Last week, we rolled out Publius TV: a video podcast in which Matt and I discuss the week’s political news. We were so happy with the way it turned out that we decided to roll out another new feature: Guest Posts.
Each week, a member of the House DFL Majority will be writing a guest post for this blog. They’ll talk about what’s going on down at the Capitol and the issues of the week. Hopefully it will serve as a way to further illuminate the sometimes underreported happenings at the Legislature. The most regular participant will be House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, but given that the Leader has a job that is kinda demanding, other members will pinch hit from time to time - especially when they offer special expertise in a policy area that is in the spotlight. The first guest post will appear tomorrow.
One last thing: These guest posts are the functional equivalent of an op-ed in a newspaper. While we are happy to be able to facilitate the dissemination of the commentary of prominent local politicians, these pieces are nothing more than submissions approved by the contributors of this blog (Matt, Sean, and me) and released at a time of our choosing. The writer(s) of this piece have no editorial or administrative control over this blog or its content. A variation of this disclaimer will appear in every guest post.
Loading ...
This is wonderful. House Majority Leader Tony Sertich joins that blog that dragged Representative Steve Drazkowski’s family through the mud and tried to claim the Drazkowski didn’t pay his child support.
Zack, Matt, Sean and Tony (or insert the house member)- the bloggers behind MN Publius. All of the disclaimers in the world can’t change that.
Wonderful idea - maybe they can discuss the impact of the new transportation taxes on their constituents and their own lack of a clear plan to deal with the deficit? Or maybe the results of a recent Survey poll?
Here Are The Results of SurveyUSA News Poll #13589
Geography Surveyed: Minnesota
Data Collected: 03/12/2008
Do you approve or disapprove of the job being done by the Minnesota state legislature?
29% Approve
58% Disapprove
13% Not Sure
Last month the Minnesota legislature passed a transportation funding bill that will raise the state gas tax, raise license registration fees and allow counties in the metro area to raise the sales tax in order to pay for highway and transit projects. Do you support or oppose that legislation?
35% Support
63% Oppose
2% Not Sure
Governor Pawlenty’s proposed plan to balance the state’s 935-million dollar budget deficit without raising taxes calls for a mix of making spending cuts, using budget reserves, closing a corporate tax loophole and slightly decreasing the state sales tax. Do you support or oppose this plan?
58% Support
29% Oppose
13% Not Sure
Nice to see that MNPublius has given up the “objective” facade when it comes to party issues and officially become the place for leadership press releases.
I guess this means you won’t be looking at labor issues any time soon. At least you guys could change your name to the DF party to make it a bit more accurate. Wait, since you don’t really want people to choose their representatives democratically you might want to drop that D as well and just go with the F party.
KH - What?
Brodkerb-
And you’re the facist who demands that newspapers censor their columnists if they criticize Republicans.
The facts are that the DFL endorsed a senator that failed to get the endorsement of the union that represented her employees and your new blogger has refused to start the investigation in to the AG’s office labor practices and union busting. An investigation that was voted for overwhelmingly as I recall.
Both parties work hard to make sure that they alone have control of the capitol despite them lacking the combined support of a majority of citizens. That the transportation bill not allowing a referendum on the sales tax and needing the votes of representatives that are from districts not getting taxed shows that small “d” democracy is not a DFL priority either.
Having party leadership become a regular feature of the blog is just further evidence that you have no motivation to be a critical eye on your won party with the goal of improving it. You have decided to simply act as a repeater mechanism for the pablum that is the typical political BS.
KH, do you spend a lot of time telling kids to get off your lawn? Because you are turning into a serious crank.
I’m actually quit a happy guy who likes both dogs and cats and long walks on the beach. My crankiness has is direct proportional relationship to the level of bullshit. Given the approval rating of either party these days I’m thinking crankiness is the norm for citizens. Most are completely aware that both parties are incapable of managing a country, state or PTA bake sale with any level of success or honesty.
I’ve met Tony Sertich, and he is really an impressive guy. If you could actually get past the fact that he is in the DFL leadership and listen to what he has to say, you might be too.
KH-
They don’t want people to choose their representatives democratically? Really? Sean, Matt and Zack have been saying we shouldn’t hold elections? Really? They’re for some dictatorship of the blogatariot, with them throwing darts at pictures on a board, and making that person speaker, or governor, or what have you? Let’s hear about where they have advocated representatives not running for election. Come on, surely the high and mighty KH can point to some time they said they don’t beleive in democracy.
But if not, why don’t you get off of your high horse and shut the hell up. We aren’t all going to get down and pay homage to your purity any time soon, and right now, you’re about as productive as Swiftee.
If you are in favor of a caucus you aren’t in favor of democratic election - caucus’s are all about preserving the power of party activists.
And, KH is one of the most reasonable voices on this site.
John,
I’ve never asked anybody to pay homage or claimed that anybody says we shouldn’t hold elections. If you need to make shit up to make your point I can asume you simply don’t have the capacity to think for your self. Try making an argument not based on straw-men for once and you might find using your head can be productive.
The truth is that parties work to reduce the affect the will of people with the goal of maximizing their power. How elections are held, committees assigned or even staff allocated are designed to create a top down power structure. Neither side seems to want to take responsibility fr their own party and instead will defend just about anything done by “their team” and demonize anything done by the other. The problem with that is of course is that the truth and government transparency are DOA. Replaced with obfuscation, hidden agendas and simplistic talking points designed to win elections rather than govern properly.
Your the kind of hypocrite that causes the bullshit. You treat this stuff as a game and get pissed when the your bubble gets burst. You pretend to be upset at dishonesty when it is a Republican but are willing to overlook almost anything done by a Democrat. You are a tool in both function and intellect. Only as capable as the party that wields you.
I did notice you didn’t object to my comments on your parties treatment of labor though, just the democracy part.
Dan,
I have no reason to doubt that Tony is anything other than a very nice guy and I have read things he has written and heard him numerous times on both NPR and TPT as well as in person at least one. Condi Rice might be a great gal but that doesn’t have much to do with how I view her accomplishments or actions as S.O.S..
KH-
You said they don’t beleive in democracy. I proposed a few examples of that, and asked you to clarify. If you are going to say that two people on a poltical blog don’t beleive in democracy, BACK IT UP. And not just with ravings about top-down power structures. Show where the three blogers on this site show they don’t believe in deomcracy. Show us, and then accuse me of making crap up.
Finally, here’s the thing about politics, and, well, anything. You have to give a little to get a little. Its very easy to give a principaled rejection to everything, and support nothing. Its much harder to get something done. You can call the people who want to do that tools all you like, but at the end of the day, its the people who compromise that get things done. Your principaled whining changes nothing, and your stance that it is the only principaled position is both ludicrous and infuriating.
And please - You say we’re all hypocrites. Or tools. Or stupid. Or whatever. How would you like to be named God, KH, how? Give us some specifics.
Nony Mouse-
At the end of the day, KH here rejects everything on principle, and supports nothing. Not all that different from Swiftee at all.
KH -
On the L -
Amy Klobuchar and Tony Sertich (and the rest of the House DFL Leadership) have exemplary labor records. They support increased wages and increased access to health care. Rep. Emmer’s effort to get Rep. Sertich to investigate Lori Swanson is totally bogus. Emmer is running for AG and wants the investigation for political reasons. Trust me, Emmer has no concern for the labor issues at stake here. The action’s of Swanson’s office should be fully investigated, but the House Rules Committee is hardly the place to do it. As for Amy…c’mon! The complaints by the local were absurd! They were dismissed out of hand by the state council (who endorsed Amy while Patty was still in the race for the DFL endorsement). You point to two GOP manufactured controversies (meaning the Emmer “investigation” not what’s going on in Swanson’s office, which I refuse to defend) and pretend that they are more important than: health care, wages, etc…
As for the D:
“That the transportation bill not allowing a referendum on the sales tax and needing the votes of representatives that are from districts not getting taxed shows that small “d†democracy is not a DFL priority either.”
The majority of members from the 7 county metro area voted for the bill, so your attack is not accurate. I think representative democracy is preferable to direct democracy. All you have to do is look at the mess that is California and Colorado to know that I am right. Government by initiative and referendum is a disaster.
I didn’t say Sertich was a nice guy, I said he was an impressive guy. I am talking about his polical work, and not having a beer with him.
Emmer is basically the boy who cried wolf. He complains about everything, so no one listens even if he has a legitimate complaint. Plus, he is an incredible jackass. The best thing that could have happened to Lori Swanson was to sic Emmer after her so that the story is discredited.
John S,
I gave examples of how the Democratic party chooses their own self interest over democracy. The fact that the bloggers here provide unquestioning support of the Democratic party despite those facts means they are anti-democratic to a certain degree. It is not my issue that you can’t see difference between the constitutional democracy both parties claim to support and the methods they practice.
The crap you made up is when you attributed things to me that I did not post. You said I claimed that the bloggers here were against elections. I never said any such thing and tried to explain to you how there are more subtle ways to reduce the democratic influence of the people.
Getting things done is only good if they are the right things. Simply going along to get along is not the way to move in the right direction. Without principle you have nothing. The fact that you are willing to compromise yours more quickly to get something done isn’t necessarily a positive.
I said that party supporters were hypocrites and that you personally are a tool. I never said anything about anybody being stupid. Hypocrisy is the price party loyalists pay for power. Some think that is a good deal, I don’t. I would also rather deal with principled people I disagree with than those willing to simply bend their beliefs in order to get what they want and advance their personal interests.
I have no desire to be named a mythical creature whether it be God, Santa or anything else. In fact I don’t want any power over others at all if that was more your point. You are the one advocating the way you would wield power over others and therefore are the one that should be explaining why you think you have the right to do so.
I may be infuriating to you but your attitude is truly dangerous.
Get off my lawn you damn kids!
Sure, I know Emmer is a goof with motives for his own self interest but the house voted unanimously for an investigation in the Rules Committee and even if that is not the place for the investigation there seems to be little reason to not hold hearings when requested by everybody.
The Amy K thing was no joke. She was know as an DA that prosecuted cases for her own political interest. In both the Amy K and current AG cases you should talk to a cross section of the involved attorneys and other involved people in the courts and form your own opinion. That she was endorsed by the state council means little since she was the only truly viable candidate at that point.
For the sales tax. Sure the majority of the metro reps voted for it but in order to be passed as a state law it needed the support of those outside the area as well making my statement accurate. If Democrats wanted to address the sales tax on the level for which the tax was being applied they could have passed it in each applicable county. The way it was done seems designed to help those involved shift the blame when people realize they don’t like the tax.
I don’t like the idea of a direct democracy controlling all the current government functions either since simple allowing the majority to impose it’s will on the minority. The better way to prevent that in my opinion is to reduce and make more transparent the role of government in our everyday lives rather than simply have faith that those who choose a life among the byzantine structures of power have the best of our varied and sometimes conflicting interests at heart.
KH-
No. The idea that the ability to compromise constitues an attitude that is ‘truely dangerous’ proves just how perfectly your attitudes align with the age of Bush. Especially when it is combined with the attitude that everyone who disagrees with oneself is a shallow hypocrite. That is your attitude, KH. Anyone who supports anyone or thing of any party is a tool and a hypocrite, whose praise of compromise is just a sign of their hypocricy. You are a priest, not a political commentator.
Perhaps… some of us vote and support Democrats because we are principaled? No, much easier for KH to paint us all as tools. Perhaps… we compromise our dogma because real people need real things to happen? No, much easier to brand us all hypocrites and be done. KH, your politics are truely the politics of someone whose opinions are a luxery item. The politics of the comfortable, who can demand only the best, and denigrate the mere good.
I don’t doubt that there are problems in the AGs office. My point is that Emmer is such an incredible assclown that his involvement lets Swanson off the hook.
Basically, if Emmer thinks its wrong, its right. If he thinks its right, its wrong.
John S,
Again, disagreeing with me doesnt’ make a person a hypocrite or unprincipled. Saying one thing and promoting another or not having any beliefs worth fight for does. Wellstone, Goldwater and MLK were people of principle, GWB or HRC are not. GWB and Hillary will say anything to promote their own self interests. You can dislike the correct definition of hypocrisy and the fact that it applies to your political methodology all you like but it won’t change it. I don’t brand you a hypocrite and walk away. You chose the label yourself and I work very hard to counter the consequences. Like I said before, you made that choice in order to gain a measure of power, not me. That is the dangerous ideology of Bush, Clinton and others who value power over principle. It would be much easier for me to pick a party and go along for the ride.
Unprincipled compromise based on the idea of “getting things done” got us No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug plan, the Patriot Act part one and two, the War in Iraq, and a host of other things that are among the worst decisions in our nations, and our planets, history. Compromise is a necessary part of life but that is not what I have been talking about. I have talked about specific instances or institutional structures that are hypocritical. Ones you have not denied or defended.
My politics are those of a person who believes principles are the most valuable possession any of us have. Only those who find other things more valuable would consider them a luxury. I’m by no means wealthy
Emmer is a kook and the wrong person to have brought up the AG issue for all the reason Dan mentions. The fact remains that the house, Democrats included, voted to hold hearings on it. If they thought it should be handled differently they should have voted as such instead of making a vote for the show of it. Doing what they did makes it appear as though they simply are trying to “disappear” the problem.
If all compromise is un-principaled KH, then you’d be right. But that I disagree with the statement that any compromise is unprincipaled, and that is said to make me a hypocrite… just funny, very funny. The thrashing of anger at a world that does not obediently lay itself out as you’d wish it the second you whine.
I criticize Democrats and praise Republicans. But I don’t demand that people I support cut off their nose to spite their faces. So I’m a hypocrite. I am not so vain of my own principales that I will let the best be the enemy of the merely quite good. So I’m a tool. Get real KH.
John S,
Again you make up crap and attribute it to me to make yourself look good. I made the very specific point that unprincipled compromise is the problem and never said compromise of any kind was an issue. I’ll even give concrete examples of the difference. Despite thinking taxes are excessive right now I would be willing to see a certain size increase in trade for a much more transparent and simpler system with the same level of progressivity. The bad kind of compromise is when a legislator doesn’t fight something like the Patriot Act or the war because it is popular and they are simply afraid of loosing their next election.
It is the bad kind of compromise that is the current method of both parties that most often results in a net negative even if there are small positive aspects. Things like ethanol subsidies or most of the rest of our farm programs that are “compromise” solutions that are very damaging to our environment, health and the global economy. Simply calling them the “quite good” is a mask for things that are actually bad in the long term. Things that are often simply meant to push the problems further down the road.
In this thread you seem to be the one whining and thrashing. My conscience is clear as crystal. I am not the one asking to have control over other people lives or have any desire to force the world to bend to my will. You are the one promoting using the power gained through your party and the state to make decisions for people who don’t agree with you. You are the one that has the burden of proof and the responsibility of any power gained. A responsibility that both parties with the help of their loyalists work hard to avoid.
Your vanity is that you laud the flexibility of your principles as though that is some sort of holy way that is better than any other. We each as responsible citizens need to work to educate and evolve ourselves on a huge number of issues. The only way we can do that is to stand by our principles until somebody shows us rational to change. To hold up flexibility as a primary good cheapens all principle and the discourse to which it leads.
Principal - runs a school
Principle - a rule
Principale - not a word
And another thing -
KH wins!
I think A Nony Moose wins. Or at least my mother, an English teacher, would think so.
And that doesn’t change the fact that is real easy to be principled when you support nothing and reject everything.
“You are the one promoting using the power gained through your party and the state to make decisions for people who don’t agree with you.”
Are you advocating people be elected only through unanimous consent? Quite honestly, may I ask whether you are an anarchist? 100% of the people have to vote for a candidate or else its a no go? Because last time I checked, the system, the democratic system you accuse the bloggers here of not beleiving in, is a 50% +1 . The people making the decisions will be doing so for everyone, not just the ones who agreed with them. So which is it? And those are your exact words, so don’t again falsely accuse me of having made crap up.
Y’see - this is what I am objecting to. You write pie in the sky stuff, and then shrilly condemn anyone who doesn’t say that sort of unrealistic stuff is the right thing to do. You can accuse us of being tools and hypocrites, but we don’t live in fantasy land.