Pat Anderson: Seifert’s “Leadership Plan” is unconstitutional

by Jeff Rosenberg | 10 Comments
September 25, 2009, 5:57 am | Category: MN 2010: Governor | Tags: , .

10 Responses to “Pat Anderson: Seifert’s “Leadership Plan” is unconstitutional”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • Randy
    September 25, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    She is right on welfare residency, but wrong about the constitutionality of education vouchers.

    Pat Anderson is another Pawlenty-esque fake moderate who has induldged in her own type of rhetorical overkill. You can see it in the quoted part of her press release ("statists"). In the past, she has said that the inner cities are full of "socialists" who want to spend her money (only hers, apparently), or that "no one" in the suburbs rides mass transit (tempered with a "well, maybe some do").

    Let's also not forget that all the crime was caused by Africans fighting with AfricanAmericans in one or two apartment complexes.

  • Jack Handy
    September 25, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    Seifert is right. There was a state supreme court in the 1970s ruling that way. Not sure what Anderson is arguing.

    Question - are you censoring comments now?

    • Randy
      September 25, 2009 at 7:35 pm

      If memory serves, there was a US Supreme Court case that held vouchers were not unconstitutional, but that case was based on the US Constitution. That could be what she is thinking of. The Minnesota case you refer to was based on the Minnesota Constitution, which has a very clear prohibition against state revenue going to a religious institution (called a "Blaine amendment").

  • rosostrov.ru
    September 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Noel, it is a great post thanks for writing it!

  • Silence Dogood
    September 30, 2009 at 2:22 am

    I find it interesting that Pat Anderson is leveling charges against Marty Seifert insinuating that he somehow doesn't support the Republican platform. If you look at this article about her http://www.secretsofthecity.com/magazine/reportin... it's pretty clear that Pat Anderson is the one with explaining to do.

    -She supported pro-abortion, anti-free trader Ross Perot over the Republican nominee for President, George HW Bush in 1992. This is shocking to say the least and she freely admits throwing our Republican President under the bus for a 3rd party candidate!

    -She strongly opposed drilling in ANWR! This is a very important issue for energy policy and in our platform! She said energy should "all be solar and wind." Here's a quote from the article: "But unlike other Republicans who furtively oppose drilling in ANWR, Awada is willing to take her opposition one step further. “If I was President Bush, the first thing I’d do is I’d announce that we would become self-sufficient on solar and wind.”

  • Silence Dogood
    September 30, 2009 at 2:23 am

    -In Eagan, she constantly fought for fancy palaces, like the new community center, that takes tons of tax money to subsidize it each year. In fact, she helped place the ballot question on for a very, very odd time of the year, avoiding higher turnout and rejection by the voters. Another quote from the article: Unlike her fellow Eaganite, Governor Tim Pawlenty, she refused to sign a “no tax” pledge during the 2002 campaign. “I’m very fiscally conservative, but there are certain things a community needs to do to create community. Especially in suburbia,” she says. When Awada was a suburban mayor, those things included controversial levies and bonding to acquire property for parks and to build recreational facilities. She often found herself at odds with Eagan’s anti-tax Republicans.

    Read the article above and figure this out for yourself. Pat Anderson has no credibility questioning anyone's Republican credentials.

  • Silence Dogood
    October 7, 2009 at 12:56 am

    The straw poll voting rules were changed at the recent Minnesota GOP convention, which resulted in the front-runner, Marty Seifert, being penalized. The rules were changed so that if you voted for a gubernatorial candidate as your 1st choice you were forbidden to vote for that same gubernatorial candidate as your 2nd choice. Thus, Marty Seifert had the most "ineligible" ballots on the 2nd choice, because he was so popular as delegate's 1st choice. See the below chart for details.

  • Silence Dogood
    October 7, 2009 at 12:56 am

    VOTERS’ COMBINED CHOICES

    RankPercentTotal1st CD2nd CD3rd CD4th CD5th CD6th CD7th CD8th CD

    M. Seifert126%62599718866287310991
    T. Emmer220%49036986537391305431
    D. Hann315%3623848733719624837
    P. Anderson415%3563168444739613828
    “NONE”510%23314246720 4442931
    P. Kohls6 8%186235532201027 712
    B. Haas7 2% 56 61311 4 111 7 3
    “OTHERS”8 2% 50 3 3 510 2 7 9 1
    M. Jungbauer9 1% 47 5 5 9 4 412 6 2
    L. Davis10 1% 39 2 3 5 8 710 4 0
    P. Herwig11 1% 34 3 4 7 3 1 3 310

    39 “OTHERS”: Steve Sviggum (10), Laura Brod (10), Norm Coleman (5), Sue Jeffers (4), Morrie Lanning (2), Jim Ramstad (2), Brian Sullivan (2), Erin B (1), Phil Krinkie (1), Carol Molnau (1), “Steve Hann” (1).

  • Randy
    September 25, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Good question.

Leave a Reply