When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...
Who would have thought that the Constitution many of those same leaders would help create just a few short years later would provide the groundwork for the world's longest-lasting democracy, with the ingrained ability to throw off abusive governments every few years and install new leaders who speak to their needs, their desires, their hopes, their dreams for themselves, their families, and America?
Happy Independence Day, all. Now let's go fight some aliens.
Without addressing the continuing scandal surrounding his sweetheart rental arrangement in Washington D.C., Norm Coleman's reelection campaign has taken time this week to attack DFL opponent Al Franken -- twice! -- about petroleum-related issues.
Curious that the campaign and its bosses in DC would think this is a good tack to take -- since federal oil policy is set by the White House, does Team Coleman really want to put itself in line to be bound inextricably to George W. Bush's eight-year failure on energy issues?
Meanwhile, DFL Chair Brian Melendez was taking time to ask some serious questions about Coleman's rental deal with Republican political professional Jeff Larson:
"Senator Coleman, can you prove that you are paying fair market value? What research are you using to back up your claim that you are?"
"Coleman's claim that he has access only to his bedroom is simply not credible. In yesterday's National Journal article, Senator Coleman admitted again that he 'shares' the 'living space' with an office - namely the office of FLS-Connect, Jeff Larson's company. And we know from the real-estate listing not only that Coleman's bedroom is 'airy,' but that the basement includes many amenities that Coleman refuses to acknowledge.
"Are we to believe that when Coleman is in the apartment long after the FLS-Connect employee has left, he does not enjoy full use of the rest of the apartment? Why won't Senator Coleman admit that he has full access to the entire apartment?"
Is Senator Coleman paying his share of the utilities and, if so, can he prove it with a bill from Pepco [the utility company], or proof of payment to Pepco? If he is not paying his share, who is paying it for him - and would that subsidy constitute yet another ethics violation?"
...
"Why hasn't Senator Coleman produced a copy of his lease with Jeff Larson, along with any other related written documentation?"
"Senator Coleman, is it fair, when so many Minnesotans are worried about keeping their homes, are facing foreclosure or have been foreclosed on, that you get a cut-rate sweetheart deal from Jeff Larson, one of the most well-connected political operatives in America?"
To say nothing of Coleman's incredible persuasive ability to pay a month's rent with furniture that he then gets to use indefinitely in the space he's renting. I wish I could have pulled that one off in college.
It's a matter of ethics in government, and this one simply does not pass the smell test.
Now it's a wait-and-see game over the holiday weekend with Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, and the rest of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to see if they decide to investigate this matter.
May I interject? I may? Great! Mikey, just for future reference, you don't have to put your entire story in the headline of your posts. There's this thing called "the story" in which you actually can write more stuff! Granted, most of your readers are conservatives and thus can't be bothered to read beyond the title, but still, most titles are less than 214 words long. Having run-on titles in ALLCAPS that are longer than the actual story they're attached to...well, it's just amateurish, to be frank. And now that the Paulsen campaign's paying you to blog hired to you "consult" or whatever, I figure you probably want to look like a professional.
(A good deal more important than conservative mouthpieces acting like children toward me....I'm promoting this back up to the top. - promoted by Joe Bodell)
This is the second in a series of weekly articles exposing Norm Coleman's record on the issues. Articles in the series will be collected here. 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.
Just asking. I know you're only a part-time consultant for that campaign, but I'm quite certain that if you were spending their time and money ginning up spurious attacks against me and the members of the MNCR community, they'd want to know about it.
As for the content of your little screed: as Robin noted in a comment here, you knew damned well who I was when we were squabbling on that Wikipedia talk page. Right now you sound like a scared little child, and I really have to wonder if this is the kind of conduct you marketed to the Paulsen campaign when negotiating your contract.
Paul Smith, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Monday that the state decided not to pursue the case further because of a deal that would require the attorney general's office to pay a reduced amount in fees owed to plaintiff's lawyers. Smith could not say what the reduced amount was, though a court filing from May 19 shows that the plaintiffs' lawyers were owed nearly $84,000. Woglsand did not return calls Monday.
The Entertainment Software Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, announced Monday that the state paid $65,000 in attorney's fees and expenses.
In 2006, the measure was challenged only days after Pawlenty signed it by the Entertainment Software Association and the Entertainment Merchants Association, which asked for a permanent injunction.
In arguments before the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, then-Attorney General Mike Hatch said violent video games cause psychological harm to children. However, District Court Judge James Rosenbaum ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying the state could not provide sufficient evidence showing the causal link between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behavior in minors.
It was a stupid piece of legislation in the first place. Parents should not use their television as a babysitter, and they should not depend on the state to control the games their children play. Instead of depending on a legal taboo, why not discuss the issue with one's entire family, ensure understanding, and trust your children to make the right choices? Is that concept anathema to the modern American family?
It's a tough spot for Swanson to be in -- it's her responsibility to pursue the laws set before her by the Legislature and the Governor, even stupid laws like this one. And there's definitely a generational divide here -- younger people are much more likely to disagree with their parents and their state legislators on the effects of video games. But come on, folks -- this was never going to pass muster with the courts, and rightfully so -- and now we're all stuck with the bill.
As for Hatch's role in the 2006 ACORN "donation" (of one dollar less than would require the money to go into state coffers) from a legal settlement, and ACORN PAC's subsequent endorsement of Hatch's gubernatorial bid -- I honestly can't say I'm surprised. That's definitely not a silly little thing, but it's a post for another day.
The Republican Party of Minnesota must be feeling desperate to immediately publish every scrap of opposition research it thinks it has on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in response to CREW's ethics complaint against Sen. Norm Coleman for a sweetheart rental deal in Washington D.C.
Of course, if you read just a shade below the surface, you'll realize that what the GOP isn't saying is as (if not more) important as what they do say: nowhere in that hilarious opposition research dump does the Republican Party of Minnesota deny, refute, or even seek to challenge the veracity of the allegations CREW filed a complaint to investigate.
Raise your hand if you too see that as an admission that they're true. Also raise your hand if you noticed the repeated efforts to spin it as a bipartisan scandal.
Nice try guys. The media isn't biting this time. They're actually going to cover this, because this is a real and serious issue with the way Norm Coleman conducts the business of representing Minnesota in Washington D.C.
The Senate gifts rule generally prohibits members and staff from accepting gifts, but has two exceptions under which they may accept lodging: if based on personal friendship or, as long as the giver is not a lobbyist or foreign agent, if the gift constitutes personal hospitality. Because the relationship between Sen. Coleman and Mr. Larson appears to be more business than personal, the gift would not be permitted under the "personal friendship" exception. Because Mr. Larson does not live in the townhouse, but rents it out to others, he is not hosting Sen. Coleman and "the personal hospitality" exception would not apply.
CREW is asking the Senate Ethics Committee to look into whether or not Sen. Coleman is paying fair market value for the apartment, whether Sen. Coleman would have paid the November 2007 and January 2008 rent had National Journal not raised the non-payment as an issue, whether Sen. Coleman and Mr. Larson had agreed that Mr. Larson would not cash the March 2008 rent check, why Sen. Coleman suddenly made up his back rent after National Journal asked questions about it, and why Sen. Coleman's office announced that Ms. Kainz would be leaving the senator's employ after National Journal asked about her role.
CREW's executive director Melanie Sloan stated, "Few Americans have landlords who sometimes fail to cash their rent checks, ignore unpaid rent, or accept furniture in lieu of rent. That Sen. Coleman has just such a landlord, who also happens to financially benefit from his relationship with the senator creates exactly the sort of appearance of impropriety that undermines the public's faith in government." Sloan continued, "Senators must abide by the ethics rules at all times, not just when they get caught flouting them."
No word yet on whether this means an inquiry by the Ethics Committee. Either way, it looks like that bad week I predicted on Sunday is about to get pretty darned crappy for Norm Coleman.
Gas prices are in the news pretty much every day right now. Not wanting to squander an "opportunity," 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. (emphasis added)
I don't think people will buy it. 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 2 cents. According to twincitiesgasprices.com, the average price of gas today is $3.966/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 the conservatives have 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 returns are vastly greater.
Oh, and raise your hand if you saw the GOP's "It's not so bad because see? A LIBRUL DEMOCRAT DID IT TOO TWENTY YEARS AGO OMG LOLLERSK4T3S!!" spin. What I get from Brodkorb's eloquent rhetoric here is the Republican Party admitting (through its loyal mouthpiece, as always) that Coleman has done some very bad things, but if they can make it a bipartisan bad thing, it's not quite as bad.
All snark aside, there's an important issue here that we could be addressing: is it better to be represented by a rich man who may not be from the salt of the earth crowd, but doesn't need the help of political consultants to afford a place to crash in D.C., or a poor man who takes sweetheart deals like these for who-knows-what in return?
Let's lay it out on the table: Al Franken came from humble beginnings in St. Louis Park, but has made quite a name and quite a bit of bank for himself in the process. Norm Coleman went into a not-as-profitable legal practice, later became Mayor of St. Paul (which, if I remember correctly, isn't exactly lucrative) and then became a U.S. Senator. It's sad when $160,000 or so isn't that much money, but there it is -- he does have a house here in Minnesota, and he does have to stay somewhere in Washington. The expenses add up. But so do the IOUs and favors that will eventually and inevitably be called in.
So which is better? The dollar-rich but IOU-poor entertainer looking to make a difference in the world, or the guy who increasingly looks like he's bought and paid for by the men who helped get him where he is today...
And their furniture. I wonder how many months of rent that chaise lounge could buy on the open market...
Give yourselves a pat on the back, dear readers: we've raised $2,000 for the four DFLers seeking congressional office in 2008. That, on top of the $535 we raised for Steve Sarvi on Blog Day and a few bucks here and there raised here on MNCR's Blue Majority MN page, and we're talking about almost $3,000 in small-dollar donations for four great candidates.
A breakdown of the Red2Blue page as of mid-day Monday:
Ash Madia: $406
Steve Sarvi: $826
El Tinklenberg: $321
Al Franken: $446
Every last dollar counts and every last dollar helps these candidates get their messages out this summer. There will be more of these pushes in the coming weeks, but I wanted to take a moment and thank everyone for their contributions, bloggers and donors (and blogger-donors) alike.
(The same goes for all DFL candidates -- Wikipedia has a high Google rank, so when medium- and low-info voters go searching in September and October, we need to make sure they're getting real, true, and contextually valid information.
Volunteers? - promoted by Joe Bodell)
Franken opponents have been systematically editing Wikipedia entries relating to Al Franken, including his biography, the entries on "The Al Franken Show", and those on his books. Tampering includes putting problematic material on personal issues (former dabbling in cocaine, enjoyment of Grateful Dead) up in the introductory section which would normally be confined to facts like wife's name, where does he live, etc..
They also removed from his bio content that described the political expertise and passion he evidenced in his radio show. I was able to find corroboration by an outside source, so it will be harder to tamper with in the future, but not impossible.
They have inserted into "The Al Franken Show" entry lines that described it as a show which advocated liberal positions and which poked fun at conservatives. I corrected this to read progressive positions and which poked fun at the Bush Administration and some conservative radio commentators, to more accurately reflect the show (which I listened to for years). For people to read that Franken has such disrepect for conservative people in general that he devoted a major portion of his radio show to poking fun of them would be extremely unfair and damaging. So it's very important for my edits to be maintained.
I read the Wikipedia definitions of "liberalism" and "American progressivism" and determined to the best of my ability, that Franken's show and guests are better described by the latter. Liberal in many people's minds also includes lifestyle issues which were never a topic of the show, and a disdain for religion, which wasn't either, except to question Bush's understanding of Christianity.
They distorted the fact that Franken had a study group of Harvard graduate students help with the research for Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them to say that volunteer Harvard students (implying random undergrads) helped write the book.
Franken and his campaign have a strict policy of hands off Wikipedia, since there was quite a flap about an alteration he made previously to his bio, so there will be no help there. Personally, I'm brand-new at Wikipedia and many years past college, so I'm very slow at editing, and I'm not sure my reference notes are written correctly. I simply cannot keep up with constant reversals of my editing which will only accelerate as the race heats up.
For people to be assured of reading reasonably accurate information in the Franken-related Wikipedia entries, some of you will have to step up and monitor the pages. Otherwise you can be assured that voters will be getting distortions.
