Below are the words most used the Republican Florida debate. "People think" pops out along with the words: believe and question. So the focus is on convincing people not solving problems. Digging through the less used words for issues, we find cuba, freddie (mac), health insurance, tax and space. Yep, space! And where are the key words of jobs and the economy? Apparently those are not important words in a Republican debate!
Contrast the Republican words with the words used in Obama's State of the Union address. Note how "American Jobs" pops out. Notice the issue words of economy, energy, financial, help, home, manufacturing, industry, oil, and security. Even solution words pop up like built, create, help, keep, reforms, power, responsibility, rules, and together. While the Republicans' debate featured the timespan of "years," Obama's speech featured "tonight" and "year."
So which set of words best represents your priorities for the president and the country?
The Republicans in the Minnesota legislature are in a peculiar position. They control both houses, but are unable to pass any of their far right agenda due to DFL Governor Mark Dayton.
To get around Dayton's veto power, Republicans will be legislating via ballot measure.
So far in the first week of the 2012 legislative session, Republicans have introduced 7 constitutional amendments for the 2012 ballot:
HF1928 - Abortion funding ban constitutional amendment
HF1908 - Repeal income tax & all corporate taxes, replace with general tax constitutional amendment
HF1898 - Obamacare doesn't apply to MN constitutional amendment
HF1877 - Constitution amendments require super majority consitutional amendment
HF1845 - School shifts cannot exceed 10% constitutional amendment
HF430 - Right to bear arms consitutional amendment
"This was an extremely difficult and painful first week of session in the Minnesota Senate."
That's how Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk characterizes the first week of the 2012 legislative session.
"On Tuesday, the first day of the legislative session, the Republican majority engaged in one of the most shameful actions I've ever seen at the Capitol," Sen. Bakk continued.
Majority Leader Dave Senjem and his fellow Republicans used misleading and possibly fabricated numbers to justify slashing only the DFL's Senate staff to make up for a budget shortfall caused by the MNGOP's intransigence. Last session, rather than work on the state's budget they introduced unrelated 32 bills then refused to negotiate in good faith and shut down our state's government.
Republican Cal Ludeman, Secretary of the MN Senate, justified these cuts by claiming that the DFL Senate Caucus has $2,629,000 which they claim is $160,000 more than what the Senate GOP Caucus has. Ludeman supplied a roster of Senate staff employees of both caucuses which isn't exactly helpful and doesn't actually support his and Senjem's claims.
The Senate DFL took the raw data Ludeman submitted, added it all up and calculated what the actual number were. Like pretty much every else the Republican say, Ludeman and Senjem's numbers are wrong. You might even conclude that they are lying.
Senate GOP has 70 full-time staffers compared to 42 for the DFL. Senate GOP actually plans on spending 3.2 million not $2,469,000.
Senate GOP has 4 open and as yet un-filled positions. These potential salaries are not included in the calculations. So they may actually spend more than $3.2M.
The calculations show that the DFL's staff budget is 2 million plus a yet unfilled junior staff post which will pay $32K.
So the reality is that Senate Republicans plan on spending upwards of $3.5 million and maintaining a staff of 74. Yet in the same breath, they expect the DFL to reduce their budget by $444K to $1.6 million. This means a large staff reduction of possibly 9 or 10 staffers by my calculations.
Like TwoPuttTommy always reminds us of what then Chair of the RNC Michael Steele said about Republicans:
There's this guy named Hemrick in Tennessee, he had served as Michele Bachmann's chief fundraiser in Tennessee. And at the height of the tea party frenzy, he and some other conservatives had a great idea: to create an all-new Tea Party TV Network--in HD! (High Definition Tea Party TV, 24/7) How could such a business plan miss? There's a whole untapped market out there, millions of Americans who are so stupid and paranoid and right wing that they can't even stand to watch Fox. They want their Tea Party channel and they want it in High Def, dammit! NOW!
"Tea Party HD" had already made a national media splash by televising Michele Bachmann's Tea Party response the president's State of the Union Address. (You know, the speech where she stared into the wrong camera the whole time and wore the Count Dracula eye makeup.) Hemrick and his media geniuses had the world by the tail, after that one!
They invested big bucks with a California businessman name Anthony Loiacono to create a television network devoted entirely to the Tea Party movement. But guess what happened? You'll never guess in a million years, what happened after a bunch of geniuses who thought that a HD Tea Party television network was a good investment, invested all their dough in a private sector venture to take on big government! You'll never guess, NO ONE could ever have seen this coming.
(CONTINUED)
I had a note that the hearing on the restraining order, blocking the child care union vote ordered by Governor Mark Dayton, was supposed to be in mid-January. Either it was postponed, or my memory is defective, because it's scheduled for Feb. 22.
Moreover, about a week ago, War on Worker cronies filed a federal lawsuit.
A news release today from the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota said the lawsuit will challenge child care unionization on constitutional grounds. It claims a vote would violate the providers' first amendment right of free political expression and association.
It's long since been determined, that labor unions are entirely constitutional. Though, in the current judicial environment, with right-wing judges willing to do pretty much anything to keep corporate conservatism thriving despite public outrage, any outcome is possible.
I'm not suggesting that those who aren't super-wealthy greedhead capitalists, but who are nevertheless supporting anti-labor policies, are "bad." Sadly uninformed, naïve, and gullible, is what they are.
As a follow on to "Why Can't Conservatives Be Honest About Keystone?" and as a result of an e-mail exchange I had with a conservative friend I thought it best to bring up a sidebar story related to the Keystone pipeline decision. A corollary issue that conservatives have tried to raise is that Obama's vetoing of the first Keystone application will result in Canadian Oil being sold to China and that this rejection will preclude any further chance of that oil being shipped into the American market. As it turns out nothing could be further from the truth. While Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated his country's own national interest in saying "Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports"; that statement can only be seen to represent the fact that Canada has had an ongoing interest in more than one market for its natural resources, and that predates Keystone. In his conversation with President Obama Prime Minister Harper indicated "that he hoped that this project would continue given the significant contribution it would make to jobs and economic growth both in Canada and the United States of America."
Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post who has followed this story closely said "it would be more expensive for Canada to ship its tarsand oil to China but it could happen." But does that mean it will, absolutely not as it's in the interest of both Canada and the U.S. to pursue the alternate route for the pipeline. Why, because it would be much cheaper to construct a pipeline through the Great Plains of the United States than it would be to build one through the mountainous regions of western Canada. This is particularly true when you factor in the costs involved in building an oil out load port on the Canadian west coast, something not required when shipping oil to the United States via the Keystone pipeline. Moreover with the bulk of the background work on the original Keystone project completed, the costs involved in rerouting the pipeline are minimal compared to what it would cost to create a new project to Canada's west coast? Why even the Premier of Alberta doesn't expect to see his province's oil shipped to the west. Quoting Bill McKibben a writer and activist monitoring Keystone: "The premier of Alberta said that without Keystone he'd be 'landlocked in Bitumen." More importantly TransCanada's CEO, Russ Girling has made public his decision to reapply for a permit to build the pipeline and asked that the process be expedited so as to enable a 2014 construction start. Barack Obama yet to take issue with Mr. Girling's new request and its not likely he will so long as environmental safeguards are respected.
Thus there is nothing in the Prime Minister's comments or in TransCanada's actions that would lead one to conclude that we have forfeited our opportunity to purchase Canadian oil. What I find remarkable in this particular conservative attack is the complete and total willingness to ignore the fact that Prime Minister Harper seems to be engaged in political posturing for the sake of Canadian public consumption on the one hand, and the fact that he in no way rules out a revival of the project after environmental concerns are addressed on the other. Harper's own words clearly prove he would prefer to ship oil to the United States than to China and you can bet he's more than aware of the far higher costs involved in the later. As such there is no reasonable indication that the rejection of the first Keystone application signals the end of any chance that Canadian oil will flow into the United States.
Keystone XL rejected by Obama; will Canada just sell that oil to China?;http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/keystone-xl-rejected-by-obama-will-canada-just-sell-that-oil-to china/2012/01/19/gIQA7WnkBQ_blog.html
I submitted the following letter to the editor of the Farmington Independent, attention Editor Nathan Hansen, on Monday January 23, 2012.
Earlier that day, State Senator Dave Thompson posted on Twitter and Facebook that he intends to introduce "Right-to-Work" legislation as a constitutional amendment for voters decide on in November.
The letter that follows is the unedited version of the letter that was published January 26th in the Farmington Independent. The MLK quote at the bottom was removed:
Letter: Legislation's real goal is busting unions State Senator Dave Thompson of Lakeville posted on Facebook and Twitter earlier this week that he intends to introduce what he is calling an "Employee Freedom Bill" as an amendment to Minnesota's Constitution. This type of legislation has been in the works across America for decades, and is more commonly referred to as "Right-to-Work" legislation. But don't let the phrases "Employee Freedom" and "Right-to-Work" fool you. Those buzz phrases were carefully developed to mislead people. "Employee Freedom" and "Right-to-Work" legislation is simply intended to bust unions.
With fewer and fewer of us as union members, unknowingly we accept the negative stereotype about unions and union members that has been constantly promoted by corporate interests and the politicians who tie themselves to those interests. Together they have spent billions of dollars to promote an anti-union agenda. State Senator Dave Thompson, is now tying himself to special interest groups like the MN Chamber of Commerce who spends more than twice as much to lobby our legislators as any union does. (MSP Biz Journal, 2012)
If State Senator Dave Thompson gets his wish and puts this on the ballot for all of us to vote on in November, voters have an important decision to make. We need to decide if we want to accelerate the downward plunge in the quality of life many middle-class Minnesotans are experiencing, the way other states that have these laws of de-unionization have reduced middle-class wages and working conditions.
Do we want more Minnesotans to be without the ability to bargain for decent medical benefits? Do we want to risk a living wage and prevent employees from being able to bargain collectively for the pay they deserve? Do we want corporations to decide what air is safe to breath and what equipment is safe to operate? Do we want employees to be fired because they complain about unsafe work conditions? Do we want the gap between rich and poor to increase even more and even faster?
Take a close look at the constitutional amendments that will or might be on the ballot in 2012. State Senator Dave Thompson and the other politicians like him will use compelling words to use emotions to get you to support these amendments. But, every potential constitutional amendment so far seems to be about taking rights away from people who don't have the power to fight back.
Vote no on any so called right-to-work amendments. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: "We must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped."
The common theme in the constitutional amendments the legislative Republicans seem ready to put on the 2012 is the restriction of rights of people who tend not to vote Republican. Whether it's marriage equality, reproductive rights, the right to organize, the right to vote, and whatever ever other noxious amendments they come up with, these self-proclaimed "constitutional conservatives" seem not the get that the American republic is built not just on majority rule, but on minority rights. These amendments are exactly the sort of attacks on our rights the US Constitution was meant to prevent.
We're not the only state of course where this is happening. One state where the Republicans think rights depend on the momentary whim of the majority is New Jersey. The legislature is likely to overturn the gay marriage ban, and Gov. Chris Christie says he'll veto it. Instead, he wants the question put to a referendum. In defense of subjecting minority rights to majority rule, he mentioned the civil rights movement, and said, "The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South." Right, let white people vote on whether black people should be allowed to vote, because the states that banned blacks from voting were so anxious to change those laws.
This gets to a video that's a must-see for attacking this idea that minority rights should be subject to majority rule. Newark mayor (and possible gubernatorial candidate next year) Cory Booker was asked about Christie's statement at a press conference. Though he was reacting to Christie's remark specifically and addressing the bill in New Jersey, it applies to all the GOP efforts to take away rights from those who aren't them.
Stonewall DFL met yesterday to endorse candidates in a bunch of races. Stonewall DFL is the LGBT caucus of the DFL. The endorsements in Eagan and St. Paul races are the most controversial.
In Eagan's SD38 Senate race, Stonewall endorsed Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire over former Senator Jim Carlson. Both received A ratings. These two are vying for the DFL endorsement to face Republican Ted Daley.
In St. Paul, Nicque Mabrey Schaff is challenging Rep. Carlos Mariani for the DFL 65B endorsement. Stonewall endorsed Schaff. Both redceived A ratings. For background, you can read about this race here.
Mike Germain, running for the SD37 Senate seat to represent Apple Valley, Burnsville and Rosemount, was endorsed. Germain will face GOP Sen. Chris Gerlach.
Tom Degree and Ann Marie Metzger are vying for the DFL 56A endorsement to face Republican Kathy Lohmer. 56A is Woodbury. Degree was endorsed. He received an A rating. Metgzer received a B rating.
Carla Bates received an A rating and was endorsed for Minneapolis School Board.
I noticed something. I noticed that Republicans passed a bill that actually hurt their ability to fundraise. To laugh.
In 2009, Republicans ended the Political Contribution Refund. If you gave money to your party or to one of your party's candidates, you got $50 of it back from the state ($100 per couple). Republicans thought it was a good idea to end this because they figured it would hurt Democrats.
Now, former MNGOP Chair Tony Sutton (aka Taco Tony, aka FEC Tony) is complaining it hurt his party's ability to fundraise.
Here's the context: Tom Sheck at MPR did a piece about the MNGOP going into debt, lacking financial accountability, lacking transparency and how that played out. As part of telling this tale, the following paragraph leapt out at me:
Sutton said the party's problems were a result of poor fundraising from donors who gave in small amounts. He said the elimination of the state's Political Contribution Refund was a drain on the party's coffers. That state program, which was eliminated in 2009, allowed donors to claim a tax refund of $50 when they contributed to political parties.
The data support Sutton's claim.
In 2006 -- the last time every member of the Legislature and every constitutional officer were on the ballot -- campaign finance reports show the party received $1.8 million in donations that were $100 or less. In 2010, reports show the party raised only $255 from small donors.
Life imitates art: the other day I wrote a piece about how Gingrich wanted to found a mining colony on the moon, staffed by his ex-wives and mistresses and mistresses who later became ex-wives.
And just yesterday, he got serious:
Newt Gingrich Vows to Establish Colony on Moon
-Associated Press
January 26, 2012 RSS Feed Print
And Romney offered to pay for the trip, if Gingrich really will go. (Just kidding.) But for years, Michele Bachmann and the tea party have been telling us the US is flat-broke. What is their reality? We got the money for this, or no? Do Republicans really need another place to export American manufacturing jobs?
In any case, former governor and prez candidate Tim Pawlenty wants Newt gone, too. Look:
'Stop-Newt' Republicans Confront New Base
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis - Jan 25, 2012 11:00 PM
..."The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handing the election over to Obama," former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty told reporters on a Jan. 23 conference call. "I think that's shared by a lot of folks in the Republican Party."
Pawlenty's comments echoed those being uttered publicly and behind the scenes by elected Republicans, party activists, fundraisers and pundits, who represent a portion of the party establishment -- a "stop-Newt" caucus -- populated largely by people who have known the former U.S. House speaker for decades.
You see...it's the people in the party who know Gingrich best and up close, who are trying to put him under the bus.
(CONTINUED)
In Part 1, we looked at how FEC Tony Sutton's (pictured, right) MN GOP couldn't (wouldn't?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor they hired to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP's Cooked Books -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - which nailed 'em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions "no, NO!" that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. In Part 4 we looked at the MN GOP using a strange address for one of it's fundraisers.
Today in Part 8 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we're going to take a look at a MN GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that begs the question: did the State GOP pay for a lawyer for a State Representative's drunk driving case?
Here's the background: endorsed GOPer 2010 candidate for Governor Tom Emmer's campaign was getting hammered over alcohol related incidents, including a certain paid campaign staffer that happened to be Emmer's kid. The campaign did NOT need any more alocohol-related incidents. Apparently, campaign "consultant" Mark Buesgens, state rep from district 35-B, didn't get the memo - he got caught driving drunk with an open bottle of vodka.
Now, the "official story" put out by Team Emmer's Drinking Team was: "Hey! It's just a coincidence, but: just the day before Buesgens got caught driving drunk into the ditch, we ditched him and he went to work for the State GOP!!!"
Yeah, "right."
Let's take a look at the timeline, as reported on Buesgen's court records:
The Republicans in the Minnesota legislature are in a peculiar position. They control both houses, but are unable to pass any of their far right agenda due to DFL Governor Mark Dayton.
Majority Leader Dave Senjem and his fellow Republicans used misleading and possibly fabricated numbers to justify slashing only the DFL's Senate staff to make up for a budget shortfall caused by the MNGOP's intransigence. Last session, rather than work on the state's budget they 
I had a note that the hearing on the restraining order, blocking the 
The common theme in the constitutional amendments the legislative Republicans seem ready to put on the 2012 is the restriction of rights of people who tend not to vote Republican. Whether it's marriage equality, reproductive rights, the right to organize, the right to vote, and whatever ever other noxious amendments they come up with, these self-proclaimed "constitutional conservatives" seem not the get that the American republic is built not just on majority rule, but on minority rights. These amendments are exactly the sort of attacks on our rights the US Constitution was meant to prevent.
In 
