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?

Some thoughts during Obama's speech

I've been listening live to Barack Obama's speech in Germany, and I just wanted to share a few things that came to mind while I listened:

1. The amount of international goodwill Obama already has can only help our foreign policy.
2. It's fantastic that the concept of "global citizenship" is catching on, and I hope it continues to grow.
   
3. It is horrific that Obama should even need to say that we should reject torture.
4. Obama celebrates our history of acceptance and tolerance and the number of languages spoken in our country, while those on the right are actively trying to rid us of Hispanic immigrants.

Please share your thoughts below.

Like this post?
Some thoughts during Obama's speech	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Why Pawlenty for VP would be good for DFL

With Bobby Jindal saying he will not be VP, the shortlist seems to be down to just Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. And now, Political Insider indicates that McCain may have a surprise announcement today. I don't know that it will be a Veep announcement--I've already explained why I think that's a bad idea. Nevertheless, there is certainly a ton of buzz over Pawlenty's chances.

I'm all for T-Paw being selected as McCain's VP choice. And here's why: This is our best chance to get rid of him. DFLers, let's be honest with ourselves: Tim Pawlenty has been kicking our butts. He was one of the very few Republican governors to win re-election in 2006, and he has generally outmaneuvered DFLers in the Legislature. I sure as heck don't want him here for a third term.

He and McCain will almost definitely lose the election, which might signal a Pawlenty presidential run in 2012. That could lead to him trying to shore up his conservative credentials here at home (i.e. by slashing our services some more), but I don't think he would be successful. It would become easy for DFL legislators to paint him as someone who answers to Washington and not Minnesotans, and hopefully it would also become easier to pick up a few moderate Republican votes to override vetos. Perhaps more importantly, it would definitely mean no third term for Pawlenty.

On the off chance that McCain wins, the upside would be getting rid of Tim Pawlenty. With Carol Molnau as governor, the veto pen would lose its power. Pawlenty relied on his likeability and his ability to communicate with voters to maintain control of the legislature and outmaneuver the DFL. Between increased DFL majorities and a governor who nobody particularly cares for, I can't see Molnau ever successfully upholding a veto.

A Pawlenty pick would be great for Minnesota, because we could finally start undoing all the damage he's caused. So Senator McCain, I'm begging you: get him out of our life today.

Like this post?
Why Pawlenty for VP would be good for DFL	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman's out-of-touch record: transportation security

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

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

---

Did you think that transportation security was an obvious opportunity for bipartisan agreement? Did you think that only a maniac could vote against securing our planes, trains, and cargo ships? Well, then you haven't been following the career of Norm "W" Coleman. The following is a list of some of Coleman's most egregious votes against securing our transportation networks:

2003

Coleman voted to privatize core air traffic control functions, system specialists and maintenance of systems and flight service stations. You've seen what the privatized TSA program is like; do you really want to outsource our transportation security?

2004

Coleman voted AGAINST an amendment to increase funding for rail and transit security by $350 million (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 181). This is such a small number, when you consider the amount of damage that could be done in an attack. Coleman's vote against this is nothing short of disgusting.

2005

This was a banner year for Coleman in terms of voting against our security.

First, he voted AGAINST an amendment which would appropriate approximately $302 million for aviation security programs (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 180). Well, it's not like anyone has ever attacked our aviation system, right?

Immediately after that, he voted AGAINST appropriating $70 million to the Transportation Security Administration to identify and track shipments of hazardous materials by truck using global positioning system (GPS) technology (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 181).

Next, he voted AGAINST an amendment that would provide an additional $100 million for transportation and infrastructure grants, increase port security grant funding by $50 million to $200 million and increase intercity bus security grants to $15 million (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 185).

He did vote for one amendment supporting transit security grants. This bill would have provided $1.2 billion for transit security (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 186); I have no idea why he would support this bill and vote against the others. Well, at least one out of four ain't bad... no, wait it stinks. Unfortunately, the only amendment Coleman voted for was voted down by the rest of the Republicans.

2006

Coleman wrote an amendment that would require the screening of all high-risk maritime cargo inbound to the United States (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 245). Sounds good, right? Well, not so fast.

He wrote this amendment because he voted AGAINST an amendment that would require the Homeland Security secretary to develop a plan for scanning all of the cargo containers destined for and departing from the United States (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 246). So I suppose he's in favor of inbound cargo being safe, just not that safe. And outbound cargo? Who cares?

2007

Once again, he voted AGAINST scan all cargo entering the United States (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 56). I want to explain here: the 9-11 Commission said that the technology to do this effectively was a few years in the future. This bill would have given the Department of Homeland Security five years to put the technology in place to screen cargo efficiently and economically. So how could Coleman oppose screening cargo?

The bottom line: Norm "W" Coleman has consistently voted against funding for transportation security. And even when he voted for something, he was usually voting for the weaker of several options. That's just unacceptable. I can't think of many votes that were more important to this country, and Coleman shirked his responsibility to keep us safe.

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

Sen. John Marty: cut transit fares to 25 cents

John Marty, DFL-Roseville, is the my hero of the week for an editorial printed in MinnPost. Here's an excerpt:

$4-per-gallon gas is causing great hardship, but Minnesota can turn that problem into an opportunity to protect the environment, reduce traffic congestion, and help low- and middle-income people cope, simply by substantially cutting public transit fares.

Unfortunately, just when we should be increasing bus and rail ridership, the Metropolitan Council proposes to move us in the opposite direction by raising fares. Boosting fares reduces ridership, while cutting fares increases it.

The Met Council's decision to raise fares due to higher fuel prices and insufficient funding is not surprising, but it is disappointing. When these higher fares reduce the number of riders, it simultaneously increases the number of auto trips, which in turn produces more congestion and wear and tear on roads.

What if we tried a bold new approach to transit and transportation issues? Imagine what would happen if we were to reduce all transit fares to 25 cents per ride. Experience from around the country shows that ridership would soar. The biggest problem with such a change would be that Minnesota's transit systems would be unable to handle all the passengers.

Sen. Marty is spot on here. Gas prices are killing us, and there's a way that we could lessen the burden. Instead of spending all of our money to build new roads that nobody can afford to drive on, we could dramatically improve transit access, to the point where it's even convenient in the suburbs. As Marty writes, "This proposal would require a significant increase in state support for transit systems to make up for their lost fare revenue and higher costs. But it would be the least expensive way to handle growing congestion and reduce auto emissions."

I can hear most of you right now: "Why should we subsidize transit?" Well, the fact is that all transportation is subsidized. According to the Department of Finance (PDF link), in the 2008-2009 biennium we allocated approximately $5 billion to transportation. The gas tax pays for approximately $1.3 billion. Which means that even if we count the gas tax as a "user fee," 74 percent still comes from the taxpayers. Clearly, the way we've been operating our transportation system hasn't been working--so why not spend that money in a way that matches up to today's transportation reality?

Like this post?
Sen. John Marty: cut transit fares to 25 cents	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Tinklenberg has great response to Bachmann oil lunacy

For about the umpteenth day in a row, Michele Bachmann continues to harp on her illogical, irresponsible, not to mention impossible plan to "Drill Here, Drill There, Drill Everywhere." The Minnesota Independent's Andy Birkey notes that her plan is "a brilliant strategy. She promises a popular yet impossible outcome and then blames her opponents when the outcome doesn’t happen—before it ever could (emphasis added)."

Of course it's impossible--Bachmann's plan would barely budge oil prices. I wrote on Monday about how drilling more oil won't save us. But it's also true that Bachmann doesn't really care about oil prices--she just wants to score political points.

Her opponent in MN-06, Elwyn Tinklenberg, had a great response to her ridiculous plan for $2/gal gas:

"[Bachmann] presents the false hope that we can drill our way out, against all the evidence to the contrary," Tinklenberg said.

As for Bachmann's promise of $2 gas, he said, "that undermines the seriousness of the problems consumers are facing."

Bravo to El Tinklenberg for this point. Bachmann is telling her constituents that they don't have a real problem. Maybe it doesn't seem like a major problem to her, but I guarantee you it is hurting real people in the 6th district. Maybe instead of using a major problem like gas prices to score political points, Bachmann should trying to fix it. Instead, she's doing things like voting against the DRILL act in Congress.

---

By the way, the blogosphere has been full of great retorts about Bachmann's drilling plan. Here's a Bachmann oil-drilling roundup:

A Bluestem Prairie: New Ulm Journal on Bachmann's horse apples: "A lot of oil experts dispute that"
Across the Great Divide: Postage Stamp on a Football Field? More Like a Pile of Horsepuckey.
mnpACT!: To Lower Oil Prices -- Let Bachmann Rant
MN Independent: Gassy: Adding up Bachmann 's $2-per-gallon promise; and Freshly minted energy expert Michele Bachmann invents a new measurement for natural gas reserves
Twin Cities Daily Liberal: Drilling more oil won't save us

Like this post?
Tinklenberg has great response to Bachmann oil lunacy	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Immediately after accusing Franken, Coleman gets nasty

Remember this from yesterday??

A couple of days ago, Al Franken released his first "compare and contrast ad," a fairly mild piece which contrasts Franken and Coleman on a few issues....

Doesn't seem too bad, right? Well the Coleman campaign freaked out. Yesterday, they released the following statement, according to Minnesota Democrats Exposed: “It’s official. Al Franken has launched the first television attack ad of 2008 and is going negative in a big way against Senator Coleman.” They also said Franken was in "full-on attack mode."

Well, check out this piece of filth:



From the script:

“The guys and I have been talking. We’ve read all this stuff about Al Franken: Not paying taxes. Going without insurance for his employees. Foul mouthed attacks on anyone he disagrees with. Tasteless, sexist jokes. Writing all that juicy porn. And we’ve decided we’re running for US Senate. Why not? We’re just as qualified as Al Franken, and we’re better bowlers.”

Wow. Norm sure turned around on this fast. Apparently, negative ads ARE okay. Anything to distract from the issues, right Norm?

I have two questions for Norm Coleman:
1. Why is okay for you to run one of the nastiest ads I've seen in a long time, but you're up in arms about Franken comparing and contrasting your positions?
2. When are you going to discuss your record? For instance, tomorrow I'll be running a piece all about how you voted against securing our trains, planes, and cargo ships... care to explain?

Like this post?
Immediately after accusing Franken, Coleman gets nasty	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

The Shrinking GOP: Ron Paul edition

In June, I would have been the first to say that the GOP's problems this year were just a temporary phenomeonon. 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've already discussed how the GOP faces threats from voter apathy and extremist social conservatives. But perhaps the greatest challenge the GOP faces from within its own ranks is Ron Paul. Rep. Paul, who is more more suited to the libertarian ticket, has a legion of rabid supporters who are bent on pushing the Republican party to the right, and they've been far more successful than anyone would have guessed.

Paul is having a huge effect on the party, even if party leaders are trying to stop him. After GOP leaders refused to award him a speech at the national convention, Paul decided to hold his own counter-convention. Now the Minnesota Independent is reporting that Paul's convention is going to have such high attendance that they're changing venues:

"After measuring the excitement and enthusiasm, we decided that the Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota was just too small to hold you," Paul said in a released statement this morning. "Therefore, we are making a significant upgrade."

With a capacity of over 20,000 the Target Center is certainly an upgrade from the 14,000 seat Williams Arena. Target Center is not onyl the largest arena in the Twin Cities, it is also engaged in a year-round competition for concerts and events with Xcel Energy Center, site of the RNC.

Clearly, Paul has a lot of grassroots support. What's even worse for the Republican party is that he will be holding a political training for supporters who have already proved quite effective at infiltrating the ranks of the GOP.

The bottom line: Between Ron Paul's libertarianism and the growing influence of social conservatives (more on them Thursday or Friday), the GOP is moving hard to the right. This could spell major trouble for the party in upcoming elections. 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 also address in future weeks), they could seriously marginalize the GOP for the next decade.

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

Sacrifice and the American way of life

I'm sure you've seen the infomercials--finally, a way to lose 100 pounds without eating less or ever doing any exercise! Always beware of those who promise you something for nothing: weight loss without exercise, money without work, and a strong country without any sacrifices from its citizens. In the long run, there's always a price to pay. How many get-rich-quick schemes do you know that actually work? Well, for the last three decades, the Republicans have been promising us something for nothing, and we've been buying it.

Nationally, our president is the first in history to go to war while simultaneously making tax cuts. We can't afford the war in Iraq, and it is seriously undermining the strength of the dollar, not to mention getting our soldiers overseas killed. Bush has put the Iraq war on our credit card, and he's leaving the next president to clean up the mess. And the whole time, he's claimed that wars don't require any sort of sacrifices from our citizens

Here in Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty campaigned on "no new taxes" and we have seen our infrastructure collapsing and our schools descending into mediocrity. He and his fellow conservatives have complained and complained about "the state that works." They've tried to tell us that paying the taxes we need to maintain our infrastructure and fund our local communities is bad for us! But if their plan is so great, how come it's hurting us so much?

We're starting to wise up to these something-for-nothing scams. Most of us are suspicious of miracle diet pills and get-rich-quick schemes. So why do we fall for it when conservatives promise us a utopian country with no need for sacrifices? The fact is, building this country took hard work, it took money, and it took sacrifices from our leaders, our soldiers, and our citizens. And if you think we can get it all without giving anything back, I need your help transferring some money from Nigeria.

Like this post?
Sacrifice and the American way of life	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

McCain to throw "hail mary" with early announcement of VP

Robert Novak and CQ Politics are reporting that John McCain may be ready to announce his candidate for VP. This would be the earliest anyone has ever announced their VP, and it seems like a fairly desperate play to me.

Barack Obama is out-raising and out-polling McCain, and his trip overseas is having a huge impact. He's getting great news coverage and blunting criticism about his foreign policy abilities. McCain seems to feel the need to do something to turn the tables, but he must be out of ideas.

In the long run, I wonder how this can benefit McCain. His only goal seems to be to counter the Obama "overseas bump" with a McCain "VP bump". The trouble with that, of course, is that he foregoes the opportunity to get that VP bump later in the campaign, when people are paying attention.

More importantly, it will take more than temporary bumps to move McCain ahead in the polls. If he wants to win this thing, he needs to search for a long-term solution, but his campaign only has the ability to look at the immediate present. It's particularly telling to me that McCain seems caught off-guard by Obama's successful trip. It's not like this was kept a secret, yet McCain had no strategy to counter the headlines Obama has grabbed, leading to the desperation move of revealing his VP choice early.

Like this post?
McCain to throw "hail mary" with early announcement of VP	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coleman terrified to debate issues

A couple of days ago, Al Franken released his first "compare and contrast ad," a fairly mild piece which contrasts Franken and Coleman on a few issues. The message can be summed up pretty quickly: Al Franken disagrees with President Bush on the war and the economy, while Coleman votes with Bush almost 90 percent of the time, including his continued support for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent. Franken also criticized Coleman for taking money from special interests. See the full ad below:



Doesn't seem too bad, right? Well the Coleman campaign freaked out. Yesterday, they released the following statement, according to Minnesota Democrats Exposed: “It’s official. Al Franken has launched the first television attack ad of 2008 and is going negative in a big way against Senator Coleman.” They also said Franken was in "full-on attack mode."

Did we watch the same ad here? Is Coleman completely out of his gourd? Apparently, he is so ashamed of his record that he feels the need for massive retaliation whenever someone brings it up. I guess I can understand that: we've already explored how Norm is wrong on transportation, the environment, education, and employment. But I have news for you, Norm: that's how politics works. Once you make the votes, you have to answer for them. If this ad is "negative in a big way," are there any issues we are allowed to discuss?

Like this post?
Coleman terrified to debate issues	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

CD3 debate set for August 21

I just saw on the Star Tribune's website that a debate between Ashwin Madia, Erik Paulsen, and David Dillon has been scheduled for August 21. Maybe Paulsen can finally answer some questions about his positions, since he doesn't seem to want to share them.

Some questions I would like to see answered include:

• Do you have a position on Iraq?
  
• Do you believe in global warming?
• Now that you've been proven wrong on Iran, are you willing to be an adult and support aggresive diplomacy?

What questions would ask Paulsen? Add your comments below.

(By the way, it is an outrage that spectators will have to pay to get into this debate--Chris Truscott has the story)

Like this post?
CD3 debate set for August 21	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

The Shrinking GOP: Nevada edition

We all knew this was going to be a bad year for Republicans. However, I've just seen the first sign that indicates the GOP may be in trouble for a lot longer than just this single election. The following news came from Nevada this weekend:

Citing a lack of interest, the Nevada Republican Party has called off its state convention and will instead pick its delegates to the national convention by private conference call.

The state party broke up its original convention in April when supporters of Ron Paul hijacked the proceedings and tried to elect delegates for their candidate to the national GOP convention in September. Party officials tried to reconvene on July 26, but they needed a quorum of 675 and received only 300 RSVPs, according to local reports.

To me, this indicates two major problems for the long-term health of the Republican Party:

First, canceling their convention takes away an opportunity to train and motivate Republican activists in Nevada. This should help Democrats to make some major gains in the state over the next two years, while the Republicans are searching for activist leaders.

Second, Nevada is yet another state where Ron Paul and his backers are making a serious play for influence within the party. As the GOP is faring worse at the polls, it is veering sharply to the right, which should reduce the number of moderate voters it can win over the next few election cycles.

Overall, these trends spell major trouble. 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.

[UPDATE: This was originally a stand-alone piece, but there's been so much news on this front that I'm starting a series about the Shrinking GOP. I am retitling this article accordingly.]

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

Senate race downgraded by CQ Politics

According to CQ Politics, Franken is stumbling in the Senate race. Accordingly, they have downgraded the race from "no clear favorite" to "leans Republican." But don't worry, Democrats, hope is not lost.

On Saturday, I mentioned three major tasks for Franken's new communications director. With an additional task for his campaign manager, I believe there are four things the campaign needs to do to turn things around.

1. Institute a "zero-tolerance policy" against Norm Coleman's attacks. All attacks should be cleared up within 24 hours, whether that involves responding directly or getting the subject changed.
2. Re-introduce Al to Minnesotans. The first introduction was mired by irrelevant "scandals" dug up by Coleman to distract us from his own record.
3. Relentlessly turn the conversation to the issues, where Coleman is the most vulnerable.
4. Aggressively vet Franken; discover the scandals waiting to be uncovered and develop strategies to prevent future problems.
   

By mid-August, maybe even the Republican-biased SurveyUSA will show Franken gaining again.

Like this post?
Senate race downgraded by CQ Politics	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Drilling more oil won't save us

You have to love Michele Bachmann.

The loony Republican Congresswoman from CD6 makes my job so much easier. She's never had an original idea, but she always manages to take Republican talking points to such an extreme that it's a joke. Her latest crusade is Newt Gingrich's reality-defying plan to "Drill Here, Drill There, Drill Everywhere." Of course, she once again felt free to expand on the talking points, claiming that we could drill ourselves back to $2/gallon gas. It's nice to see that logic isn't getting in her way.

Yesterday, Pat Doyle of the Star Tribune had a great article which refuted most of the arguments of whackos like Bachmann. For instance:

The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) holds too little oil to reduce gas prices more than a few cents per gallon, and new sources of oil could take decades to develop, according to government analysts.

Of course, none of the Republicans' plans for drilling will do the trick. I've pointed out before that Norm "W" Coleman's plan to expand offshore drilling would only provide us with 2.8 billion barrels of oil over 20 years, or 35 days worth of global consumption. Even between the two of these plans, are we going to see $2/gal gas any time soon? Not likely.

Gas-crazy conservatives don't just stop there, though. They are determined to keep using oil, even when there are viable alternatives that we could develop. The latest fad they are thumping their chests over is oil shale. But is this really an option? Doyle again:

Oil shale in Western states might be significant enough to one day exceed imports from Saudi Arabia, but it faces tough technological hurdles to become reality.

"It [oil shale] is sort of meaningless in the sense that it's such a large resource base and we're so far from producing it," said Philip Budzik, an oil and gas analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration. "It's not going to be tomorrow, and it's not going to be in 10 years."

The bottom line: Conservative plans to drill our way back to $2/gal gas are a pipe dream. We could drill every square foot of unused space in this country--something they would likely be okay with--and it wouldn't get us much improvement in gas prices. Yet they refuse to consider improving fuel efficiency and they want nothing to do with alternative energy sources. We've been addicted to oil far too long to have a quick fix, but the Republicans are impeding any chance we even have of a long-term fix.

Like this post?
Drilling more oil won't save us	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

Coming next week...

It's great to see the blog starting to take off and get a bit of traffic. It's been about a week since I started adding additional content to what I write for MN Campaign Report. Thanks to all of you who have been reading!

Up next week:

• Norm Coleman continually refuses to support transportation security
• 3 decades of conservatism and our national "me-first" attitude
  
• Updates to the Conservative-to-English dictionary
• Maps! (assuming I buckle down and get my research done, the first of a batch of maps will appear Friday)
• More...
  

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

Great piece on Republican filibusters

Gary Ater has a great piece on the Republican filibuster, in which he discusses how Republicans have shattered the previous record for the number of filibusters in a session.

Since the Democrats won their razor-thin majority back in 2006, the Republicans have now used the filibuster a record 80 times to halt any legislation offered by the Democrats. Even with the small majority of 51 to 49 that the Senate Democrats have today, it still takes 60 votes to pass a Senate bill that would also over-ride a possible filibuster or a presidential veto. Based on these numbers, the Republican Senate leadership has decided to only "rarely" allow any "moderate" Republicans to vote on the Democratic side of an issue, whether the legislation is good for the country or not. All the Republican Senators have to do today is open up the debate on the Senate floor and keep it going until the Democrats eventually give in and give up. This action virtually stops the bill in its tracks, and they then move on to other bills or new business.

As has recently become a routine in the Senate, the Senate Republicans, with the aid of a couple of conservative Democrats, successfully obstructed the passage of a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases. The measure fell 12 votes shy of the 60 votes needed in the Senate. It has since been pulled from consideration by the Democratic leadership.

Such action would normally strike a more depressing note if it had not become the Senate norm over the last 2 years. Republicans in the Senate have filibustered ~80 pieces of legislation in the current session of Congress. (This is an all-time record, and the session isn't over yet.) Not all of these attempts to block legislation have ended in success. A few bills actually have passed, but this latest rate of obstructionism has been historic, far surpassing the previous record of 62 filibusters.

Of course, the Republicans complained bitterly when they were in power any time the Democrats tried to filibuster. Back then, they called it obstruction.

I don't have much else to say on this, other than that it's a fantastic article and well worth a read. Go check it out!

Person Gary Ater

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Like this post?
Great piece on Republican filibusters	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?

CD3 Whup-Ass

Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending a training session for volunteers with the Ashwin Madia campaign. I don't want to write here about some of the strategies revealed by campaign manager Stu Rosenberg, which will remain confidential. But I do want to write a bit about the incredible volunteers of the 3rd District, to whom the DFL owes a great debt for putting this district in play. A few months ago, I published a series of maps showing the 3rd district's slow change from red to blue--these volunteers are the reason that's happened.

Volunteers gave up their entire day and spent it at the Madia campaign office. They were full of energy, asked great questions, and had a ton of great suggestions for the campaign. They were particularly interested in keeping the Madia campaign aligned with other DFL races; they are clearly committed to building the DFL party in the district. Some of the volunteers had the opportunity to talk about their personal reasons for being involved with Ashwin Madia and with DFL politics in general. There were a lot of really excellent speakers in the room; they should be formidable on the phones!

The most impressive part, though, was how well-trained all of these activists were. We wound up spending a minimal amount of time talking about things like how to read a walk sheet, how to record an ID call, and things like that. The great volunteers of CD3 knew it all. They have their eyes focused on winning throughout the district, and they know how to do it. George Greene, writer of The Aurora Alert, calls this CD3 whup-ass. And it is going to make CD3 DFLers a force to reckon with for decades.

Like this post?
CD3 Whup-Ass	Subscribe by RSS	Subscribe by Email
What is this?	What is this?