Earlier tonight, I reported that longtime Republican State Representative Ron Erhardt plans to file for reelection as an independent. Erhardt’s campaign has posted a statement confirming the news on his campaign website:
On the Fourth of July, Ron declared Independence. He has decided to run for re-election as a Moderate Independent. From his years as a political organizer and then as a State Representative, Ron knows that Edina doesn’t want partisan bickering but does want a common sense voice in the State House. So, he is running for re-election to continue representing the social moderate, fiscal conservative voice of Edina, independent of the tyranny of party extremes.
Erhardt is the second most senior member of the House Republican Caucus, behind retiring Rep. Dennis Ozment. Earlier this year, Erhardt was denied the Republican endorsement, primarily due to his vote to override the Governor’s veto of the transportation bill.
Erhardt represents Edina in the legislature. Long thought to be a Republican stronghold, the suburb voted for John Kerry in 2004. With Erhardt and endorsed Republican candidate Keith Downey splitting the conservative vote, DFL candidate Kevin Staunton now has an excellent chance to pick up this seat.
Loading ...
Unless the Republican nominee is someone I can really get on board with, I’ll be sending Erhardt money. I really respect Ron.
This could split the ticket in our favor and get us that much closer to knocking Pawlenty off his pedestal.
It’s too bad that we’re possibly staring at a billion dollar deficit as we approach veto proof majorities. At least there were a few Erhardts who weren’t willing to let our state transportation decay. But it might be too late to salvage our K-12, College/University, and health/human services holes anytime soon with that kind of a deficit.
YES.
One step closer to Pawlenty irrelevance.
“Billion dollar deficit as we approach veto proof majorities”. Coincidence?
I would not call Ron Erhardt a fiscal conservative by any means. Erhardt is always voting for more and more government spending. Not only that, but he really doesn’t listen to opposing points of view. Quite frankly, I think it’s time for him to retire.
In other words, Chris - you’re callin’ Erhard a RINO.
Hey - way to go, and grow that base, Chris!!!!
TwoPutz,
I’ve never called anyone a RINO. But Erhardt is no fiscal conservative. He goes along with most of the spending the DFL proposes. My comments about him not listening to anyone have to do with several friends of mine who tried to talk with him about a bill he was carrying that was pretty detrimental to their small businesses and he wouldn’t even meet with them to find out the other side of the issue. He shouted at career administrators in one of our state agencies because the agency also opposed the same bill Erhardt carried. I have friends who are lobbyists and he wouldn’t return some of their phone calls either - even though they have personally raised money for him and have known him well for more than 10 years. That’s just not good form at the Capitol and that kind of mentality doesn’t serve the people well either.
So, he’s no “fiscal conservative” and he goes along with most of the spending the DFL proposes, but that noted bastion of liberalism, Edina, kept voting him in as GOPer?
Go with that, Chris.
Tom A. it most certainly is just a coincidence. A DFL hasnt been governor in almost 2 decades and you guys controlled the state house up until 2007. If anything, the blame could be on Republicans more.
It going to be Kevin Staunton from Edina this year….the first Dem from that district in about 50 years or so…
I thought at first that AK was be sarcastic..
After 18 years sucking on the government teet, it is time for Ron to retire gracefully and get a real job. His pathetic attempt or remaining in power is so sad.
Two Putz,
I understand how simple your mind is, but here are a couple of observations. First, Edina is not a conservative Republican bastion and it hasn’t been for some time. Second, the DFL has controlled the House for just the last two years and has proposed billions of dollars in new spending and programs since they took control in 2007. Erhardt has supported, not opposed, most of the new spending and government programs. That’s not the definition of a fiscal conservative.
Progressive Power,
I hate to burst your bubble, but if Bernie Lieder retires as many expect, the DFL will likely name Erhardt the new Transportation Committee Chairman and he will caucus with them. If that happens, don’t look for the DFL caucus to put much money in Mr. Staunton’s campaign.
I read today that Erhardt stated that he’d caucus with the DFL.
What makes the looming billion dollar worse is that despite a 10-14 year era with maybe 2 lean years we have some serious infrastructure deficiencies. The Pawlenty/Bush era should be remembered as severely short-sighted.
What is the real deficit if we factor in the costs of rebuilding our roads, stabilizing K-12 and college/university systems, and health and human services to standards prior to Pawlenty/Bush
AK -
Very nice consistency with the DFL talking points, that little “Pawlenty/Bush” maneuver. In mind mind, the US President Bush and the MN Governor Pawlenty have had incredibly diverging terms.
Bush has grown government and abandoned the conservative fiscal principles. Pawlenty, on the other hand, had driven for fiscal accountability and broken the “funding solves all problems” mentality that Minnesota has long been afflicted with.
Bush got us into a war in Iraq that he will be remembered for. Pawlenty is a state administrator whose only authority over the military is to call in the National Gaurd to help after floods and storms.
Bush is a dogmatic figure who is often critized as refusing to ever change his mind from Rovian talking points. Pawlenty has made several moves unpopular with the conservative base (such as embracing progressive alternative fuel policies) and is, in fact, viewed as a moderate figure when compared to the GOP nationwide.
You may have gripes with the fact you’ve lived under a GOP President and GOP Governor for several years, but to imply that they are cut from the same cloth and basically part of the same administration is intellectually lazy.
Erhardt is a withered senile old man, I feel sorry for him because he was treated terribly by the Republican Party and now they and he are going to lose a seat that he would have won easiy had Erhardt received the endorsement. There will be plenty of money in this race from all sides, but there is absolutely no reason for a Democrat in this race to support Erhardt, how long do you think that withered old hag can last, instead why not elect a true progressive?
My goodness. In the first 100 years of the Republican party, Republicans got things done, built lasting infrastructure and did what had to be done. Our ancestors did, carefully, spend money and dug deeper for what we needed than is done today. Today the controling Republicans first count their money allocating to personal needs first and then decide to fix the hole in the state roof. Do what you have to do Moderates like Erhardt and the vast majority of Edina residents are no longer welcome in the republican unbrella after way far right single issue people organized and took over the party. If they truely think they will succeed with Americans, short of declaring an authoritarian regime, these few right-wingers are in for a rude awakening by the electorate sooner or later. In the end we always move back moderate. That is Erhardt, Edina, and most of our country.
Intellectually lazy? The ramifications nationally/statewide are bigger than Iraq.
Bush/Pawlenty created messes because of short-sighted visions. Do we even need to get into Bush?
Pawlenty on the other hand, sold his soul to David Strom in order to hold off Brian Sullivan. In doing so, he agreed to never ask Strom and his followers to sacrifice. Furthermore, he would have been sent packing if one of the two Hatch/Dutcher slip-ups hadn’t taken place in the waning moments of the campaign.
K-12 funding hasn’t matched inflation, too bad they don’t allow speculators to hedge on rises in college/university tuition, and health and human services have been sliced.
The winners under the Pawlenty regime are at the top. Shifting the funding problems of education and LGAs to property taxes and fees is a whole lot better than an income tax for Strom’s crew. He’s not a leader.
He seemed to want to pretend that our roads/bridges would be okay if we didn’t think about them and vetoed the transportation bill. We found out how that turned out.
He deals with K-12 and college/university funding not keeping up with inflation by attempting to change the topic to a reform discussion. Basically a hollow dialogue about teaching Chinese and lightening kid’s backpacks or funding a new campus in a swing area Rochester during election time. How far have those topics gotten?
How about the cancer cover-up on the Iron Range and the threat to ignore it because of the veto override? That’s leadership.
I feel comfortable in tying together the failures of Bush/Pawlenty because they are ideologues faithful to the Nordquist/Strom revolution.
AK,
You’re full of it. Under Pawlenty we had record spending on roads and bridges three years in a row. 2006 was the biggest road construction year in Minnesota history with 2005 being the second biggest and 2004 being the third biggest. The reason our roads had been in such bad shape prior was because Democrats refused to spend the money on roads because they wanted more transit and light rail spending.
Moreover, when Pawlenty took office, spending was $26.6 billion a biennium. Now it’s $34.5 billion a biennium. We have 400,000 fewer residents than Wisconsin yet Wisconsin only spends about $28 billion a biennium. My gosh, how much more spending do you people want? If you want to reform education, how about equalizing the funding between Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools which get some $5,000 more per student than most schools in rural Minnesota.
Chris, you do know what the gas tax in Wisconsin is, doncha?
The reason our roads are in such bad shape, is you republiCons refused to increase the gas tax for TWENTY YEARS. And when it finally goes up the initial 2 (cheney)in’ cents, you act like the sky fell.
It’s guys like you that are causing the GreedOverPrinciples party to lose election after election after election; people simply cannot trust anything you republiCons say.
Chris, I agree 100%,
You have boasted many many times here at MN Publius that you are much more intelligent than some of the commenters here. I agree 100%, obviously, and would point out that you are on the 100% right side of every issue. It is black and white.
You are the smartest man in the room Chris. Anyone who disagrees with you is just a moonbat who hates America and wants us to surrender to terrorists. They are jealous bceause you have not only CORRECTLY PREDICTED the outcome of every Republican policy for years now, but always win every argument
Great Job, “Republican With Superior Intelligence Chris”. Im glad you’re on my side.
Two Putz,
Yep, I know what the gas tax is in Wisconsin, and even though their gas tax is higher than ours, we still spend $6.5 billion more a biennium than Wisconsin and they have at least 400,000 more people than we do. You’re right that our gas tax didn’t go up in twenty years. But for most of the last twenty years, we had among the highest gas tax rate in the country. It’s only been over the last several years did other states begin catching up to us; and, yes, a few did surpass us. Where did all of the money go over the last twenty years? It sure as hell didn’t get spent on roads and bridges where they counted. Rudy Perpich spent hundreds of millions in roads in the Iron Range where there isn’t enough traffic to justify four lane highways. Even now, Jim Oberstar has a $50 million earmark for highway 53 with a car count of 2,800 a day while the most they can do for highway 14 in my part of the state is $700,000 and the car count is over 14,000 a day.
You people keep talking about our crumbling roads and bridges. But what did the DFL propose before the bridge collapse? Certainly not more roads and bridges. In fact, the DFL opposed Pawlenty’s plan to build $1.6 billion in roads and bridges. The fact is that Democrats have opposed building roads in favor of wanting more light rail and transit projects. It’s not the amount of money that’s spent, it’s the way the money is spent. You keep claiming that Republicans are greedy. That’s not true. You’re the greedy one. You’re so greedy for more and more government that you’re willing to just go in and take it from everyone else.
Chris,I agree 100%,
The problems with roads and bridges, especially the details of why some bridges might collapse, were well publicized by the Pawlenty administration, and the DFL did nothing.
Everybody knows these DFL politicians are wrong every time. We Republicans, on the other hand, have been correct, and will be correct, consistently on every issue.
Why don’t these moonbats get it? They are wrong! We Republicans are smarter than them.
Great Job, “Republican With Superior Intelligence Chris”.
Frightened,
Thanks again for being such a substantive, thoughtful contributor to the political dialogue on this website. I know how appreciated your comments are and how highly you’re thought of around here.
Chris, I agree 100%,
Thank you, I am a typical frightened right wing guy.
Being correct all the time is easy when you are a Republican that is smarter than everyone you disagree with.
Great Job!
Chris do you mean to tell me you are so stupid that in the era of $4 plus gas you still don’t see the value of public transportation? I suppose you agree with McCain’s top economic advisor that there is no recession and America is just a nation of whiners… so glad that the Republican’s are going to get creamed this election cycle. You Republican idiots have screwed up our economy for the last 7 years so bad it is a wonder anybody can afford gas and food.
amuseinc,
It’s pretty funny to hear Democrats say anything about gas prices. When Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, gas was $2.63 a gallon. What has your party done to lower prices? You’ve done everything you can to stop America from producing more oil. If we would have passed ANWAR six years ago, we’d be getting oil out of the ground today during this crisis.
By the way, light rail costs $90 million a mile and goes up from there. Highway construction costs about $1 million a mile. There is no way we can afford to build enough light rail. Democrats are talking about lowering the speed limit to force Americans to conserve oil. Why aren’t they doing anything to ease congestion, which will help fuel efficiency? Jim Oberstar should rescind his $50 million earmark and put that money where it can be put to better use?
Chris, you’re full of it. http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/2008_159_GAS_MAP_JULY2008.pdf
Two Putz,
You’re not telling the whole story. Your chart includes local taxes, which don’t go to the highway trust fund. California’s gas tax is actually 18 cents, not 74.9 cents. Your source includes California sales tax on the price of gas, which goes into the general fund. http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
Two Putz,
You’re misleading people. California’s gas tax is 18 cents, not 75 cents. Your web site includes sales taxes which go into the general fund, not the gas tax which goes into the highway trust fund. http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
Chris, that link is from the American Petroleum Institute.
“Here is a summary report on gasoline and diesel taxes. This report is updated quarterly. API collects motor fuel tax information for all 50 states and compiles a report and chart detailing changes from the previous update and calculating a nationwide average – usually on a quarterly basis. API’s chart reflects a weighted average for each state, meaning that any taxes which can vary across a state’s jurisdiction are averaged according to the population of the local areas subject to each particular tax rate. “
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/
The API is a better source than yours, but that should surprise no one as you typically have lousy sources.
Chris made a valid point that has not been addressed. When Pawlenty proposed. $1.6 billion for road and bridges, the DFL shot him down because roads and bridges weren’t “in”. Mass transit was were the expeneditures needed to go. And when the bridge fell, the DFL turned on a dime and blamed Pawlenty for being too much of a tight-arse. Valid point by Chris….. is there a response?
Here is my defination of political parties in Minnesota:
Democrat: One who believes there is a pot of free money near University Ave in St. Paul, and if a Governor dare say “no” to a request he is draconian and short-sighted
Republican: One who understands that a state expenditure is paid for by the Average Joe taxpayer, and has the conscience to be able to look that Average Joe in the eye and say “yes, we needed to use your money on X project.”
Independent: One who knows that every 20 years people will get just pissed off enough to elect them to a major office.
Both of the major parties have their spending priorities screwed up. On both sides of the aisle legislators voted for raising the sales tax so that Carl Pohlad (who helped destroy the street car system) could have his fancy new Twins Stadium. Governor Pawlenty was so excited with this tax increase he donned a Twins jersey when he signed the bill.
BTW Erhardt voted against the stadium bill. Go Erhardt!
When talking about fiscal responsibility and Minnesota’s elected officials let’s not forget Pawlenty’s pet taxpayer money giveaway - the JOBZ program - which was set up so that the public can’t see who is getting the money and how much money businesses are receiving - talk about irresponsible public policy.
DtM: Pawlenty - bein’ a “borrow and spend” republiCon - wanted to BOND for roads; DFLers - bein’ fiscally correct wanted the gas tax raised so we could pay as we go.
republiCon: One who believes there is a pot of money near University Ave in St. Paul that can be used now and paid back later (and the later, the better!), proving the Governor is draconian and short-sighted.
Democrat: One who understands that a state expenditure is paid for by the Average Joe taxpayer, and has the conscience to be able to look that Average Joe in the eye and say “yes, we needed to use your money on X project, because it’s immoral to get the benefit today but stick your kids with the bill.
Damn, DtM - you “borrow and spend” republiCons are easy……
TPT -
Have you ever done a major remodel to your home? Kitchen, addition, deck, landscaping, etc.? If so, how did you pay for it? My guess is a short-term loan or a 2nd mortage (if you paid cash, congratulations). And how do you pay for you utility bills? My guess is from you current income. That is the same way the state should behave.
Major road projects and expansions are fine to be financed. So are major building projects. After all, it isn’t just this year’s drivers who will benefit, it is drivers for decades to come. Operating expenses, though — snow removal, administration, etc. — should absolutely be paygo.
Balanced budgets are good —
to finish my point
Balanced budgets are good — in fact, until relatively recently the GOP was the party of balanced budgets. We need to get back to that. But lets not confuse balanced budgets with attempting to pay for infrastructure build out with current operating funds. North Dakota can do it with all the oil money, but few other states are in that position, just a few families can finance a major remodel with this month’s paycheck.
Dan you are amazing and deceitful… A Republican is what they do and what they have done is screw up the economy beyond belief.. some fairy-tale from your fantasy youth about what Republicans are supposed to be about doesn’t count… You people have controlled the White-house and most of the congress for the last 7 years… and have spent, spent, spent on no bid contracts and useless wars… don’t even pretend that you and George Bush’s acts are separate. George Bush IS THE HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Two Putz,
Who are you trying to fool? The chart that you posted showed numbers but didn’t put them into context as my information did. California’s gas tax is less than Minnesotans. But they also put a sales tax on gasoline. The gas tax goes into the highway trust fund for roads and bridges but the sales tax goes into the general fund for general spending. Your claims that Minnesota is neglecting our roads because we don’t have a large enough gas tax are just crap. If you put the numbers into context, you see that Minnesota is in the middle of the pack for gas taxes. No doubt that when we raised gas taxes the last time we were at the top end of the scale and stayed there for many years. It’s not about how much taxes we raise, it’s about how we spend the money and we’ve done a pretty poor job of spending money in this state.
amuseinc -
Bush is not the head of the GOP. In 2006, was Mike Hatch the “head” of the MN DFL? Even though he is one of the most junior Senators in Washington, is Obama suddenly the “head” of your party?
A party is a group of people with a common platform, and they endorse certain candidates. This whole Kingmaker mentality from the central party office in DC is why the majority of funding for local races this year will not come from concerned citizens and would-be constituents, but rather from big donors who live thousands of miles away and donate heavily to the machine.
Chris has an excellent point about highway 53 being a boondoggle earmark being pushed by Oberstar. However lowering the speed limit will both save energy AND reduce congestion. You can fit more cars on the road when they are driving at lower speeds. Remember cars should safely be separated by one car length per 10 mph when driving.
Also, Chris - when you talk about it being $1 million per road mile - are you talking about the one time cost to build the road, or are you including maintenance?
Eva,
You would have a point if all of the cars on our freeways were going 70 mph all the time. But they aren’t. Significantly more gas is wasted when traffic is stop and go as it is most of the time from 6-8 am and 4-6 or even 7 pm. The million dollars a mile is what a highway typically costs to construct. I’m talking about adding lanes to existing freeways, not building new highways where none exist. With today’s materials and construction technology, a concrete highway lasts between 10-20 years without being replaced. If you think the maintenance costs of highways is bad, how much does it cost to maintain light rail cars, stations and all of the infrastructure to operate them?
DTM is right and I was wrong. Bush/Pawlenty aren’t the GOP.
Cheney/Nordquist and Strom/Krinkie are.
So Dan can I assume that in 2000 and 2004 you were not howling to the high heavens for George Bush or should I take your lame lies as just more Republican propaganda? I can’t believe that you refuse to run on your record and to support your party… I suppose you are a Coleman Republican… one who doesn’t even say he is a Republican now that all the mistakes and malfeasance of Republican policy have come to light. You Republicans are such lying asses… not even willing to defend your own President since he has been proven to be such a buffoon.
“Democrats are talking about lowering the speed limit to force Americans to conserve oil.”
I’m sorry Chris, but I believe it is John Warner, a REPUBLICAN from Virginia pushing that idea. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/03/warner.speed.limit.ap/index.html