The Twin Cities Daily Liberal

The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has moved!

2008-08-22T23:38:00.001-05:00

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

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

2008-08-06T15:10:00.009-05:00

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?

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

2008-08-06T13:16:00.002-05:00

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!

Coleman has a plan to run up Federal deficit

2008-08-06T11:30:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2008-08-06T07:30:00.001-05:00

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.

Rothenberg: Tim Pawlenty won't help McCain

2008-08-05T14:55:00.004-05:00

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.

What Tim Walz has been up to

2008-08-05T11:59:00.001-05:00

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.

For Bachmann, truth won't interfere with drilling crusade

2008-08-05T07:30:00.000-05:00

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.

Note to Obama: Don't shirk debates

2008-08-04T15:00:00.001-05:00

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.

McCain and Pawlenty think conserving gas just a joke

2008-08-04T11:25:00.001-05:00

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.

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: Franken needs turnout from CD5

2008-08-04T07:33:00.000-05:00

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.

Coming next week...

2008-08-02T11:55:00.002-05:00

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!

The lighter side: CodeWeavers' "Lame Duck Challenge"

2008-08-01T15:00:00.000-05:00

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.

Republicans' worthless oil plan: more proof

2008-08-01T11:00:00.000-05:00

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).

Take a moment to remember

2008-08-01T09:00:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2008-08-01T07:30:00.001-05:00

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?

My favorite sign from the UnConvention yard sign contest

2008-07-31T17:12:00.002-05:00

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

See the rest at My Yard, Our Message

Even the food industry favors more regulation

2008-07-31T14:12:00.003-05:00

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?

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

2008-07-31T11:52:00.004-05:00

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.

Shrinking GOP: Is the GOP becoming a regional party?

2008-07-31T10:45:00.000-05:00

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.

Coleman's out-of-touch record: veterans

2008-07-31T07:31:00.000-05:00

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.

The Federal deficit, and a prediction

2008-07-30T16:15:00.003-05:00

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!

Obama on offshore drilling

2008-07-30T14:30:00.002-05:00

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.

The Republican oil plan: wait for 2030

2008-07-30T10:00:00.002-05:00

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.

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD-7

2008-07-30T05:40:00.002-05:00

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.

After negative ad, Coleman changes tactics

2008-07-29T20:55:00.004-05:00

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.

BREAKING: Pawlenty to govern Minnesota from RV

2008-07-29T15:30:00.001-05:00

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.

DFL legislators will try to fix MnDOT

2008-07-29T12:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Paulsen on Iraq: 3 positions in one answer

2008-07-29T09:30:00.001-05:00

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:

“It is absolutely critical that the phase-down we’ve seen in troop levels continues.”
“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.”
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.

Does Norm really care about gas prices?

2008-07-29T06:40:00.001-05:00

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.

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

2008-07-28T15:00:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2008-07-28T13:30:00.001-05:00

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.

Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD-8

2008-07-28T11:30:00.004-05:00

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.

Our literally crumbling infrastructure

2008-07-28T07:50:00.000-05:00

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.

Coming next week...

2008-07-26T12:42:00.003-05:00

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!

Gays in the military: stupidest controversy ever?

2008-07-25T15:15:00.001-05:00

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?

The Shrinking GOP: Iowa edition

2008-07-25T11:30:00.000-05:00

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.

Great Franken ad turns race back to issues

2008-07-25T07:30:00.001-05:00

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:

Institute a "zero-tolerance policy" against Norm Coleman's attacks.
Re-introduce Al to Minnesotans.
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:

Surprise! I-35W closed again

2008-07-25T05:35:00.002-05:00

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.

MNGOP hurls nastygrams with a smile

2008-07-25T05:32:00.004-05:00

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:

Bachmann announces plan to drill entire Twin Cities metro

2008-07-24T15:45:00.003-05:00

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.

Some thoughts during Obama's speech

2008-07-24T12:48:00.003-05:00

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:

The amount of international goodwill Obama already has can only help our foreign policy.
It's fantastic that the concept of "global citizenship" is catching on, and I hope it continues to grow.
It is horrific that Obama should even need to say that we should reject torture.
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.

Why Pawlenty for VP would be good for DFL

2008-07-24T11:13:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2008-07-24T08:00:00.000-05:00

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.

Sen. John Marty: cut transit fares to 25 cents

2008-07-23T18:30:00.000-05:00

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?

Tinklenberg has great response to Bachmann oil lunacy

2008-07-23T12:45:00.001-05:00

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

Immediately after accusing Franken, Coleman gets nasty

2008-07-23T10:28:00.002-05:00

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?

The Shrinking GOP: Ron Paul edition

2008-07-23T07:00:00.000-05:00

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.

Sacrifice and the American way of life

2008-07-22T16:00:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2008-07-22T11:00:00.001-05:00

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.

Coleman terrified to debate issues

2008-07-22T05:59:00.005-05:00

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?

CD3 debate set for August 21

2008-07-21T18:51:00.003-05:00

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)

The Shrinking GOP: Nevada edition

2008-07-21T12:00:00.002-05:00

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.]

Senate race downgraded by CQ Politics

2008-07-21T09:55:00.003-05:00

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.

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.
Re-introduce Al to Minnesotans. The first introduction was mired by irrelevant "scandals" dug up by Coleman to distract us from his own record.
Relentlessly turn the conversation to the issues, where Coleman is the most vulnerable.
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.

Drilling more oil won't save us

2008-07-21T06:02:00.003-05:00

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.

Coming next week...

2008-07-20T18:00:00.000-05:00

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...

Great piece on Republican filibusters

2008-07-20T14:20:00.004-05:00

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!

CD3 Whup-Ass

2008-07-20T08:27:00.004-05:00

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.

Has Franken found a communications fix?

2008-07-19T07:55:00.003-05:00

I have not been quiet about suggesting that Franken has some major communication problems. In fact, his communications problems have been the only real reason Norm Coleman has been in the lead so far during this campaign. Norm certainly can't run on his record!

Now it looks like Franken has finally gotten the communications help he needs. Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza reports:

Eric Schultz, national spokesman for former North Carolina senator John Edwards's 2008 presidential bid, has signed on as deputy campaign manager for the foundering Senate bid of entertainer Al Franken in Minnesota.
Schultz, who was heavily lobbied by national Democrats to take the job, will have a broad role in the campaign -- overseeing the communications, research and speechwriting arms.

That, dear readers, is the best bit of news I've seen in some time. In my mind, Schultz has three major tasks ahead of him, none of which have been done properly yet:

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.
Re-introduce Al to Minnesotans. The first introduction was mired by irrelevant "scandals" dug up by Coleman to distract us from his own record.
Relentlessly turn the conversation to the issues, where Coleman is the most vulnerable.

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

Cross-posted to MN Campaign Report.

Conservative-to-English dictionary

2008-07-18T14:00:00.009-05:00

After reading enough conservative commentary, I start feeling like I need a translator to cut through the spin. So, I thought I would put together a translation tool myself. This project is a work in progress; as I argue with and write about conservatives, I will take notes on their language choices here. Please feel free to leave a contribution in the comments.

Attacks, negative: discussing the issues.

Christianity: the books of Leviticus and Revelations.

Fiscal conservatism: reducing spending for healthcare, education, and other pieces of the social contract, and transferring that money to the wealthiest 1 percent.

Liberal: someone we don't like.
See also proper definitions:

1.	favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.	(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.	of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.	favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.	favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6.	of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Obstruction: a filibuster. Note: this only applies when Republicans control the Senate.
Protecting minority rights: a filibuster. Note: this only applies when Democrats control the Senate.

Small businesses, taxes on: taxes on people making over 1 million dollars

Supporting the troops: warmongering and reducing veterans' benefits.

Tax and spend: invest in infrastructure and the social contract.

Tax cuts: tax reductions for the wealthiest one percent. May be financed by:
1. Reducing spending for healthcare, education and other pieces of the social contract (see fiscal conservatism)
2. Adding to the federal deficit.

Voter fraud: helping poor people and/or minorities to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

Weak on national security: protecting inalienable civil rights.

Do Bachmann and Kline really care about oil prices?

2008-07-18T07:56:00.009-05:00

The Minnesota Independent noted yesterday that the Democrats' plan for gas prices was voted down in the House.

The Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act, cosponsored by Rep. Tim Walz, would create a "use it or lose it" policy for oil companies leasing government lands—they have to drill on current land in order to lease newly opened lands—and would prohibit the exporting of Alaskan oil to countries other than the United States.

The vote on the bill failed to get a two-thirds majority at a vote of 244-173 (roll call). Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad joined Democratic Reps. Walz, Ellison, McCollum, and Oberstar in voting for the measure. Bachmann and Kline voted against it.

"Oil companies are leasing 68 million acres of federal land that are just sitting idle," Walz said in a statement after the vote. "The DRILL Act makes it clear to Big Oil that when it comes to leases, they need to use it or lose it."

How can Bachmann and Kline justify voting against this bill? They have been complaining about gas prices for months--and yet they voted against requiring oil companies to use their leased lands wisely. I understand that Bachmann would rather we Drill Here, Drill There, Drill Everywhere. But she must understand that the Democrats won't pass this ridiculous bill. So why wouldn't she do something to help improve gas prices?

It just goes to show exactly what Bachmann and Kline are all about: playing politics. They don't want gas prices to go down, because they want to be able to blame the Democrats.

Crossposted at Minnesota Campaign Report

I'm sick of hearing about "flip-flopping."

2008-07-17T22:16:00.003-05:00

"Flip-flopping" is yet another Republican phrase that Democrats have allowed into our communications. We need to stop using it ASAP. Call them liars, crooks, etc., but not "flip-floppers."

So many Democrats out there don't seem to understand that when we use Republicans' language, we lose. In fact, we love to use the same attack language they use. Here's a tip: it does not help our cause. A great example came during the DFL convention in Rochester. Howard Dean spoke against John McCain, and one of his biggest applause lines a list of policies which "he voted for, before he voted against it." Now why would the leader of our party want to remind people of one of John Kerry's biggest flubs of the campaign?

Democrats, on balance, are amused with the irony of using Republicans' language. But the irony doesn't translate well. Instead, we just wind up as the party that can't come up with its own message.

Dean Barkley: The Most Effective Senator in Minnesota History?

2008-07-17T09:58:00.002-05:00

Dean Barkley, running as an Independent candidate for Senate, has a new website claiming he's "The Most Effective Senator in Minnesota History." According to the Star Tribune, Barkley only worked for 8 days in the Senate following his appointment due to Paul Wellstone's death. However,

he pointed out that he played key roles on three important matters: creation of the Department of Homeland Security, preservation of Minnesota's welfare-to-work program and funding for the expansion of St. Paul's Neighborhood House as a memorial to Wellstone and his wife, Sheila.
Barkley was one of a handful of centrists that voted to kill a Democratic amendment that would have stalled the Homeland Security bill, then traded his support for the bill for a pledge from the Bush administration that Minnesota wouldn't have to revamp its successful welfare program.

First of all, give me a break. You'll have a hard time convincing us that you're more effective than Paul Wellstone, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, etc.

Second, it's pretty easy to do this sort of thing when you don't have elections to be concerned with. An elected Barkley would be even less effective than he was during his 8 days serving in the Senate.

MnDOT's alternate reality

2008-07-17T06:05:00.003-05:00

You know how George W. Bush never seems to think anything is going wrong? To hear him tell it, we're winning in Iraq, the economy is good, etc. Well, apparently that's a characteristic of all Republican administrations. Our very own Department of Transportation seems to think that our bridges are in great shape, despite the number which have been closed over the past year.

According to the Star Tribune, Congressman Jim Oberstar faults MnDOT "for using only 51 percent of its allotted bridge program dollars for bridges over the past five years -- a rate that ties it with Arizona for last (my emphasis)." In response, MnDOT had the audacity to claim that bridges were in great shape:

"Looking at one federal program does not capture our investment in bridges," said Abby McKenzie, director of investment management for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). "When you look at actual bridge conditions, we are one of the best in the nation."

Is McKenzie serious? How many other states have had bridges collapse lately? How many other states have shut down 3 major bridges because of safety concerns?

Thank god for our DFL legislature. While MnDOT seems content with the situation at hand, the DFL provided the funding needed to establish a $2.5 billion bridge repair program.

Conservative math, part II

2008-07-16T13:45:00.006-05:00

Sometimes I just can't help but respond to the local conservative blogs. Roosh at Shot in the Dark seriously believes conservatives have the answer to our national debt problem:

I maintain that our deficit spending habits and their product, our national debt have left our country in an increasingly precarious position and is in fact an issue of national security.

The extrapolation of the mathematics, an element of which is our evolving demographics (i.e. more people getting on the wagon and less people pushing it) will eventually result in a national financial meltdown and the collapse of the American dollar.

Liberals oft cited moral imperative to be a compassionate, civilized nation manifested in layers and layers of entitlements will be eclipsed by the fact that at some point we will simply be unable to service our debt let alone borrow more.

Soon we will all be conservatives. Fiscally-speaking that is. The question of what our federal government should or should not do for it’s citizens will become an academic discussion.

Unfortunately, he and the rest of the conservatives don't have a leg to stand on. Their hero "W" has the dubious distinction of being the only president to lead us into war while simultaneously cutting taxes. Republicans in Congress fought tooth and nail against returning to pay-as-you-go rules.

In typical Republican fashion, however, they don't want you to pay any attention to this. The tax cuts aren't the problem. The war isn't the problem. Deficit spending--which we didn't do under Clinton--isn't the problem. No, the problem is that the terrible liberals want to make sure we provide our citizens with proper healthcare and send our veterans to college.

Don't buy the hype. Conservatives these days are not interested in reducing government spending. They're just interested in redirecting it: from working families to energy speculators, from protecting our country to attacking others, and from the bottom 99% to the 1% that has more money than it can even handle.

How serious are we about reducing fuel consumption?

2008-07-16T13:00:00.000-05:00

This isn't very recent news, but it's new to me. Apparently, the 2008 "Green Car of the Year" award from Green Car Journal was awarded to the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. The Tahoe Hybrid gets 21 mpg city and 22 mpg highway--better than other SUVs, but still terrible numbers. Yet Green Car Journal editor and publisher Ron Cogan gushes about the Tahoe:

“The importance of GM’s accomplishment can’t be overstated,” says Cogan. “For years, consumers have been buying SUVs in increasing numbers because of their functionality, making them the number one class of vehicle on the market. The problem has been obvious: With larger vehicles generally comes poorer fuel economy because of greater size and curb weight. An ‘equalizer’ has been needed…and the two-mode hybrid system in the Tahoe is clearly that equalizer.”

To me, this award indicates that Americans are not serious about saving fuel or protecting our environment. Cogan cites SUVs' functionality. What exactly is their functionality? The amount of space inside hardly seems so important: the average number of riders in an American auto trip is 1.2. The most common function I hear from SUV apologists is that sedans are less safe in a crash... because so many of us are driving SUVs. Is it really important for us to be riding SUVs?

For too long, we've been stuck in the midset that we can have everything we want without making sacrifices. Well, we can't save our environment or our economy while refusing to give up single-occupancy SUVs. We need to get serious before it's too late for our environment--and for our wallets.

Metro Transit's leadership problem

2008-07-16T07:55:00.003-05:00

Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council have just finished holding hearings on their proposal to raise transit fares, just as ridership is finally rising. The increase is gas prices has the potential to help us remake our transportation system in a more efficient way. Not surprisingly, Tim Pawlenty and his appointed chair of the Metropolitan Council, Peter Bell, are planning to squander that potential through fare increases.

This shows a typical lack of leadership on the part of the Metropolitan Council. Peter Bell's refusal to stand up to his boss is shown by his excuses for raising fares in an editorial written for the Star Tribune:

The skyrocketing cost of oil has been a mixed blessing for transit. On the positive side, it has helped boost Metro Transit ridership to the highest levels in more than 25 years.

But the fuel costs of Metro Transit and suburban providers have more than doubled since 2005, the last time transit fares were increased. And we buy a lot of fuel. Metro Transit uses nearly 8 million gallons of diesel fuel per year.

Fuel is indeed expensive. Nobody can deny that. However, the rising price of fuel is precisely why the Metro Council should keep fares steady. They have the potential to be a source of help to Twin Cities residents squeezed by gas prices. They are abandoning that responsibility.

Bell continues:

The Metropolitan Council does not want to cut transit service. Indeed, our long-range transit vision calls for expanding service and doubling ridership by 2030. We are off to a good start with the opening of our first light-rail transit (LRT) line in the Hiawatha corridor, the construction of our first commuter rail line in the Northstar corridor and the planning for our second LRT line in the Central corridor.

Even with our proposed fare increase, riders will pay only about 30 percent of transit operating costs. The other 70 percent will come from the taxpayers -- in the form of MVST revenues and legislative appropriations.

If you ask me, this doesn't sound like the rhetoric of a man who wants transit to succeed. Pointing out that transit is "subsidized" is a red herring designed to make transit look like "big, bad government." The truth is that all transportation is subsidized, not just transit. 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 74 percent comes from the taxpayers -- in the form of MVST revenues and legislative appropriations. Bell's arguments are typical anti-transit arguments. The numbers show that all transportation is subsidized--so why is it okay for cars, but not for transit?

So what's the real reason behind the fare increases? Well, bossman Tim Pawlenty has already proven he's against transit--in fact, he was willing to sacrifice the Central Corridor as a bargaining chip. Peter Bell hasn't had the cojones to stand up to Pawlenty and ask for real funding for transit. Until Bell decides to stand up to his boss, we'll continue in this vicious cycle of fare increases and declining ridership.

Coleman's out-of-touch record: transportation

2008-07-15T13:52:00.002-05:00

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

Does Norm "W" Coleman hate transportation? I know, it seems unlikely. But how else do you account for some of these votes? He doesn't seem to be objecting to the size of the transportation bill, so what's the problem? Maybe he just doesn't want to spend money on transportation at all. Check out his voting record below:

2003

In Norm's first year in the Senate, he voted to privatize core air traffic control functions, system specialists and maintenance of systems and flight service stations. We saw how well privatization worked for TSA; do you want your safety outsourced to corporations?

2004

Norm voted AGAINST the Surface Transportation bill that would authorize $318 billion in federal aid for highways, highway safety programs and transit programs over six years. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 14)

So was the problem the cost of the bill? Not likely. He also voted AGAINST an amendment to reduce the total cost of the surface transportation measure from $318 billion to $256 billion, to match the president's fiscal 2005 budget request. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 13) What exactly does Norm want? the only conclusion I can make is that he doesn't want to spend any money on transportation.

2005

Norm voted an amendment that would increase revenue by $13.8 billion and use it to increase spending for surface transportation projects. It also would add a section designating $34.7 billion for highways in fiscal 2006 and $7.1 billion for public transit. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 71)

But once again, spending doesn't seem to be the issue. He also voted AGAINST an amendment would reduce funding for certain programs by $10.7 billion. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 124) So, what WILL he vote for?

Of course, as long as we have transportation, Norm doesn't want it to be environmentally friendly. He voted AGAINST an amendment that would mandate phased increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The standard would gradually increase to 40 miles per gallon by model year 2016. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 157)

2007

To be fair, I report both sides of the story. Norm voted FOR an amendment to increase the obligation limitation for the Highway Trust Fund by $1 billion to repair aging bridges. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 329) Of course, right after the I-35W bridge collapse, you'd hope he would finally start taking our safety more seriously than he did in 2003.

The bottom line: Norm "W" Coleman has consistently voted against funding for transportation infrastructure. That's not even considering transportation security. Next week, I'll expose just how often Norm voted against improving security aboard planes, transit, and cargo ships.

One last lament about Al

2008-07-15T07:41:00.003-05:00

Well, it's official: Jesse Ventura will not run for Senate. That leaves Al Franken alone to face Norm Coleman. Norm Coleman is an unmitigated disaster as a Senator, so I'll be fighting him tooth and nail. But I'll be holding my nose supporting Franken, and I want to get some stuff off my chest here.

I've always believed that Franken was a flawed candidate. From the first, I believed he was a carpetbagger. Once he finally moved to Minnesota, I regretted the way in which he used his PAC to ingratiate himself with party leaders. But my biggest complaints so far have been about his dismal communication abilities, or lack thereof. Because of his past, he is so easy to tar and feather, yet he has failed to keep the conversation on the issues and away from his own satire. Ultimately, I don't believe he can win this election if he doesn't improve his campaign.

That said, I've discouraged primary challenges to Franken. Now that he's the nominee, I don't see any gain in forcing the party to wait until September to have a nominee. Priscilla Lord Faris has joined the field, but she doesn't seem to be a major concern. So we have to assume Franken is the likely nominee.

From this point forward, I will hold my nose and support Franken. Of course, I will mostly restrict myself to attacking Norm Coleman. Coleman deserves to lose the Senate seat; he is out of touch with Minnesotans and his record shows it.

If Paulsen can't win now...

2008-07-14T21:59:00.001-05:00

...how can he hope to compete on a level playing field? Erik Paulsen had every advantage in fundraising, but he still got beat.

Look at the advantages Erik Paulsen had:
- Madia was not endorsed until April 12, while Paulsen's nomination wasn't even challenged;
- Ashwin Madia does not accept corporate PAC contributions, and Paulsen does; and
- Paulsen took money from a fundraiser headlined by Dick Cheney.

Nevertheless, Ashwin Madia outraised Paulsen by about $90,000! He raised this money the old-fashioned way, by talking to voters in the district and attracting more than 1,000 new donors. How is Paulsen going to compete? Maybe he should ask President Bush to campaign for him next time.

The bottom line: with all the odds against him, Ashwin Madia won the fundraising battle in the 2nd quarter. He'll win the election on November 4th the same way: through hard work and grassroots politics.

An open letter to Michael Brodkorb

2008-07-14T21:56:00.002-05:00

Dear Michael,

I’ve been searching through today’s posts, and I haven’t seen anything about Ashwin Madia's stunning fundraising victory!

Despite all the advantages he had–a head start, PAC money, and fundraisers with Dick Cheney–Paulsen lost by $90,000. Pathetic. He got creamed in fundraising, and he'll get creamed in November.

Where’s your coverage? Didn’t you get the memo?

McCain and the Internet

2008-07-14T09:07:00.003-05:00

A depressing quote from John McCain, via Political Wire:

I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need... I don't e-mail, I've never felt the particular need to e-mail.

To me, this perfectly illustrates the generational shift at work in American politics today. Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with McCain's age--his mother is still alive, for Pete's sake. However, do we really want a president who is so out of touch with one of the most important forces in our lives today?

Don't throw Lieberman under the bus

2008-07-14T09:02:00.001-05:00

[I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of flack for this post. Feel free to leave your flack in the comments.]

The New York Times ran a story today about Joe Lieberman's uncomfortable situation within the Democratic caucus. That's understandable, because of his outspoken support for the Republican candidate. What are not acceptable are things like Ned Lamont's run against Lieberman in 2006 and this report by Political Wire that some Dems are thinking of kicking Lieberman out of the party.

We cannot and should not expect our Senators to vote on the party line every time. Our Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body, where representatives are allowed to make up their own minds. Joe Lieberman has a different take on national security issues than most Democrats -- so what?? The fact of the matter is, he votes with the Democrats more often than many.

Just take a look at the statistics for voting with the Democratic party:

107th Congress
Lieberman: 92.4%
Dem. average: 88.4%

108th Congress
Lieberman: 93.2%
Dem. average: 84.9%

109th Congress
Lieberman: 89.9%
Dem. average: 87.1%

110th Congress
Lieberman (independent): 85.9%
Dem. average: 87.4%

So, are we willing to cut off our nose to spite our face? Joe Lieberman has been a consistent vote for the Democratic party on countless issues. Are we going to kick him out of the caucus for his positions on one issue? How about for his support for a Senator with whom he has written dozens of laws? We are coming perilously close to taking a man who votes with us over 85 percent of the time and turning him into a Republican.

McCain in trouble in Arizona

2008-07-11T08:56:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Independent (via Huffington Post):

In a sign of continued weakness in his home state, an online poll shows Sen. John McCain trailing Sen. Barack Obama by 3-percentage points in Arizona. The poll also shows the candidacy of Liberterian Bob Barr is having a significant impact on McCain's campaign by siphoning off conservative voters nationwide.

...

The poll shows Obama crushing McCain among Arizona Independent voters, 51 percent to 28 percent. The number of Independent voters in Arizona has skyrocketed in the last year and now makes up 27 percent of the state's voters.

I can't help but see this as an indication that the McCain running for President is not the McCain that was elected Senator. He has run so far to the right that he's lost credibility as a moderate. And the beautiful irony is that he's now losing votes from the extreme right anyway, thanks to Bob Barr!

Where will we get our news?

2008-07-11T06:45:00.000-05:00

Over the last couple of days, there has been a relatively nasty brouhaha between David Brauer of MinnPost and Jill Burcum of the Star Tribune editorial board. The scuffle is nominally about an editorial written about offshore drilling, but has come to signify much more. Sarah Janacek of Politics in Minnesota has an excellent redux, in which she also proclaims the death of the political impact of the newspaper editorial. I agree with her, but it's not just the impact of the editorial that's gone, in my opinion.

Also gone is the ability to write an unbiased headline. The Star Tribune ran the following, fairly innocuous story today:

An open house will be held beginning at 2 p.m. Sunday to discuss a Minneapolis Public Schools' proposed referendum, which is expected to bring in $60 million a year for eight years.

The headline for the story? Want to pay extra for Minneapolis schools?

But wait, that's still not all we've lost. As the Strib has slipped further into debt and lost staff because of it, there has been a slow but gradual decline in the amount of news being provided. Now it's limited to only a handful of non-crime stories each day, and nearly no political news at all!

To me, that raises a frightening question: where will we get our news? I love MinnPost and the Minnesota Independent, but I have to be honest: I don't see them as a replacement for the Strib or Pioneer Press. MinnPost provides some great analysis of news I already know, and MN Indy is a great source for Lefty News. But we still need a non-partisan, (relatively) unbiased news source with quality journalism. And right now, I'm not sure there's anyone to fill that role.

Conservatives talk crazy on economy

2008-07-10T15:04:00.001-05:00

From the CNN Political Ticker, a McCain economic adviser seems to think the economy is fine:

Gramm’s comments came in a Washington Times interview published Thursday. "We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline," said the former Texas senator."You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession."Gramm also said the media was responsible for fostering unnecessary anxiety over the state of the economy. "Misery sells newspapers,” he said. “Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

Gramm is certainly not alone. King from SCSU Scholars has been musing about whether we're in a recession or not for some time. Talk about being disconnected from reality...Ultimately, who cares whether we're officially in a recession or not? The bottom line is that the economy stinks! They can crunch the numbers all they want; the reality on the ground is that there are few jobs to be had, declining wages, and a rising cost of living. Once again, Republicans decline to provide a solution, and instead suggest that we don't even have a problem.

Why the Dems consistently lay down on security issues

2008-07-10T11:20:00.000-05:00

Once again, with the passage of the FISA bill, the Democratic party has chosen to take political cover, for fear that they will be branded weak on national security. To me, this is yet another indication of the Dems' failures of communication. A vote against FISA isn't weak on national security--but we haven't bothered to counter that ridiculous claim.

The issues of civil rights and national security, these days, are interlinked. We are fighting a war that, more than ever before, relies on international perceptions and propaganda. We need to take the moral high ground, because it will ultimately reduce terrorists' recruitment. Every time we detain someone indefinitely without trial, or ship people oversees for torture, or for that matter, torture them ourselves, we give the terrorists another reason to fight. Upholding the rule of law is not just about civil rights -- it will keep us safer in the long run.

But the Democrats have allowed themselves to be beat over the head by our cowboy President, whose war on Iraq has been one of the largest recruiting tools for terrorists in years. We desperately need to learn how to stand our ground and explain to the American people why the President's take on national security is so phony.

Worst of all, to me, was Barack Obama's vote for the FISA bill. I've held out hope that Obama, with his excellent communication skills, can finally take on the right-wing sound machine. But now I'm a bit less sure. He made a vote of political expediency, because he can't or won't debate the Republicans who say that we can't have security and liberty at the same time.

Coleman's out-of-touch record: environment

2008-07-09T14:53:00.002-05:00

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

I have to be completely honest: Norm "W" Coleman has been better on environmental issues than on certain others. That's not to say that he's been good, of course--just less bad. In particular, it boggles my mind how someone can be against cleaning up toxic pollutants--especially when we ask the polluters to pay instead of the federal government.Here are some examples of some of Coleman's ridiculous anti-environment votes.2003Coleman came to Congress raring to fight against the environment. Soon after arriving in the Senate, Coleman voted twice against environmental cleanup. First, he voted AGAINST an amendment that would increase spending on environmental and conservation programs by $12.4 billion over 10 years. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 96) Then, on the very next roll-call vote, he voted to kill an amendment that would provide $100 million from the Superfund trust fund for cleanup of brownfield sites. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 97)That same year, he voted for the first time--but not the last--AGAINST an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 309)Finally, he voted AGAINST a substitute amendment that would require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010. It would also provide a program of scientific research on climate change, establish a national greenhouse gas database, and create a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 310)2004Coleman voted AGAINST increasing spending for the superfund program--again! This version would have increased funding for fiscal 2005 through 2009 by $8.3 billion; it also would have provided for reinstating polluter fees to fund the cleanup of superfund sites. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 45)2005Coleman voted AGAINST capping greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010--again! (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 148) 2007As he has done on every issue we've looked at, Coleman changed his tune once the election neared. After two votes against fuel efficiency, he offered an amendment to provide energy tax incentives for energy efficient buildings through Dec. 31, 2012.(SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 98)Then, he voted FOR a bill that would overhaul national energy policies and increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. So why did he vote against this before?. In fact, he voted for it 3 times in quick succession in 2007! (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 226) (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 416) (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 425)The bottom line: Norm has developed a pattern: he knows his values are out of touch, and so he changes them when the election comes close. He's done this on almost every single issue, and the environment is no exception. Here's a news flash, Norm: it's too late! You're out of touch, and it's time you were held accountable.

Watch the Republican party go crazy

2008-07-08T14:49:00.001-05:00

As the Republican party continues to fall apart and alienate mainstream voters, it is retreating to a smaller and smaller base. We may be in store for even more conservative crazies like Michelle Bachmann. The latest news comes out of Utah, where the very-conservative Chris Cannon has been defeated in the Republican primary by the ultra-conservative Jason Chaffetz. AP reports:

U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, one of the nation's most conservative congressmen, lost his bid for a seventh term Tuesday in a Republican primary that focused on whether he was conservative enough for Utah's 3rd District.

...

The lobbying group American Conservative Union said Cannon was nearly perfect on its issues in 2007, scoring 96 percent. But Chaffetz repeatedly pounded the incumbent, especially on immigration, and pledged to be even more conservative.

This is another losing move for Republicans, and a great opportunity for Democrats. UT-03 may not be turning Democratic, but Chaffetz will likely receive fewer votes for his extremist positions than Cannon did. All over the country, the Republican base is shrinking. The challenge for Democrats after 2008 is to keep them on the run. We can do this by using the 50-state strategy to build our own base, while showing Republican voters that their party has abandoned them by moving to the extremist right.

Star Tribune drops the ball

2008-07-07T14:42:00.000-05:00

It started when the Star Tribune added conservative columnist Katherine Kersten. In an apparent effort to provide "balanced coverage," the Strib began a slow but steady shift to the right. Now, they may as well be a service for re-posting Republican press releases. In today's paper, the Strib shows that it's willing to just take Norm "W" Coleman's word about his living situation in Washington:

The recent controversy over Sen. Norm Coleman's living arrangements in the nation's capital -- downsizing from a luxury apartment to renting a cramped and inexpensive garden-level bedroom from a friend and political ally -- illustrates the problem that keeping two homes can pose for many representatives and senators who aren't independently wealthy. (emphasis added)

Apparently, they are so pressed for staff that they don't have time for real journalism. Instead, they're happy to simply accept anything Coleman writes in his press releases. A little bit of searching would have found the following listing for the house Coleman lives in:

Downstairs, a huge English basement with a media center, office space, gorgeous custom marble and oak bar, plus an airy guest bedroom and bath. (emphasis added, first published by MnPublius)

Coleman's press releases clearly don't match the facts. Of course, it be a lot easier for his constituents to hold him accountable if our corporate media were actually willing to gather those facts.

A depressing survey

2008-07-05T14:41:00.000-05:00

From CNN's Political Ticker:

According to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, close to 70 percent say that if the signers of the Declaration of Independence could see America today they would be disappointed, while just under 30 percent say the founding founders would be happy with the country 232 years later.

Americans didn't always feel that way — in 2001, 54 percent thought that the signers would be pleased with the state of the country today; now that figure is down to just 29 percent.

This finding really depresses me, and I have to say I disagree. I believe our Founders would be proud of our country. We're not perfect, but we've achieved a lot. This country has been a land of opportunity for generations of immigrants, allowing those who work hard an upward mobility that's historically been hard to come by anywhere else. We've been responsible for countless inventions and discoveries which have improved the quality of life for the entire world. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights have stood the test of time, and the list of freedoms we have has only expanded over time.

So why are so many people disappointed in our country? I personally believe that 30 years of Reagan/Bush-style politics is responsible. For 30 years now, conservative politicians have been telling us that our government is a failure, and that our society is too just. Then, they've proven that our government is a failure by running it into the ground. They have hammered home the idea that we don't owe our country anything, that our government is the enemy, and that it's every man for himself. After 30 years, it seems to me that Americans have bought into this crippling "me-first" mentality. The results of this survey show me just as clearly that we don't like what we have wrought. It's time for a return to a politics that seeks to achieve the common good.

Happy Independence Day!

2008-07-04T14:38:00.000-05:00

Enjoy your brats, fireworks, and spending time with family today. But don't forget to take at least one minute to reflect on what this holiday is all about. Chris Truscott has posted the Declaration of Independence here.

This country is what it is because of the sacrifices our citizens have made. Each generation has made sacrifices that have sustained our nation. With the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers took an enormous risk and set into motion a bloody, nearly impossible-to-win war against the world's most powerful army. Against all odds, our country prevailed.

Our very democracy took tremendous sacrifice to create. After the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation which loosely held our states together were clearly not working. Our founding fathers spent months recreating our government under the Constitution, a document that still seems forward-looking after over 200 years. Our first president, George Washington, made the ultimate sacrifice by declining a kingship and limiting his service as president to two terms. With the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, we achieved a peaceful transfer of power between parties, something which has proved to be a stumbling block for so many early democracies.

These days, we have a tendency to treat our holidays as nothing more than three-day weekends. It's important that we not forget the meaning behind them. Today, please take a moment to think about the sacrifices that have been made so that we can live in such a prosperous nation. Perhaps even more importantly, ask yourself this: what would you be willing to sacrifice for our country?

Coleman's out-of-touch record: education

2008-07-02T14:36:00.000-05:00

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

Norm "W" Coleman has such a long history of voting against education, I've had to narrow this post down to the most egregious. As usual, though, as the election began approaching, he started trying to appear more moderate. That's why we can't just look at his record in the last year: we have to look at his whole last term to see the real Coleman.

2003

Norm Coleman wasn't in the Senate to vote on No Child Left Behind, but he got off to a rousing start by voting AGAINST an amendment to properly fund the initiative (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 5).

He then voted AGAINST an amendment that would increase spending on Head Start programs by $24 billion and increase spending on after-school programs by $18 billion, both over 10 years (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 86).

But he didn't just vote against little kids. He voted against young adults too, voting AGAINST an amendment that would increase spending on vocational education by $3.6 billion over 10 years (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 98), and another that would slow the acceleration in the reduction of the top tax rate and use the revenue for higher education financial aid programs (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 164).

And finally, in a busy year voting against education, Norm voted AGAINST an amendment to increase funding for Hispanic education programs by $210 million money for dropout prevention and language instruction (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 322).

2005

Norm voted against vocational education again by voting AGAINST increasing funding under the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 61).

He also once again voted AGAINST a motion to add $153 million for Head Start programs (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 272).

2006

As 2008 approached and Norm's popularity declined, he decided to change his tune. This time he voted FOR restoring education program cuts and an increase in the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,500 (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 39).

2007

Norm voted FOR a bill that would authorize $21 billion for education in science and math through fiscal 2010 (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 146).

After voting against student grants in the past, he now votes for them. He voted FOR increasing the amount authorized for the college access partnership grant program from $25 million to $113 million (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 254), and increasing the amount authorized for the new Promise grant program (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 255). He is one of only 4 Republicans to vote for this amendment. Would he have voted for it in 2003, without an election on the line?

Of course, he did show his true roots last year by voting AGAINST a funding increase for programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 94).

The bottom line: I'm not trying to accuse Norm "W" Coleman of "flip-flopping" on education. I'm accusing him of something worse: trying to mislead us on his record. When he thinks we're not looking, he votes against properly funding education. Then, when the election comes closer, he changes his tune. Here's a news flash, Norm: it's too late! You're out of touch, and it's time you were held accountable.

How the gas tax will help us

2008-06-30T20:31:00.002-05:00

The gas tax is in the news again. Republicans have been engaging in their favorite pastime: baseless attacks. It's always easier to make attacks rather than presenting your own plan, and the GOP is happy to shovel mud. Our favorite GOP shill/press-release-poster Micheal Brodkorb got the ball rolling yesterday:

It was the DFL legislative leaders who pushed a massive gas-tax increase.

Get a grip! The increase in the gas tax is responsible for a scarcely perceptible portion of increasing gas prices. In fact, I dare Mr. Brodkorb and his colleagues, like Michelle Bachman, John Kline, and Norm "W" Coleman, to keep pressing this attack. It illustrates the Republican mindset perfectly: they're perfectly willing to sacrifice our roads and bridges, our economic competitiveness, and our quality of life to save 5 cents. According to twincitiesgasprices.com, the average price of gas yesterday was $3.973/gal. 2 cents of that was due to the recently-increased gas tax--approximately 1/2 of 1 percent of the current price of gas. And it will bring us a bundle of benefits (more on that in a moment).

It continues to boggle my mind that Republicans oppose investment in our state. Nobody would run their personal finances the way they've tried to mismanage our state. Just suppose you had the opportunity to make an investment which would cost approximately 1 percent of your monthly fuel costs. In exchange for that small added expense, you could gain the following benefits:

You could make needed home repairs more quickly, lowering your costs and gaining equity.
Your health and productivity would increase, giving you more time with your family and making you more likely to get a raise at work.
You would consume less fuel each year overall, thus reducing your costs.

That's exactly what the Republicans are huffing and puffing about! The DFL legislature has asked us for a modest sacrifice, equivalent to approximately 1 percent of our current gas costs. In exchange, we can have the following:

We have already moved up the schedule for fixing our roads and bridges, which have been crumbling under Republican rule.
We can expand the capacity of our roadways and transit, thus helping people move faster and making us a more attractive destination for doing business.
Decreased congestion (or, the way things have been going, slower-increasing congestion) can help everyone reduce fuel consumption and commute time, helping our investment to pay off immediately.

Folks, this is a no brainer. I know that higher gas prices are hurting people, but the transportation bill is not responsible for that! Unfortunately, we have developed a transportation system so dependent on fossil fuels--for which both parties are responsible--that it will take a while to dig out of the current situation. In the meantime, we can't afford to let our infrastructure decay and our competitive advantage against other regions diminish. For the small cost of the investment, our returnsare vastly greater.

Does Erik Paulsen believe in global warming?

2008-06-27T14:34:00.000-05:00

The website for Republicans in Senate District 42, which Erik Paulsen represented in the House, has a despicable editorial on "The Cult of Global Warming." In this misguided article, the heads of the SD 42 Republican party deny the existence of climate change and offer tips for "Fighting their [rational people's] agenda".

Erik Paulsen was a contributor to this website during his time served in the house. Now that he's running for Congress, he must answer for its content. Erik Paulsen, do you agree with this extremist denial of climate change? Do you believe in global warming?

The Republicans' own words convey their extremism far better than I could. Here's just a sample of their lunacy:

When you hear the term "Global Warming", think "Central Planning". With Global Warming, the Left finally has its best excuse to restrict your lifestyle and take away your freedoms.

Liberals are huge supporters of Global Warming hysteria. Their belief in it has become almost cult-like -- to the point where those who voice dissent are threatened with loss of money, livelihood, and even their right to speak....

The truth is neither the science nor the economics of global warming is settled. But global warming is not really about science anyway. It is about big government.

How many different studies need to confirm the existence of climate change before these radical Republicans see fit to help us do something about it? It's time for Erik Paulsen to denounce these conservative whackos and present a real plan to help us protect our environment.

A new type of politics? Maybe not.

2008-06-26T14:31:00.000-05:00

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece laying out what I thought Obama and McCain needed to do to make good on their promises of a new type of politics. So far, that does not seem like it's happening--not by a long shot. Dan Balz of the Washington Post has a great piece on this that I think is worth quoting at length:

A campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new. Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.

Since Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, he and McCain have served up a series of indignant exchanges over foreign policy, terrorism, the economy, energy policy and campaign money. Their aides have gone farther, with snarling conference call putdowns and taunting e-mails flowing constantly out of the Chicago and Crystal City headquarters.

...Don't blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyper-aggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge however small or incidental can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.

This is a great analysis of a phenomenon that's a crying shame. I love politics; I think vigorous debate over the future of our nation is crucial to our continued success. But like a lot of Americans, I'm getting ready to tune out unless there's a change in the overheated rhetoric. We should be debating the issues, but our politicians need to drop the personal attacks and the hostility behind them.

Cato Institute slams Pawlenty

2008-06-25T14:29:00.000-05:00

I hate to defend the Guv after all the harm he's done to this state, but a recent Cato Institute attack on him is so indicative of the state of conservative politics, I had to share it. The Cato Institute derides him for being in favor of "big government." As far as I can tell, what they mean is that he has on occasion voted to improve our economy and quality of life.

In the post, they complain that Pawlenty:

* Supported health care for all children;
* Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform;
* Has called for banning all prescription drug advertising;
* Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children;
* Increased the state’s minimum wage; and
* Imposed some of the most aggressive renewable energy mandates in the country.

It boggles my mind that the Cato Institute could complain about these things. How can you be so obsessed with saving a buck that you oppose health care and education for children? Cato will seemingly not be happy with any politician that acts for the good of their state. And if Pawlenty has done too much good for their tastes, I'd hate to be represented by a governor they DO support!

(News of the Cato Institute posting courtesy of one of my favorite news sources, Rachel Stassen-Berger's Political Animal blog).

Coleman's out-of-touch record: employment

2008-06-24T14:23:00.000-05:00

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

As I shared yesterday, Norm Coleman has been running toward the center, trying to fool Minnesotans into thinking he is more moderate than he really is. He knows his positions on the issues are out of touch, and so he's hoping the voters have short memories. So here's a reminder of some of his most egregious votes against American workers.

2003

Coleman gets off to a rousing start by voting against investment in our workers. He voted AGAINST increasing spending in the Workforce Investment Act by $678 million.

Not content to vote just against workers, Coleman votes against both workers and businesses by voting AGAINST a motion to increase the amount businesses can deduct for equipment costs, extend federal unemployment benefits and expand eligibility for the benefits to low-wage and part-time workers.

Finally, he votes for what is effectively a pay decrease for our workers by voting AGAINST an amendment to prevent workers from losing their eligibility for overtime pay.

2004

Coleman votes a second time AGAINST an amendment that would prevent workers from losing their eligibility for overtime pay.

2005

After voting for a pay decrease, Coleman votes AGAINST a motion to increase the minimum wage to $6.25 over one year. Republicans claim this hurts small businesses, but Coleman clearly doesn't care about them. He already voted against increasing the amount businesses can deduct in 2003. This is clearly just a mean-spirited vote against American workers.

2007

Coleman starts running toward the center and votes FOR raising the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. But, if he really believes in this, why vote against a smaller increase two years ago?

The bottom line: Norm "W" Coleman consistently voted against American workers, then tried to cover it up in 2007. Here's a news flash, Norm: it's too late! You're out of touch, and it's time you were held accountable.

Coleman, GOP senators running away from each other

2008-06-23T14:21:00.000-05:00

During the glory days of one-party power, the GOP stuck together. Party discipline was high, and they fervently pushed President Bush's misguided agenda through Congress. Our own Senator Norm "W" Coleman was in the forefront of Bush's supporters, voting with his GOP colleagues nearly 95 percent of the time--even more than the GOP average.

Now, however, it's a different story. GOP Senators--including Coleman--are pathetically trying to mislead voters into thinking they are "moderate." Party unity has disintegrated as they each try to prove that they are in the mainstream.

Norm Coleman is no exception. In fact, he's run away even faster than his Republican colleagues. He now votes with his own party even less often than average. But we know today's Coleman isn't the real Coleman. So why has he run away from his party? Because he knows Minnesotans disagree with him on the issues, and he's desperate to be re-elected. Coleman was never elected because of his stance on the issues; he was elected because of the tragedy of Paul Wellstone's plane crash and the public's backlash to the now infamous memorial service.

DON'T BE FOOLED! Coleman is a far-right Republican in the mold of George W. Bush. Over the coming months, I will be exploring Coleman's record, with one issue in the spotlight each week. I will show that, while he is sprinting toward the center now, his heart lies far to the right. He is out of touch with Minnesotans, and he needs to be held accountable for that.

Thank god it didn't fall

2008-06-20T14:19:00.000-05:00

I am absolutely horrified at the Star Tribune's report that MnDOT knew about rusted gusset plates on the Winona Bridge in 2007. An April 2007 inspection showed major damage. Some of the most damning discoveries include:

1. One of the gussets had rusted all the way through.
2. Pack rust was pushing some pieces of the bridge apart.
3. Inspectors noted that two of the bridge's bearings "are not functioning as designed."

I can understand not shutting the bridge down in April, when gusset plates were not widely considered to be a major problem. But in the aftermath of the I-35W bridge collapse, this bridge should have been closed immediately. MnDOT ordered new inspection after the collapse, but they had one that was only about four months old! This is a connection they would have required only a minimum of competence to make.

This is not meant to be a political attack. This particular incident was not Carol Molnau's fault or Tim Pawlenty's fault--it shows serious problems throughout the entire MnDOT organization. These inadequacies need to be addressed immediately. There are no two ways about it--MnDOT put thousands and thousands of our citizens at high risk every day.

Is the GOP capable of discussing issues?

2008-06-19T14:18:00.000-05:00

Al Franken continues to try to start a debate on the issues, but the GOP isn't having it. They have proven that, no matter what the issue, they will stick resolutely to personal attacks. I suppose it's all they have.

The Star Tribune reports:

the Franken campaign said Coleman failed to hold hearings on waste and abuse in the reconstruction of Iraq when he was chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

A competent campaign might have offered some defense of its record. But not Coleman and the Republicans... they're hoping they can go five more months without ever mentioning their record. Instead, the responded with the most ridiculous attack I've heard in a long time:

Al Franken is a hypocrite. He demonizes oil and pharmaceutical companies, and attacks any Republican who receives donations from individuals who work for these companies. He attacks Halliburton as a corrupt company. Yet, he has made himself richer by investing in mutual funds that are soaked with investments in these companies.

Where to even start with this? First of all, who is even talking about the oil and pharmaceutical companies right now? Second of all, you're attacking him over the content of his mutual funds?! Come on, you guys are the party of the wealthy--you should know how mutual funds work. They invest in anything and everything, and their mix of stocks is constantly changing. This is such a non-issue, I can't even believe it. When the only attacks you can come up with are this irrelevant, you're better off just staying quiet.

How do you balance the budget with "no new taxes"?

2008-06-18T14:12:00.000-05:00

Simple--you play accounting games with the state's money. During the legislative session, the Guv attempted to take $50 million from the Health Care Access fund. Fortunately, he wasn't able to get that. Now, MinnPost is reporting that Pawlenty is responsible for a section of the final compromise bill which takes $15 million from the State Airports Fund. And this isn't the first time he's tried these accounting tricks: we already took $15 million from the fund as part of a similar effort to balance the budget without raising taxes in 2003. We just paid the money back as required by law, and now we've taken it again--except without any provision requiring that it be paid back. He's relied on similar accounting mechanisms throughout his tenure as Governor.

It's time for T-Paw to grow a pair and stand behind his membership in the "no new taxes" cult. He knows that he can't legitimately balance the budget without raising taxes, so he's making up the difference on paper. This sort of juggling isn't sustainable, and he's hoping that by the time we all catch on to his parlor tricks, he'll be on to bigger and better things. If he really believes in his "no new taxes" pledge, he should have the courage to enact the massive service cuts it would require and face the judgment of the voters.

Of course, we can't hold the DFL majority in the legislature blameless. 2008 was better than 2007, but they were still outmaneuvered at times by Pawlenty. Because this provision came in the final hours of the session, there was no time to push back against it. In 2009, I hope they will force the Guv to make the tough choices. We have the winning message of investment in our infrastructure and in our people, and it's time to force Pawlenty to show the state how bankrupt his policies are.

Safe bridges, courtesy of your DFL legislature

2008-06-17T14:09:00.000-05:00

From today's Star Tribune:

Nearly 90,000 drivers a day got welcome news Monday, when the Minnesota Department of Transportation announced a major bridge improvement plan that would move up by a year the replacement of the Lafayette Bridge, which spans the Mississippi River in downtown St. Paul.

MnDOT is making a major effort to invest in the safety of our roads and bridges. What's making this effort possible? The gift that keeps on giving, the Transportation Bill passed by the legislature over Gov. Tim "Do-Nothing" Pawlenty's veto.

The Star Tribune also reported that the Lafayette Bridge is rated worse than the I-35W Bridge was when it collapsed. Delaying its replacement is just inviting another catastrophe. Users of the Lafayette Bridge--and indeed, all citizens of this state--should thank our DFL legislature for looking out for our safety when the Governor would not.

Conservative math

2008-06-16T14:07:00.001-05:00

Because I like ~~fighting with conservatives~~ debating the issues, I posted a redux of my analysis of Senator Bush's energy bill as a comment on SCSU Scholars. I received the following comments from Gary Gross, who runs the ever-so-rational blog Let Freedom Ring.

Ask yourself this: If an oil company was only going to get revenue from a reserve for 135 days, would they waste capital on harvesting it? Of course they wouldn't.

As for the 2.8 billion barrels, I'm betting that that's a typo. I'm betting that what he meant is that we could get 2.8 million barrels per day out of these reserves for the next 15 years.

This is such a great example of conservative math: "Well, the market is always right, so your math must be wrong. These other numbers I made up are probably more accurate."

The fact is, the days of cheap oil are over. I'm not saying that to be whiny, or doom-and-gloom, or [insert favorite Republican attack here.] I'm saying it because we need to address our energy challenges head-on so we can provide bold solutions to help our nation stay competitive.

Oil, the Environment, and the Economy

2008-06-14T14:04:00.000-05:00

Norm Coleman has proposed a bill to allow drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf. Janet at SCSU Scholars, of course, is thrilled -- but would more drilling actually be helpful?

I don't actually want to get into the environmental issues here, although there are many. In a different post, Janet has already stated her beliefs that our environment has no inherent value except as a resource for humans, and that once we've raised temperatures and flooded our coastal cities, we can simply adapt. It sounds crazy, but given such a huge gap in our worldviews I don't see any point in debating the issue.

What I do want to debate is the economic sense behind the conservative mantra "Drill here, drill now, pay less." The thought that more drilling is going to be a significant help to gas prices is laughable. Here are a few reasons why:

1. The largest impact on oil prices is skyrocketing consumption in India and China, which will only speed up in the future.
2. America lacks the refinery capacity to actually increase the production of gasoline. Drilling for more oil would not increase the amount of gasoline being produced in our country by one drop.
3. Coleman's own press release estimates that there are 2.8 billion barrels of oil that could be produced from the Outer Continental Shelf by 2025. Sound like a lot? If U.S. consumption were to hold steady at over 20 million barrels per day, Norm's bill would provide us with enough oil to last a whopping 135 days.

I have a suggestion for conservatives. Instead of looking resolutely back to the past and trying to figure out how to return there, why not recognize the challenges of the future and actually propose a plan to meet them? We can no longer find large enough oil deposits to make oil a viable energy source in the long term, EVEN IF we didn't care about the consequences to the environment. It's time to invest in alternative energies, raise gas mileage (CAFE) standards, and start building our cities in a way that does not require us to drive everywhere.

Draft Ciresi? Don't think so

2008-06-13T14:02:00.000-05:00

The appearance of a web site called Draft Ciresi! has gotten a lot of play in Republican blogs lately--and nowhere else. Of course the Republicans are happy for anything that will take attention from Senator Bush's record. Don't take it seriously, though. Ciresi doesn't have a chance, and we can't let the right-wing sound machine keep changing the subject.

Why doesn't Ciresi have a chance? Just look at the endorsement campaign he ran. He was practically invisible. Early on, the assumption was that he would be neck-and-neck with Franken. He dropped out because his failed campaign ended with him running a distant third to Franken and Nelson-Pallmeyer, a perpetual long-shot. Do we really want him running a general-election campaign like that?

Al Franken is a strong candidate who's right on the issues. He's running against a Senator who has consistently voted against our state's interest. He is not going to have a primary challenge, so now it's time to get back to the issues.

Winona bridge to reopen for cars, trucks still out of luck

2008-06-12T14:00:00.000-05:00

The Star Tribune is reporting that the Winona bridge will reopen on Saturday for passenger cars. However, it will remain closed to commercial trucks, and cars will not be able to pull any trailers, including boats.

I find it quite ironic that trucks will still be unable to use this major crossing. As I've written previously, if you read Tim Pawlenty's argument against investing in our infrastructure (PDF link), he writes that this will harm our economy. What could be more harmful than being unable to ship our products to the rest of the country?

Obama vs. McCain: finally a change in the American political process?

2008-06-12T13:59:00.000-05:00

I think we can all agree that American politics is in ugly shape. Over the past few campaigns, we've seen little substance—mostly they've been based on ad-hominem attacks. Americans' support for our politicians, from President Bush all the way through Congress, are at all-time lows. It's difficult for voters to focus on the issues when even our mainstream news media rarely focuses on the issues. We're due for a change.

Now we have a presidential election featuring two reformers running on messages of change. Barack Obama and John McCain have, at various times, both promised to run outsider, issue-focused campaigns. This election thus has an opportunity to bring long-overdue changes to the way debates are being conducted in our political system.

Of course, this isn't a guarantee. It's pretty easy to get pulled back down into the muck of politics as usual—just witness Obama's primary fight against Hillary Clinton, which at time devolved into a substanceless mess about lapel pins and whose associates were more offensive. To rescue American politics and regain voters' trust, there are four things Obama and McCain should do during the campaign:

1. Lay out a clear, positive vision for the nation.
2. Campaign together
3. Accept public financing
4. Avoid “going personal.”

More detail after the break...

Some of John Kline's votes in the House this session

2008-06-10T13:57:00.000-05:00

In honor of Steve Sarvi blog day, here are a few of John Kline's votes in this past legislative session. This isn't even the result of any digging--just a very simple search of roll-call votes.

Kline voted:
- Against a bill to establish a National Landscape Conservation System
- Against a bill to establish an Office of Congressional Ethics
- Against the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act
- Against the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
- Against the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act

Please support Steve Sarvi today, if you believe we should protect the environment, if you believe in ethics reform in Congress, and if you believe in the importance of student loans.

Team Franken: please get your act together

2008-06-09T13:56:00.000-05:00

Since his endorsement on Saturday, many committed DFLers have been questioning Al Franken's ability to run an issues-focused campaign and be a strong presence at the top of the ticket. As I wrote last week, the Franken team has yet to show that they can perform damage control and turn the media's attention back to the issues. MNCR contributor Chris Truscott suggests that "Franken is politically toxic." Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been particularly vocal:

I think that this has the potential of being a very large distraction....

Mr. Franken, how are we going to stop talking about this this fall? What are you going to do so that we're talking about the economy, we're talking about education, we're talking about health care and we're talking about bringing out troops home from Iraq.

McCollum has nailed the issue on the head. The Franken campaign needs to learn how to change the subject. This campaign should be about the issues, because Senator Bush is wrong on every single one of them. At the convention over the weekend, a Franken staffer suggested to me that the poor media coverage was not the campaign's fault, because they can't control what's in the media. If they believe that, they're in major trouble.

Al, we're begging you, get your act together. We really don't want to keep bashing you. We support you on the issues, and we want to see you win. Once your campaign pulls itself together and turns the debate to the issues, I believe you'll have the full support of DFLers behind you.