Showing posts with label Minnesota politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minnesota politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

How much rejection can Coleman take?

Nate Silver has to have the most amusing take on the MN Senate court trial. He points out that the ballots the Coleman campaign wants the judicial panel to review have already been reviewed and rejected, sometimes more than twice. He says:

Don't be impressed, in other words, by the sheer number of ballots under
review. If you ask a girl out, and she turns you down the first three times, you
don't really improve your odds of success by asking her out another 30 times.
(You may, however, increase your odds of getting a slap in the face or a
restraining order).

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

More of the same from T-Paw

Governor Pawlenty has unveiled his "plan" to deal with Minnesota's projected $4.8 billion budget deficit. I have to use the quotes around plan, because it's just more of the same "loot everything you can" philosophy that has gotten this country into the mess it is in.

Pawlenty would boot 85,000 working Minnesotans from state supported health care. But business taxes - those he wants to cut by half.

Cutting business taxes in half during a time of state government crisis is silly.

"Oh, but it will keep jobs in Minnesota." I can hear the refrain now. Unfortunately, it's wrong. See, when we cut our taxes in an attempt to lure companies here, other states cut theirs as well, trying to lure them there. We get engaged in a 50-state race to the bottom. And the shame of it all is that corporations have the nerve to complain that American schools don't produce the type of knowledge workers that they need.

Back to T-Paw and his silly "plan" - He relies on stimulus money from the federal government (better get on the horn Tim and let your GOP buddies know that you really are hard up for cash.)

He also proposes over $1 Billion in accounting shifts (I guess that's like when you transfer your credit card balance from one card to another and say it's paid off?) And the kicker is that he wants to sell bonds that are to be covered by the state's annual infusion of tobacco settlement money.

What this means is that things have gotten so out of control under Pawlenty's "no new taxes" administration that his only resort is to use up accounting gimmicks, trade future recurring income for a much lower amount of one-time income today.

I think Pawlenty ought to have the guts to simply cover the deficit 100% with spending cuts, since he's so adamantly opposed to increasing state revenues in any sort of meaningful or stable way. OWN the decision, Pawlenty. Let everyone know just how many people you're willing to throw under the bus so that the CEOs get nice fat bonuses again. Don't hide behind one time money and act like you're a nice guy. Because you're not, and you're leaving a mess for the next Governor to clean up.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Recount woes

Alas for me - when will I learn that bragging is a cosmic invitation for a good ol' fashioned smack in the face?

During the Bush v. Gore/Florida recount debacle of 2000, I smugly remarked to my husband, more than once "That nonsense would never happen here. Everyone ought to just vote like we do here in Minnesota. It's not hard, and everyone that's taken a standardized test in school knows how to do it."

Alas - cruel fate has left me wincing at the mess that is the Minnesota Senate recount/legal battle.

I do have to say this - at least we did a full recount. And the winner of that recount was Al Franken. You'd think, given his statement just after election day, Norm Coleman would have the grace to withdraw and go off to lick his wounds in private.

What's that? You don't remember what he said? Oh, I can help you with that. He said:

"If you ask me what I would do, I would step back. I just think the need for the healing process is so important."

Rather than step back, Coleman has decided to contest the results of the painstaking recount in court. Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who's watched our litigation-happy (and hopefully soon-to-be-former) Senator Coleman in action. He has a history of filing lawsuits against his opponents during campaigns, all the while decrying frivolous litigation.

Now Coleman's lawyers want the court to review 5,000 or so ballots, one by one. And I'm sure the Coleman camp is very sad that the three justices insist that they need to review the original ballots in question, as opposed to the ones that Coleman campaign staffers altered. The alterations, in some cases, cut off or otherwise hide the reason the ballots were rejected in the first place.

Norm, you're embarrassing us. Please just go gracefully. Go now. Minnesota needs two senators, and by a slim margin, we didn't choose you.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Liberal media bias my......um....foot

Being a Minnesotan, I visit the Star Tribune website pretty frequently. Conservative commenters on the site often refer to the paper as the "Red Star," saying that the paper is heavily biased toward Democrats (and inferring that we Dems are all crazy-commies, as per usual).

Looking at the editorials, the Star Tribune has endorsed
  • Barack Obama (D) for president,
  • Norm Coleman (R) for Senate,
  • Tim Walz (D) for the 1st Congressional District (CD),
  • John Kline (R) for the 2nd CD,
  • No endorsement in the heated 3-way 3rd CD race,
  • El Tinklenberg (D) in the 6th CD race (largely because of Michelle Bachman's much publicized ranting about her suspicions of "anti-American views" in Congress.)
Notice something odd for a newspaper with a supposed liberal bias?

The endorsements are pretty much split down the middle. Quite frankly, if you can endorse Kline or Coleman....you don't have a liberal bias.

I haven't read any endorsements from the Star Tribune in the 4th, 5th, 7th, or 8th District races. In these races, the Democratic incumbents (Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Collin Peterson, and Jim Oberstar) are very likely to win re-election. Those races are not very competitive; therefore, endorsing a candidate is pretty meaningless.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Michelle Bachman - 4 feet in her mouth

Michelle Bachman appeared on Hardball on Friday, and managed to not only stuff both of her own feet into her mouth, but also both of Joe McCarthy's feet.



She basically thinks that there are anti-American members of Congress, including Barack Obama, and the media needs to do an investigation and show the results in an expose.

Yes, she's a nut.

The silver lining to her paranoid rant is that her comments have provoked a firestorm. Her opponent, El Tinklenberg, raised $1 million dollars within the first 4 days following Bachman's rant. The RCCC pulled all monetary support from her campaign as a result of her anger-filled bungling. The DCCC is now going to support Tinklenberg in his battle for her seat.

Thank you to Chris Matthews for pressing Bachman on her snide, divisive, hate-filled comments.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Coleman's new "don't blame me" ad

Jeff Rosenberg at The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has a hysterical post about Norm Coleman's latest ad. You can see the post, and the ad, here.

I couldn't decide what was funnier - the sappy guitar music in the ad, or the "please don't attempt to assign blame (to me) pleading in Norm's voice.

Friday, September 26, 2008

I shock myself by agreeing with the Taxpayers League

For any readers not from Minnesota, I will provide a little background. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota is a conservative group that wields a great deal of influence over Republicans, in particular, in Minnesota. Their basic philosophy is that taxes are bad. Tax increases of any sort, for any reason, are down right evil. Tax cuts are always good. Spending cuts are always good, and government should not be providing most services they provide. Their talking heads like to use words like "socialist" and "liberal" when describing Democrats. They push candidates for office to take "no new taxes" pledges.

There will be a proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution this November on the ballot. The amendment proposes an increase in the state sales tax by 3/8 of a percent. The money will be dedicated to projects for "helping the outdoors" and "the arts."

This has got to be one of the silliest things I have heard. Why on earth would we want to dedicate, by way of constitutional amendment, revenue to specific areas? And why that particular combination?

In addition, I think sales taxes are a particularly punitive tax for the poor and middle class. The poor, and much of the middle class, must spend most or all of their income just to provide for basic living expenses. Sales taxes are regressive. And unfortunately, Minnesota has recently had several sales tax increases - .25% for transit, .15% to buy a new baseball stadium for a billionaire, plus some additional sales taxes imposed only in certain cities.

I think flexibility is a great thing in a budget. This proposal makes no sense to me, and I will be voting no on the proposal.