debt to the credit card companies?

He voted AGAINST an amendment that would provide a homestead exemption of at least $150,000 of the equity in the property the debtor uses as a primary residence if the bankruptcy stems from medical expenses (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 17).

He voted AGAINST Sen. Mark Dayton's amendment that would set a 30 percent ceiling on interest rates for loans or credit cards. I can appreciate "letting the free market work," but 30 percent interest is usury. Of course, you know who interest rates that high hurt: the same people Norm has been sticking it to the whole time he's been in the Senate, those who can't afford it. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 20).

The votes I mentioned above are bad, but the next two votes are just sickening. Norm voted AGAINST an amendment that would prohibit high cost mortgage lenders from collecting on their claims in bankruptcy court if they extend credit in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 22). You read that correctly -- Norm voted to allow predatory lenders engaging in mortgage fraud to collect on their illegal loans.

He also voted AGAINST an amendment that would increase from one to four years the period of time a bankruptcy court can recapture assets of corporate executives who make fraudulent transfers. That amendment would give employees and retirees a priority unsecured claim in bankruptcy for the value of company stock held for their benefit in an employee pension plan. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 25). So not only did he vote against victims of predatory lending, he voted to protect white-collar criminals instead of protecting the employees they defrauded.

The bottom line: on this bill, Norm voted the same way he always has: for wealthy CEOs, and against everyone who's struggling to get by. Is that who you want representing you in the Senate?

Like this post?
Coleman's out-of-touch record: the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

TC Daily Liberal will be down for the rest of the day

The Daily Liberal is going down for maintenance in about an hour, and will be back tomorrow morning.

Operating this blog through Google's Blogger has been pretty limiting, not to mention pretty ugly. So I'm relaunching with a new format tomorrow, but I need some time to do the technical stuff.

See you back here tomorrow!

Like this post?
TC Daily Liberal will be down for the rest of the day	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman has a plan to run up Federal deficit

At the FarmFest debate yesterday, Dean Barkley said that putting our roads and bridges on a credit card was harmful to our children. I couldn't agree more: to fund Coleman and Pawlenty's "no new taxes" gimmick, we've been putting off paying for our infrastructure until later. When is later? It's when Pawlenty and Coleman are long gone, and our children are left holding the bill.

Norm Coleman doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Just as long as we don't have a tax increase now, he's totally fine mortgaging our government to the hilt. Here's the exchange, via Doug Grow at MinnPost:

When the subject was infrastructure — roads, railways and barges are big issues in rural Minnesota — Barkley gave the most honest answer of any of the candidates.

"There is no free lunch,'' he said. "If we're going to fix the bridges and the roads, somebody is going to have to pay for it. Bonding. That's the Republican approach. Let our children pay for it. That's financial child abuse. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.''

That response seemed to bring about a collective gulp from the crowd. Was he hinting at a tax increase?

Coleman put people at ease.

"I support bonding for transportation,'' he said. "I disagree with a gas tax increase. There are other ways to fund infrastructure.''

He didn't specify what those ways might be, but the crowd loved him and his build-now, pay-later approach.

That's Norm Coleman for you. He has no idea how we'll actually pay for it. But he also doesn't seem to care. There's probably another way, he says. Oh, and by the way, plan on mortgaging your farm in 20 years to pay for it.

Once again, I ask my readers: would you treat your own personal finances this way? Let's say your roof was starting to sag, and was going to need to be replaced in a few years. Would you start saving up for it, and maybe try to earn a bit of extra money, so you could pay for it up front? Or would you cut back your hours to work part-time, put the roof on the credit card, and let it accumulate interest for ten years?

Something tells me you'd choose the first option. So why does Norm choose the credit card? Because he doesn't have to pay for it. He gets to move on, probably to a high-paying gig as a lobbyist, and you get stuck with his credit card bills.

Like this post?
Coleman has a plan to run up Federal deficit	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD4 could be better with McCollum's help

This is the fifth of nine articles in the Daily Liberal Mapping Project. These articles examine Minnesota's voting patterns precinct by precinct, with data from the 2006 election. Perhaps you missed my analysis of CD7, CD6, and CD5?

In this edition of the Daily Liberal Mapping Project, we look at the other central-city Congressional District, CD4. CD4 is the home of Betty McCollum, who has served the district since 2001. The district is pretty much a guaranteed Democratic vote, and it has a lot of similarities to CD5, which we discussed on Monday. However, because the 4th also encompasses a handful of suburbs to the north, it is less overwhelmingly Democratic. It still has a high Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+13.

The 4th not only has a very strong Democratic vote, it generally has party-line voters. Volatility is a measure of variation across races. Precincts with high volatility are those that see a lot of ticket-splitters. As the map below shows, there are only a few districts with volatility higher than the state median.




However, like CD5, CD4 has poor turnout throughout the district, with only a handful of precincts where over 75 percent of eligible voters actually voted. This low turnout seriously harms the DFL's chances in statewide races. The final map illustrates the above point clearly. This map combines voting percentages and turnout into a single measure, the percent of eligible voters that voted for the winning party. Looking at this measure, it is clear how Democrats' majority in CD4 is diluted: only a smattering of precincts had a Democratic vote of over 55 percent of eligible voters, despite the fact that over 85 percent of votes cast were for Democrats. Fixing this problem could provide a huge boost for Al Franken in November.



Unlike in CD5, however, the problem may be less easily fixed in CD4. Keith Ellison is running a major voter registratraion drive in the 5th. In the 4th, not only is there no such thing, but McCollum has not showed any particular desire to help Franken. Without help from McCollum to increase turnout in CD4, Franken will need to launch his own Get-Out-The-Vote campaign there.

Like this post?
Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD4 could be better with McCollum's help	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Rothenberg: Tim Pawlenty won't help McCain

John McCain doesn't have any useful choices for VP. Yes, that includes our very own T-Paw. Despite the fact that he's run this state like his own personal vice-presidential campaign for the last 6 years, political handicapper Stuart Rothenberg doesn't believe he'll add much to the ticket. Here's what he had to say about the VP choices:

Each of the three Democrats mentioned most often -- Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) and Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) -- has very real assets. Any of them would be a good pick for Obama.
...

The Republicans widely regarded as the most likely to be picked by McCain -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- bring much less to the table than do the three Democrats.

Pawlenty, 47, is a personable two-term governor who barely won re-election two years ago. An early McCain supporter, he is conservative enough to make the GOP base happy. But he likely wouldn't bring Minnesota over into the Republican electoral vote column, and he certainly wouldn't change the dynamic of the presidential race.

I couldn't agree more that Pawlenty won't do anything to change the dynamic of the race. It'll be Grandpa McSame and Junior McSame running on the same ticket. Pawlenty's already been reciting McCain's talking points for months now; so who cares if he's the VP choice or not?

Sorry, Junior. I know you've done a lot of damage to this state to help shore up your conservative credentials, but that won't be a substitute for actual achievements if you're running for VP.

Like this post?
Rothenberg: Tim Pawlenty won't help McCain	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

What Tim Walz has been up to

Holy cow, Tim Walz has been busy. If any one of our elected representatives deserves to be re-elected, it's him. Walz has been working his butt of for the people of the 1st district, and for all Minnesotans.

Of course, Ollie Ox over at Bluestem Prairie has also been working hard trying to keep up with him. Here are some of the things he's been up to, courtesy of Bluestem Prairie:

• authored the Middle Class Tax Fairness Act;
  
• wrote a bill increasing reimbursement to veterans for travel to and from VA facilities;
• veterans' pain care management legislation (PASSED by the House);
• wrote an amendment to the bridge bill requiring the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress whether a federal-aid bridge is closed because of a critical inspection finding;
• joined the bipartisan House Energy Working Group in developing a comprehensive energy solution; and
  
• co-sponsored a bill to improve and expand geographic literacy among kindergarten through grade 12 students.

I've only gone back about two weeks in Bluestem Prairie's archives! Walz has just been working his butt off for us. Go check out some of Ollie's posts, then do our state a favor and make a donation to Tim Walz.

Like this post?
What Tim Walz has been up to	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

For Bachmann, truth won't interfere with drilling crusade

Michele Bachmann has made it clear that she wants to drill for oil anywhere and everywhere she possibly can. She doesn't seem to care that it will save us only $1 per barrel by 2030. And she'll say anything she has to in order to win her crusade. You'd think someone who often campaigns on "moral issues" would have a bigger problem with outright lies, but I guess as long as you're lying for the oil companies, it's okay.

Think Progress has the story:

During an interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) today, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham asserted that Congressional Democrats “are acting as the ultimate obstructionists” on energy policy. Bachmann agreed, saying that “this is mission accomplished for them” because they don’t want to “increase American energy resources.”

Gee, that's funny. Because the Republican plan will cost us billions without providing an increase in energy resources for another 22 years. This is the most classic conservative ploy in the playbook: you do something horrible, and then you accuse the other side of doing it instead of yourself. So we shouldn't be surprised about this:

...Bachmann’s claim about who blocked “the tax credit for solar and wind” is flatly false. Just yesterday, the AP reported that “for the fourth time this summer” Senate conservatives blocked action on legislation that would provide “tax credits to an array of renewable energy entrepreneurs”

Maybe Bachmann didn't have time to pay close attention to the goings-on in the Senate, because she was busy campaigning in places like Dallas, TX. I'd love for her to have some excuse for statements like this. Sadly, we've come to expect these lies from her, but the fact that she lies often is hardly an excuse. But, it gets even worse:

...In fact, when the House passed the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 in May, Bachmann voted against it, along with the majority of House Republicans. The bill was then filibustered by Senate Republicans in June.

If this doesn't make your blood boil, it should. Bachmann can't run on the truth, so she's just not bothering. What's crazy is that nobody even bats an eye at this sort of behavior anymore. In fact, Bachmann is using a conservative campaign strategy that has proved immensely successful over the past decade: if you lie loudly enough and for long enough, people will accept what you say as truth. We shouldn't just accept her behavior. We need to hold our politicians to a certain standard of decency, and we should start with Bachmann.

Like this post?
For Bachmann, truth won't interfere with drilling crusade	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Note to Obama: Don't shirk debates

Via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

Sen. Barack Obama "backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall," the AP reports.

Wrote campaign manager David Plouffe: "Due to the late date of the two parties' nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four Commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign."

I'm sorry, but I have to call out Obama's campaign on this. These joint appearances, as I wrote back in June, would be good for our nation's electoral process and its political mood. I also can't help but wonder why Obama would not welcome these debates. Is he really concerned that he would not win them? McCain has been stumbling over his own tongue for weeks now.

I know that, as the front-runner, all Obama's campaign really needs to do is minimize potential mistakes. But he's got to start taking a few more chances or risk losing the "post-partisan" label he's worked so hard for.

Like this post?
Note to Obama: Don't shirk debates	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

McCain and Pawlenty think conserving gas just a joke

John McCain, desperately trying to seize upon the one topic he has some leverage on, derided an aside of Barack Obama's regarding gas conservation. He and Tim Pawlenty seized on a comment Obama made that maintaining proper tire pressure could help save gas. Radio Iowa reports on Pawlenty's comments:

"Barack Obama stood up at a speech recently and said that one of the things that is really important from energy policy from his standpoint is to check the pressure in our tires...".

Clearly, this is a pretty lame statement. Pawlenty and McCain are taking a single line from Obama's comments out of context. That's pretty typical political hack work, but no big deal.

But David Brauer at MinnPost pointed out something amazing:

According to fueleconomy.gov, gas use drops 3.3 percent when tire pressure is right, offering a bigger savings than, say, offshore drilling.

Brauer has a fantastic point here. I've already shown that the conservative energy plan would save us $1 per barrel of oil in 2030. John McCain should avoid taking Obama's comments out of context when even Obama's small ideas pack more of a punch than McCain's major policy initiatives.

Like this post?
McCain and Pawlenty think conserving gas just a joke	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: Franken needs turnout from CD5

This is the fourth of nine articles in the Daily Liberal Mapping Project. These articles examine Minnesota's voting patterns precinct by precinct, with data from the 2006 election. Perhaps you missed my analysis of CD8, CD7, and CD6?

In this edition of the Daily Liberal Mapping Project, we look at the heart of DFL territory, CD5. CD5 is the home of liberal Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. The district is pretty much a guaranteed Democratic vote, and has a very high Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+21.

The 5th not only has a very strong Democratic vote, it generally has party-line voters. Volatility is a measure of variation across races. Precincts with high volatility are those that see a lot of ticket-splitters. As the map below shows, there is not a single district with volatility higher than the state median.




However, there is one thing that stops CD5 from putting more DFLers in office--turnout. Turnout is poor throughout the district, with only a handful of precincts where over 75 percent of eligible voters actually voted. This low turnout seriously harms the DFL's chances in statewide races. The final map illustrates the above point clearly. This map combines voting percentages and turnout into a single measure, the percent of eligible voters that voted for the winning party. Looking at this measure, it is clear how Democrats' majority in CD5 is diluted: only a smattering of precincts had a Democratic vote of over 55 percent of eligible voters, despite the fact that over 85 percent of votes cast were for Democrats. Fixing this problem could provide a huge boost for Al Franken in November.



Keith Ellison's "Explode the Vote" effort to add 20,000 new voters in CD5 is important, but only if those new voters actually vote! After his voter registration drive, Ellison -- with help from Franken -- should plan on a major Get Out the Vote operation. CD5 is also another place where Barack Obama can be expected to have huge coattails. Expect Obama to have a major impact on turnout among CD5's large populations of youth and African-Americans., just as he has throughout his campaign. Depending on his impact, Obama could potentially tip the Senate race toward Franken.

Like this post?
Daily Liberal Mapping Project: Franken needs turnout from CD5	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coming next week...

There probably won't be anything posted on the blog this weekend. I'll have my hands full with a few family functions. I'm also working behind the scenes to put together a more professional-looking blog for your viewing enjoyment.

Next week, I'll be back to full strength. Here are some of the things I have planned:

• Continuing analysis of Norm "W" Coleman's record. Next week, I look at his record on Agriculture.
  
• The Daily Liberal precinct mapping project continues. We've looked at maps for CD8, CD7, and CD6. Next week, we look at CD5, CD4, and CD3.
• Is the Independence Party still relevant? I'll discuss what the recent cross-endorsements of DFL Congressional candidates means.
• As always, commentary and analysis of the news as it happens.
  

Thanks so much for reading, and I hope you'll stay tuned!

Like this post?
Coming next week...	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

The lighter side: CodeWeavers' "Lame Duck Challenge"

Minnesota Software development CodeWeavers has issued a challenge to President Bush, and they're putting their money where their mouth is.

The CodeWeavers Lame Duck Presidential Challenge, which CodeWeavers launches today, will make its software products downloadable for free for 24 hours at www.CodeWeavers.com if President Bush accomplishes at least one of the following goals:

• Reduce gas prices
• Reduce food prices
• Create more jobs
• Rejuvenate the housing market
• Bring Osama Bin-Laden to justice

Details on these goals and the challenge can be found at lameduck.codeweavers.com.

I think this is fantastic, although I don't hold out much hope for Bush coming through on any of these goals. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?

• We already saw earlier today that the Republicans' oil plan is worthless.
• A reduction in food prices is unlikely without a reduction in energy prices.
• After two recession and a "jobless recovery," Bush has made it pretty clear that he can't be trusted to oversee the economy
• Actually, I don't think this one is entirely Bush's fault, but there are still months to go before the housing market clears up.
• Clearly he doesn't care. It sounds horrible, I know. But Bush let Bin-Laden go because he wanted to have a war in Iraq, and I don't believe he is even looking particularly hard.
  

Like this post?
The lighter side: CodeWeavers' "Lame Duck Challenge"	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Republicans' worthless oil plan: more proof

On Wednesday, I showed proof that the Republicans' oil plan won't change prices until 2030. Well, Michele Bachmann is pretty obsessed with $2 a gallon gas, so how are we going to get there? Maybe drilling in ANWR will help?

Bachmann's already been talking crazy about ANWR. Across the Great Divide examines some of her conclusions on the environmental impact in Postage Stamp on a Football Field? More Like a Pile of Horsepuckey.

Well, what about the effect on oil prices? Fortunately, our friends at the Bush Administration have already analyzed the potential price effects. A report by the Energy Information Administration (PDF link) forecasts the price of oil in 2020 under high-yield, low-yield, and medium-yield scenarios in ANWR. In two of those scenarios, the total impact would be less than $1 per barrel! Here's an excerpt from the report:

With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by a similar amount (emphasis added).

So why do the Republicans keep thumping their chests over oil prices? Because they believe they've finally found an issue that will win them political points. In fact, they don't want gas prices to go down before the election. In two previous articles, I showed that Michele Bachmann and John Kline and Norm Coleman voted against measures to lower the price of gas, because they want to score political points with their own plans.

So there you have it. Between ANWR and off-shore drilling, a total savings of $1 per barrel. And in the meantime, we get to stay addicted to oil while our federal government continues to obsess over how to reduce oil prices instead of encouraging the development of alternatives.

Like this post?
Republicans' worthless oil plan: more proof	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Take a moment to remember

The collapse of the I-35W bridge a year ago today was a horrible tragedy that I hope is never repeated, in Minnesota or anywhere else.

Like this post?
Take a moment to remember	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: Hope for Tinklenberg in CD-6

This is the third of nine articles in the Daily Liberal Mapping Project. These articles examine Minnesota's voting patterns precinct by precinct, with data from the 2006 election. Perhaps you missed my analysis of CD8 and CD7?

In this edition of the Daily Liberal Mapping Project, we finally get to a race with a serious Congressional campaign -- the 6th Congressional District. CD6 is the former district of Republican Mark Kennedy and currently held by Republican Michele Bachmann. Elwyn Tinklenberg, a moderate Democrat, is challenging Bachmann for the seat. RealClearPolitics recently called Bachmann one of the most endangered representatives in the country, and but CD6's conservative voting patterns mean a tough race for Tinklenberg. Handicapper Stuart Rothenberg labels the race "favored Republican".

The district voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2006, and has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+5. Almost all of the precincts in the district, except those in the southeastern corner, voted Republican in 2006. However, less than half voted heavily (60% or more) for Republicans, which may indicate an opportunity for Tinklenberg to pick up some votes. MNPublius noted that being cross-endorsed by the Independence Party should help Tinklenberg close the gap. Al Franken, who is more liberal than Tinklenberg, should expect trouble in this district.

Another difficulty for Tinklenberg and Franken may be that 6th district voters are less likely than many Minnesotans to cross party lines. Volatility is a measure of variation across races. Precincts with high volatility are those that see a lot of ticket-splitters. As the map below shows, only a few districts have volatility higher than the state median.

There's one thing keeping this race competitive, which is turnout. Turnout is moderate to poor throughout the district, with one exception -- the democratic-leaning southeastern portion of the district. With John McCain heading the ticket for the Republicans in 2008 and conservatives' enthusiasm at a low, turnout could be even more depressed. Low turnout from Republicans and high turnout from Democrats could make this race seriously competitive.

The final map shows the combined effect of turnout and party preference, and illustrates the above point clearly. This map combines voting percentages and turnout into a single measure, the percent of eligible voters that voted for the winning party. Looking at this measure, there are no precincts that had a high proportion of Republican voters. Democrats, on the other hand, are helped slightly by turnout. Just as McCain's campaign may depress turnout further, expect Obama's candidacy to drive turnout by Democrats. Will his coattails be enough to put Tinklenberg in the House?

Like this post?
Daily Liberal Mapping Project: Hope for Tinklenberg in CD-6	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

My favorite sign from the UnConvention yard sign contest

This makes it clear what a huge dork I am, but that's okay.



See the rest at My Yard, Our Message

Like this post?
My favorite sign from the UnConvention yard sign contest	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Even the food industry favors more regulation

You know the conservatives have been in power too long when even industry groups are clamoring for more regulation. The New York Times reported today that "industry leaders are questioning whether the weak produce-tracking rules that many of them once championed are more a curse than a blessing."

The salmonella outbreak that the FDA was unable to stop cost the tomato industry (which wasn't even the culprit) $100 million. And of course, this wasn't even the first outbreak this year; as a matter of fact, they seem to be getting more and more frequent and the FDA seems completely unable to do anything about it.

Now agriculture interests are starting to realize that what may cost a bit of time and money upfront saves a ton of money in the long run if it can prevent future outbreaks from spreading as quickly and as long as the most recent one. The Bush administration has faithfully deregulated everything it possibly can, so now you can judge for yourself: do you really think deregulation is working?

Like this post?
Even the food industry favors more regulation	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Exxon's record profits part of the high gas price equation

In disgusting, but not surprising news, ExxonMobil once again reported record profits, narrowly beating the previous record held by... ExxonMobil. At a time when high gas prices are hurting consumers at the pump, the grocery store, and everywhere else, ExxonMobil is making record profits. In fact, CNNMoney reports that their profits are $1,485.55 a second.

Is anyone else noticing a pattern here? With gas prices at record highs, gas companies are making record profits. With healthcare costs causing American workers to lose benefits, wages, and even their jobs, companies like UnitedHealth are making a fortune. Am I missing something? If they're making record profits, couldn't they instead lower prices and just make good profits? It's time for a windfall profits tax.

UPDATE: A new website put up by the DSCC, "Bought by Big Oil," shows how profits have gone up since Coleman was elected:

Nobody's saying that oil companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit. But if high oil prices are the only reason gas prices are so high, then shouldn't ExxonMobil be getting squeezed by them too? The fact that their profits are at record number indicates that they are adding a greater markup to their prices than they have in the past, at a time when the American economy just can't afford it.

George Bush and Norm Coleman have been fighting for years to decrease regulation and decrease taxes on some of the largest corporations that are reaming the American public. It's time to restore regulation and stop giving corporate welfare to companies that don't have our best interests in mind. We should require that oil companies give back a portion of their record-breaking profits by enacting a windfall profits tax today.

Like this post?
Exxon's record profits part of the high gas price equation	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Shrinking GOP: Is the GOP becoming a regional party?

In June, I would have been the first to say that the GOP's problems this year were just a temporary phenomenon. But suddenly we've been deluged with news that indicated serious long-term problems for the GOP. They have become the Incredible Shrinking GOP.

---

I'm not the only one who has claimed that the GOP may lose their grasp on power for the next ten years. The National Committee for an Effective Congress claims that the GOP has been "reduced to a regional party." NCEC suggests that two reasons for Democrats' recent election success are that Democratic incumbents have proven stronger than Republican incumbents, and that open seats strongly favor Democratic pickups (open seats are mostly from Republican retirements, and Democrats are winning more open seats than Republicans).

But NCEC's argument with the farthest-reaching consequences is the argument that the GOP is relying more and more on its regional strength in the South.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in 1994, they held a majority of seats in the Midwest, South and West and 33 of 66 House districts in the Mid-Atlantic states . Clearly, the Republicans were a national party. Moreover, Republicans gained 10 House seats in southern and border states two years later, in 1996. Still, Democrats retained 43% of all southern and border congressional districts after the '96 election.

The outcome of elections since 1996 has exposed a far larger problem for Republicans, than Democrats faced in the South. More than 46% of Republican House seats emanate from southern and border states, possessing only 28% of House seats nationally.

[NCEC has a great graph of Republican House seats by region. Click here to check it out.]

If the Republicans are isolated as a regional party, dominant in the South, competitive in the Midwest but hopelessly outnumbered on both coasts, their chances of regaining a majority of the House in the near future are remote (emphasis added).

I'm not totally on board with this argument yet, but it represents a potential worst-case scenario for the GOP. I believe that the Republicans could be in major trouble, but I don't believe the Democrats are ready to take advantage. Next week, I'll talk about what the Democrats need to do to lay the groundwork for marginalizing the Republican party.

Like this post?
Shrinking GOP: Is the GOP becoming a regional party?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman's out-of-touch record: veterans

This is the sixth in a series of weekly articles exposing Norm "W" Coleman's record on the issues. All data in this series comes from CQ Weekly.

Previous articles cover Coleman's record on transportation, transportation security, the environment, education, and employment.

---

2003

Coleman started his record on veterans by voting AGAINST an amendment that would increase spending on veterans' programs by approximately $1 billion and put the same amount toward deficit reduction. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 74)

He then voted against a proposal that would have made it easier for veterans to return to their jobs. He voted AGAINST an amendment would allow a 50 percent tax credit on the salaries employers pay workers who are in the National Guard or Reserves and have been put on active duty. I would have thought he would at least support veterans if it involved giving a tax cut.

2004

Proving that the richest Americans are more important to him than the troops, Coleman voted AGAINST an amendment that would create a reserve fund that would allow up to $2.7 billion in additional spending for veterans' medical programs. It also would increase the amount dedicated for deficit reduction by $2.7 billion. The spending would be offset by reducing tax breaks for taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million per year (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 34). I've written previously about the long-term damage Bush and Coleman are doing by putting this war on a credit card instead of asking Americans, even the very wealthiest, to make sacrifices for their country.

Coleman also voted AGAINST a similar amendment to create a reserve fund that would allow up to $1.8 billion in additional spending for veterans' medical programs. The spending would be offset by revenue increases. (SENATE ROLL CALL 40)

Finally in 2004, Coleman voted AGAINST an amendment to authorize an increase in health benefits for veterans by keeping discretionary spending at fiscal 2004 levels. Yes, you read that right: he voted against increasing health benefits for troops who were being wounded every single day. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 145)

2005

This time, he voted FOR an amendment that would increase funding for veterans health care by $2.8 billion for fiscal 2006 and reduce the deficit by $2.8 billion. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 55) What changed? No idea.

He also voted AGAINST an amendment that would increase funding for veterans' health care by $1.98 billion and designate it as emergency spending. It's really amazing -- President Bush spends billions of dollars on the Iraq war and designates them as emergency spending, and Coleman is willing to look the other way. But on funding for veterans' health, suddenly he's a budget hawk? (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 89)

In what may be the most callous vote he's ever made, he voted AGAINST an amendment which would allow health care funding for veterans to be adjusted to account for changes in population and inflation. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 251)

Finally, he once again chose the wealthy over our soldiers by voting AGAINST an amendment which would provide an additional $500 million per year for the next five years for mental health services for veterans. It would be offset by deferring tax cuts for those making $1 million per year. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 343)

2006
Continuing his trend of voting against veterans' health care, he voted AGAINST four different bills to increase funding for veterans' health care. (SENATE ROLL CALL 7) (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 41) (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 63) (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 111)

At least he voted for one amendment, which would add $430 million for outpatient and inpatient health care and treatment for veterans. Of course, the bill required the president to request the emergency funds in order for it to be spent, and it passed nearly unanimously. But I guess it's better than nothing. (SENATE ROLL CALL 98)

The bottom line: Norm "W" Coleman's record on veterans' issues, particularly healthcare, is horrific. As far as I'm concerned, he loses the right to say he supports the troops. It seems pretty clear to me that the only thing he supports is sending more of them to die in Iraq.

Like this post?
Coleman's out-of-touch record: veterans	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

The Federal deficit, and a prediction

By the time Barack Obama is inaugurated, George W. Bush's federal deficit will be near the all-time record high, which of course he also set. CBS news reports:

The Bush administration sent its final budget request to Congress last week, projecting that the deficit for all of 2008 will total $410 billion, very close to the all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004.

Remember when we had a surplus under Clinton? I'm just barely old enough to remember what it was like when our Federal government actually functioned.

Of course, just because they're out of power doesn't mean Republicans will stop playing political games. I want to make a prediction about the deficit: by this time next year, the Republicans will be calling it the "Obama deficit." You heard it here, folks. Once it happens, don't let them get away with it!

Like this post?
The Federal deficit, and a prediction	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Obama on offshore drilling

Barack Obama had some fantastic comments on offshore drilling. From CNN:

"The oil companies are shoving this thing down the throats of Congress, because they know everybody wants to try to pretend they're doing something about the energy crisis,” Obama said. “This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say its one of the ways that a majority of Americans think we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real."

"I understand how desperate folks are. If I thought that I could provide you some immediate relief on gas by drilling off the shores of California and New Jersey… I'd do it.”

But the Democratic presidential candidate added, "The soonest you would see any drop of oil from drilling off our shores would be 10 years from now….The most you would end up saving 10 years or 20 years from now would be a few cents on the gallon, although at that point, I figure oil might be $12 a gallon."

Citing the oil companies' record profits, Obama charged that they are, "making money hand-over fist, they're making out like bandits."

Obama then proposed his own answers....

I'd love to post his plan too, but a sense of decency tells me I shouldn't just copy and paste the entire article. We'll definitely talk about solutions here on the blog in coming weeks. For now, please go check it out.

Like this post?
Obama on offshore drilling	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

The Republican oil plan: wait for 2030

UPDATE: follow El Tinklenberg's energy tour today at Liberal in the Land of Conservative.

Regular readers may have noticed that I've been pontificating quite a bit on gas prices and Republican's claims that they can improve prices. I'm going to continue writing about the price of oil, because it's become one of the most important issues of this election and I'm not about to let the Republicans fool Americans into thinking they have a real plan.

Republicans like Michele Bachmann and Norm Coleman are trying to claim that if we just expand oil drilling, we'll see a magical decrease to $2/gal. Unfortunately, not only is this untrue, but drilling won't even have any effect at all.

A 2007 study by the Energy Information Administration -- a part of the Bush administration -- did some forecasts for increased offshore drilling. The agency assumed technically recoverable oil resources would increase by 18 billion barrels -- 15 billion barrels more than Norm "W" Coleman estimates in his offshore-drilling plan. But the EIA finds that it doesn't help:

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030 (emphasis added)

So why do the Republicans keep thumping their chests over oil prices? Because they believe they've finally found an issue that will win them political points. In fact, they don't want gas prices to go down before the election. In two previous articles, I showed that Michele Bachmann and John Kline and Norm Coleman voted against measures to lower the price of gas, because they want to score political points with their own plans.

I wish we liberals could offer you a quick and easy plan to lower gas prices. Unfortunately, we are intellectually honest. There is no longer an easy fix. Global oil prices will continue rising, and our best option is to switch to alternative energy sources. But because we have relied on oil for so long with absolutely no backup mechanism, it's going to take a while to get ourselves to the point where we can seriously consider alternatives. In the meantime, Democrats like Tim Walz are pursuing common-sense strategies like a middle-class tax cut to help offset the price of gas. But let's not set ourselves back even further by obsessing with oil and continuing to ignore alternative energy sources.

Like this post?
The Republican oil plan: wait for 2030	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD-7

This is the second of nine articles in the Daily Liberal Mapping Project. These articles examine Minnesota's voting patterns precinct by precinct, with data from the 2006 election. Perhaps you missed my analysis of CD8?

In this edition of the Daily Liberal Mapping Project, we look at the 7th Congressional District. CD7, home to Democratic Representative Collin Peterson, tends to be quite moderate. Peterson turned the district bluer with his election in 1990, and was a founding member of the Blue Dog Democrats, a moderate group which describes itself as"a policy-oriented group to give moderate and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives a common sense, bridge-building voice within the institution." The district voted largely Democratic in 2006. Approximately half of the precincts voted over 60% Democratic, but about one third voted Republican.

However, nothing is guaranteed in the 7th, where voters are far more likely to split their tickets than the typical Minnesotan. Volatility is a measure of variation across races, and precincts with high volatility are those that see a lot of ticket-splitters.

The map at right shows that almost the entire district is full of voters willing to cross party lines. In 2006, the district voted 56% for Amy Klobuchar, but 54% for Tim Pawlenty. This has long been a safe seat for Peterson; the question will be how Al Franken fares with the volatile CD7 voters. In the more socially-conservative 7th, Franken must persuade voters to focus on his fiscal policies. CD7 readers, what do you think: will the 7th swing for Franken or against him?

Turnout in the district is fair; it falls pretty much in the middle of the state's districts in turnout as well as ideology. There are pockets of both heavy and light turnout scattered throughout the district. Of course, when it's uncertain which Senate candidate the district will vote for, it's hard to say whether this bodes well for Franken. His best bet would be a good internal polling mechanism to determine which precincts need to see a big get-out-the-vote effort.

The final map shows the combined effect of turnout and party preference. This map combines voting percentages and turnout into a single measure, the percent of eligible voters that voted for the winning party.

This map shows that turnout is somewhat higher in Democratic-leaning precincts. There are at least a handful of precincts where high percentages of eligible voters voted Democratic. In 2006, turnout worked to the Democrats' advantage. Whether it will work to Al Franken's advantage like it did to Amy Klobuchar's remains to be seen. Maximizing gains in the 7th will require a very savvy field operation by the Franken campaign to isolate its strongest precincts and drive turnout there.

Like this post?
Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD-7	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

After negative ad, Coleman changes tactics

Remember Coleman's nasty ad last week? Well, I predicted people wouldn't be fooled, and it looks like I was right. After engaging in a brief round of character assassination, Coleman returned with a heartwarming human interest story, a far cry from the negative campaigning I was expecting to continue throughout the race.

I can't help but wonder why Coleman decided to back off. Has Coleman's internal polling shown a negative response to his nasty politics? His negative ad was immediately followed by a great ad from Franken; are Coleman's pollsters finally seeing a rise in the polls for Franken?

I'm looking forward to the next round of polls to see if Coleman knows something we don't yet.

Here's the text of Coleman's new ad, via Political Animal:

"Wyatt was diagnosed with Wilms' Tumor, which is a form of childhood kidney cancer in February of 2004. On a routine screening, they found a spot on his right kidney. We knew that there needed to be more research done for Wilms' Tumor, because the drugs that we were using were drugs that were developed in the 1960s. We attended a meeting for CureSearch, and within two hours of being in the meeting, we knew that there was no funding for childhood cancer. We had eight meetings that day, and Senator Coleman's office was the last meeting of the day. We knew before we left his office that he was going to help us do something about the lack of funding for Childhood Cancer. And then in the months after that, Senator Coleman authored the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. Senator Coleman is a lifeline for every family of a child who has been diagnosed with cancer. He's not just my Senator. He's my friend."

UPDATE: The ad is also inaccurate. More from Political Animal:

In the ad, a mother whose child with cancer says that in 2004 she "attended a meeting for CureSearch, and within two hours of being in the meeting, we knew that there was no funding for childhood cancer."

But that's not quite true. Murphy found that the White House was celebrating cancer research funding in 2004 but the oops gets a little bigger. According to this press release CureSearch got $2.75 million in 2006 -- and it was the third year of the organization getting such federal cash. That means in 2004 CureSearch itself got funding for childhood cancer research.

Like this post?
After negative ad, Coleman changes tactics	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

BREAKING: Pawlenty to govern Minnesota from RV

Breaking news below. Can't say I didn't see this coming.

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Tired of having to occasionally return to St. Paul to govern, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty today announced a solution. Pawlenty's new "mobile office," a Gulf Stream Cavalier RV, will allow him to spend more time in what he called "imporant places" such as Iowa, Ohio, and Florida.

The mobile office will be equipped with all the essentials for continuing his work on behalf of Minnesotans: a desk, a veto pen, and a half dozen press secretaries.

Pawlenty has been campaigning for Vice President for the past six years, and he has also been Governor of Minnesota during that same period. In the last crucial weeks of campaigning for Vice President, Pawlenty said, "I simply need to prioritize and focus on what's important." He still hopes to be able to shore up his conservative credentials a bit further by identifying several essential services that can be cut from the Minnesota budget in between policy speeches and photo-ops.

Pawlenty will be spending the next several weeks as he has spent the last two months: working full-time as a surrogate for John McCain. He is expected to visit Illinois, Arizona, and several other states during the coming weeks. He is not expected to make an appearance in Minnesota, as his staff is concerned that poor road conditions may damage the mobile office.

Like this post?
BREAKING: Pawlenty to govern Minnesota from RV	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

DFL legislators will try to fix MnDOT

I wrote yesterday about how MnDOT under Pawlenty doesn't seem to care about crumbling highways. It's an understatement to say that we need to restore the public's trust in MnDOT, but at least that's a start. So while Pawlenty is traipsing around the country for McCain, five DFL legislators have a plan to fix the department.

The recommendations include:

• Ensure bridges are inspected at least once every 12 months
• Include safety in the department’s mission statement
• Planning requirements must include performance targets
• The commissioner or deputy commissioner must be a professional engineer
• An annual report on bridge inspection quality assurance
• A state salary cap exception would be allowed for MnDOT engineers.

These policy changes should not cost additional money, and might actually save money. There are two big lessons we should take from this piece of news:

First, the DFL is the party of fiscal responsibility; they have found cheap solutions to help a chronically underfunded department. While the DFL has often needed to raise taxes, that's a sign of just how poorly funded our state has become. Overall, the DFL is great at doing more with less.

Second, the GOP is incompetent. We already know that they don't want to spend money on infrastructure; they'd rather give it to the wealthiest 1 percent. But there are solutions out there that don't require extra money. Why haven't Republicans adopted these solutions? Because they're not interested in governing--they're interested in showing that the government is incompetent.

Like this post?
DFL legislators will try to fix MnDOT	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Paulsen on Iraq: 3 positions in one answer

We all know that Erik Paulsen refuses to take a position on Iraq. He doesn't have any position listed on his website, but that's no surprise--his website is pretty much devoid of content. Chris Truscott tried valiantly to nail down Paulsen's position, but that's more difficult than it sounds -- because he apparently has at least three.

Paulsen's possible positions include the following:

1. “It is absolutely critical that the phase-down we’ve seen in troop levels continues.”
2. “It’s really pure folly for any congressional candidate or anyone to say that they know best or what the timeline should be. That’s kind of how we got into this mess in the first place.”
3. The Iraqi government should move forward with their timeline for withdrawal. (see MNBlue for some commentary on each of his positions)
   

So, a quick recap: either he's decided he agrees with Ashwin Madia's common-sense policy on Iraq, or he has no idea what to do, or he doesn't want to have anything to do with it. Wow. Paulsen managed to cram an impressive lack of leadership into one short sound bite.

It seems to me that Paulsen's lack of position pretty much sums up his approach to the whole race. He's hoping that people will just accept that he's "like Jim Ramstad," and he won't have to articulate his positions on the issues. He knows that he's sunk once people start asking for his positions on the issues. Not only doesn't he have any positions, but he seems quite willing to admit that he doesn't even know what to do.

Like this post?
Paulsen on Iraq: 3 positions in one answer	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Does Norm really care about gas prices?

It might not surprise you that the answer is "no." He doesn't care about your price at the pump; all he cares about is increasing profits for the oil companies that have donated $210,000 to his campaign. That's the only possible reason for some of his ridiculous votes and fuzzy math.

Let's look at his ridiculous votes first. Coleman's campaign said he "voted against last week's [proposal to reduce oil speculation] because it lacked an offshore provision." Let me see if I understand this correctly: Coleman believes that oil speculation is hurting Americans, but he won't fix it unless we allow more drilling to increase oil companies' windfall profits. Clearly, Coleman's not being motivated by a desire to help Minnesotans.

Now, in the fuzzy math department, Coleman has essentially admitted that his offshore drilling plan is useless. He has criticized Al Franken's plan to sell 50 million barrels from the strategic oil reserve between now and election day, saying it would make only an "incremental difference." But Franken's plan would provide at least 30% more oil per day than Coleman's plan for offshore drilling.

Now, I'll admit I don't believe Franken's plan will be helpful. Why? Because adding small amounts of oil to the supply in a global market hardly causes prices to budge. The exact same principle applies to Coleman and Bachmann's plans to dramatically expand drilling, just to produce an amount of oil Coleman has already admitted will not have an impact on prices. So, if Coleman admits that this won't lower prices, why is he so focused on offshore drilling? You guessed it: $210,000 is a lot of money.

Like this post?
Does Norm really care about gas prices?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Thanks Republicans! I didn't want that money anyway.

George W. Bush and the Republicans' plan to redistribute Americans' income to the wealthiest 1 percent is working quite well. The Republicans, while claiming they're looking out for "regular folks", have been cutting services for the middle class and transferring the savings to the wealthiest Americans.

The Wall Street Journal reported today:

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data. Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years.

I don't know that it's possible to be overly horrified at this. We are returning to the robber-baron period of the 1920s, after decades of progress on income inequality. And what's worse, the Republicans are telling us that we should continue to lower the taxes on the wealthiest.

The wealthiest in our country owe this nation everything. Our nation's strong economy, its investments in infrastructure and education, its preeminence in the world, and its healthy middle class have provided the foundation on which entrepreneurs have built their fortunes. Without the platform provided by our nation and its citizens, they would have nothing, and they, more than anyone, have cause to give back.

We once had a system in which we invested in our citizens, and anyone could dream of one day being wealthy. But now, our Republican government has decided to kill the American dream--if you're rich, you'll stay rich, and if you're poor, you'll stay poor. Over the last 20 years, they've shown that they have absolutely no connection with what has made our country the greatest nation. They can wear flag pins all they want; their policies show that they don't love this country, they just love themselves.

Like this post?
Thanks Republicans! I didn't want that money anyway.	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

The problem with the immigration debate: the "illegal" part

Immigration reform has been in the news steadily for a couple of years now, including an article in the Star Tribune today on the continuing fallout of the raids on Postville, Iowa.

Our immigration system's problem is clear to me: the laws don't match the market reality. Our market has an incredible appetite for immigrant workers, and indeed it always has. That's why dozens of immigrant groups have managed to find success in our country, and why we have such an incredible diversity of cultures here. Only now, at a time when there is a huge demand for Hispanic workers, our laws don't allow them into the country in adequate numbers.

The sentiments of one Star Tribune commenter are easy to understand: "If you are here legally, welcome. My grandparents did it the right way. If you are not here legally, GET OUT and do it the right way." After all, why shouldn't everyone be required to respect the law? The answer is that respecting the law is almost impossible when the law is broken. I'm sure most of these undocumented workers would like nothing more than to stop looking over their shoulders, worrying about immigration raids. Let's give them the opportunity to respect the law AND make a living by reforming our immigration laws to allow adequate numbers of immigrants each year.

Like this post?
The problem with the immigration debate: the "illegal" part	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD-8

This is the first of nine articles in the Daily Liberal Mapping Project. These articles examine Minnesota's voting patterns precinct by precinct, with data from the 2006 election. Update: see maps for other districts.

In the first edition of the Daily Liberal Mapping Project, we look at the 8th Congressional District. CD8, home to Jim Oberstar, is certainly a safe seat for the Congressman this year. However, the district is also crucial for Al Franken.

The district voted overwhelmingly Democratic in 2006. Approximately half of the precincts voted over 60% Democratic, and over two-thirds of all precincts voted for at least 50% Democratic. The only stragglers are in the southwest of the district.



Many of the Republican areas in the southwest are willing to split their ticket. Volatility is a measure of variation across races. Precincts with high volatility are those that see a lot of ticket-splitters. Franken may thus have an opportunity to pick up more votes in the southwest of the district. On the other hand, he needs to make sure not to lose votes in the northeast.



Turnout in the district is strong, but it's pretty equally strong in both Democratic and Republican areas. Already-strong turnout means it will be hard for Franken to increase Democratic turnout. Of course, if anything could drive Democratic turnout, it's Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. It's unlikely that Republican turnout will decrease, because 2006 was already a pretty low-turnout year.



The final map shows the combined effect of turnout and party preference. This map combines voting percentages and turnout into a single measure, the percent of eligible voters that voted for the winning party. There is still some additional room for improvement by Franken this year, as Democrats received over 55 percent of the possible vote in very few precincts in 2006. This could be achieved either by higher turnout or a higher proportion of Democratic votes. I have a feeling Franken will be happy for Barack Obama's presence on the ticket, which should help to increase both.

Like this post?
Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD-8	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Our literally crumbling infrastructure

I frequently write about how Tim Pawlenty's budget cuts have left us with what I call "our crumbling infrastructure." Did you think I was just exaggerating to make a point? Well, check out this story from WCCO:

ST. PAUL (WCCO) ― Drivers heading north on Interstate 35E got a bit of a scare Saturday afternoon. A chunk of concrete fell off the Maryland Avenue Bridge in St. Paul and struck two cars. One car had damage to its hood, the other to its windshield.

That part of I-35E was shut down in both directions at 5 p.m. while the bridge was inspected. Inspectors said the piece of concrete that fell was a 4-foot by 4-foot piece of concrete that was 3 inches thick.

...

Last August, Maryland Avenue bridge was inspected and received a sufficiency rating of 77. If a bridge receives a sufficiency rating less than 80, it is eligible for federal rehabilitation funding. MnDOT said that doesn't mean the bridge isn't safe.

Our infrastructure is literally falling apart. And while the Republicans were trying to convince us that we should put all of our transportation fixes on a credit card, courageous DFL legislators authored a solution, with the help of the "Override Six." The gas tax wasn't popular, but sometimes hard decisions need to be made, and kudos to them for having the political courage to do what was needed.

The Pawlenty administration, on the other hand, continue to have a horrendous attitude about transportation. A MnDOT spokesperson acted as if the latest news was no big deal by saying "It's basically the same type of situation as like when your sidewalk starts breaking apart due to weather and the salt and just the elements." No big deal--35E is just breaking apart. So here's a question for all of you: are you willing to pay an extra 5 cents per gallon to stop 1200-pound chunks of our freeways from falling on us? I know I sure am.

Like this post?
Our literally crumbling infrastructure	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coming next week...

Thanks so much to all of my readers! After just a couple short weeks, the blog is getting a lot of attention--and I have you to thank for it!

I've got some good stuff planned for next week:

• Continuing analysis of Norm "W" Coleman's record. You won't believe how often he's voted against veterans' benefits.
• I'll explain why the Republicans' "Drill Here, Drill There, Drill Everywhere" plan won't help ease the pain at the pump.
• The Daily Liberal precinct mapping project begins. For the next three weeks, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, we'll explore the political climate in each of Minnesota's congressional district, with maps that show the characteristics of each precinct.

I hope you'll stay tuned!

Like this post?
Coming next week...	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Gays in the military: stupidest controversy ever?

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has finally been getting a bit of debate in the U.S. House. While this debate has been going on, it's struck me just how crazy the whole "controversy" of gays in the military is. What exactly is the problem here?

There's no controversy about letting gay people be policemen, firemen, or any other type of public servants. And why should there be? Like most American workers, they do their jobs professionally and save romance for their personal time. The whole idea of banning people from work based on their sexual orientation makes no sense. Can you imagine telling someone he can't be an accountant because he's gay?

I just can't understand exactly what sort of calamity we think would happen if openly gay soldiers were serving in the military. Can somebody please explain?

Like this post?
Gays in the military: stupidest controversy ever?	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

The Shrinking GOP: Iowa edition

In June, I would have been the first to say that the GOP's problems this year were just a temporary phenomenon. But suddenly we've been deluged with news that indicated serious long-term problems for the GOP. They have become the Incredible Shrinking GOP.

---

On Monday (sorry it's taken so long to post), the New York Times's political blog, The Caucus, ran a short article explaining that Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) will not be given a vote at the Republican National Convention. Why? Because the state party, at the behest of increasingly powerful social conservatives, took it away from him.

This shows that social conservatives are really shoving the party to the extreme right. To not allow a sitting Republican Senator to vote at his own party's convention is a bold statement. Essentially, they are penalizing him for any time he worked across the aisle to get things done. In this session of Congress, Grassley voted with his own party 85 percent of the time--the fact that it's not enough for the conservatives shows just how far right they're pushing their party.

In 2000 and 2004, social conservatives turned out in droves to help elect George W. Bush. But now that's not enough for them. They need to control the party, even if it's clear that having them in control isn't good for the party. With the extremist social conservatives in control, the GOP will be competitive in fewer states, and it will attract fewer voters in those states. If the Democrats' 50-state strategy pays off and Democrats learn to communicate better (something I'll address more in future weeks), they could seriously marginalize the GOP for the next decade.

Like this post?
The Shrinking GOP: Iowa edition	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Great Franken ad turns race back to issues

Despite all of his negative ads and attempts to change the subject, Norm "W" Coleman is going to have to debate the issues sometime. Now, Franken has responded to Norm's negativity with a great ad that expresses remorse for some of his past jokes, and then steers the conversation back to the issues.

From the script:

I'm not proud of every joke I've ever told, but I know there's a difference between what you say as a comedian and what you do as a U.S. Senator. Norm Coleman has supported George Bush's war on Iraq, and he's taking millions from big oil and special interests. Unfortunately, that's no joke.

Last week, I wrote that Franken's new communications director had to do three things:

1. Institute a "zero-tolerance policy" against Norm Coleman's attacks.
   
2. Re-introduce Al to Minnesotans.
   
3. Relentlessly turn the conversation to the issues, where Coleman is the most vulnerable.

I think this ad accomplishes at least two of those goals, if not all three. Bravo to Team Franken for turning things around!

Here's the ad:

Like this post?
Great Franken ad turns race back to issues	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Surprise! I-35W closed again

In a continuing story about the growing incompetence and underfunding at MnDOT, I-35W is scheduled to be closed once again this weekend. The Star Tribune reports that the road will be closed to traffic between I-494 and the crosstown on Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights. Last weekend, the entire stretch between downtown and the Crosstown was closed for the entire weekend.

It used to be that MnDOT could complete construction while maintaining open lanes to keep traffic in the regional flowing relatively smoothly. But that was before Tim Pawlenty, thinking about a future VP offer instead of how to do what's best for our state, slashed funding for transportation. That led to MnDOT's embarrasing request to contractors to front the money for the I-35W project--which, of course, nobody agreed to. Now, to save money, they seem to be closing the highway every weekend.

If you've been driving at all this summer, you're well aware of the number of roads closed every weekend. MnDOT is trying to save money, but the taxpayers are paying for it anyway--we're just paying at the pump instead of through our taxes. This is particularly outrageous at a time of $4/gal gas. Thank god, after the DFL legislature's transportation funding plan, things should be better next year.

Like this post?
Surprise! I-35W closed again	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

MNGOP hurls nastygrams with a smile

On Wednesday, I wrote about Norm "W" Coleman's first negative ad. Coleman tries to hide his negative ad behind smiling actors. But will anyone really fall for that?

Coleman's ads remind me a lot of Mark Kennedy's ads from 2006. Both went negative early, and both tried to pretend that they weren't going negative by throwing mud with a smile. Of course, it didn't help Mark Kennedy at all. He got trounced by Amy Klobuchar.

Norm, Minnesotans are smarter than you think we are. Please adjust your campaign accordingly.

Here's the Coleman ad:


And one of Kennedy's ads from the last election:

Like this post?
MNGOP hurls nastygrams with a smile	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Bachmann announces plan to drill entire Twin Cities metro

Note: this article is satire. To the best of my knowledge, Michele Bachmann has never proposed this.

---

Michele Bachmann has finally found an answer to her low-gas-prices crusade. The press release follows below:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Michele Bachmann (R-MN) today announced a plan that she claimed would bring gas prices down to a historic low of $0.34/gal. Bachmann's plan would significantly expand domestic oil drilling by drilling every square inch of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.

Bachmann demanded that her plan be immediately moved to the first item of business. "Congress is wasting their time trying to conserve energy and develop alternative energy sources," wrote Bachmann in a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, "when the answer to our energy problems is so obvious." In light of the problem being solved by her bill, Bachmann subsequently voted against five different bills intended to make a dent in gas prices.

Independent experts have refuted most of Bachmann's claims, saying that there is no oil under the Twin Cities. Bachmann, however, claims that they simply do not want gas prices to decrease. She pointed to a Heritage Foundation study that showed drilling the entire Twin Cities region would result in an immediate 90 percent decrease in the price of oil worldwide. In addition, Bachmann's bill would fund investments in new technology to obtain oil from asphalt, which is abundant in Twin Cities parking lots.

Residents of Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and all of their suburbs will have 3 days from passage of the bill to move out of their homes.

Like this post?
Bachmann announces plan to drill entire Twin Cities metro	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?