It’s just a few day until Election Day and I am still not sure who to vote for in the US Senate race.
I’ve listened to the candidates, watched the debates, and read a lot, but my mind is not made up.
Should I go with an experienced candidate? … or, the person that most closely adheres to my view on the issues? … or waste my vote on somebody who won’t win? Actually, the odds are pretty good that I will vote for the loser … so maybe “waste my vote” isn’t that off-base.
Norm Coleman has been endorsed by the Star-Tribune calling him “the Minnesota maverick”. Frankly, I have to wonder if Coleman would be just like “the Arizona maverick” John McCain … there are similiarities and that should be a concern. McCain started out as a dye-hard Republican and then showed some individualism and voted against his party elders, only to return to Party when it needed him. McCain’s pattern could be Coleman’s in the next term.
Let’s look at McCain’s “Maverick Claim to Fame” --- campaign finance reform. It’s true that McCain bucked his party and joined the Democrats to vote for a campaign finance reform, but the legislation was vetoed by George HW Bush (aka 41). Clinton said that he would sign that legislation, but McCain joined the Republicans to filabuster the legislation. When George W Bush (aka 43) became President, McCain joined with Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) and enacted legislation that was agreeable to the Republican majority. The result was a reduction in influence by labor unions that would make large contributions, and produce the rise in 527 independent groups. Today it would be hard to say that the campaign finance system is better under the new rules, but it is easy to say that McCain was not a maverick.
That would be the concern with Maverick Coleman. Would he revert to his 2002-2006 “Protect the Republican Party” persona, or would he be what the Star-Tribune considers to be a compromiser ? Frankly, I think the Star-Tribune is giving Coleman more credit than he is due. They cite the funding for I-35 reconstruction … well, do you think that after Katrina and film footage being shown globally, that any Senator would have gotten any different support … plus didn’t Senator Klobuchar have any impact?
IF Coleman has been the compromiser that the Star-Tribune thinks that he has been, he has been late and ineffective. His support for biofuels is mentioned, yet the Farm Bill was not completed on time, and Senator Chambliss (R-GA) probably had more to getting Republican support than Coleman. Also, Coleman missed an excellent opportunity to promote biofuels and show his compromise skills if he had joined Sens. Chambliss, Conrad (D-ND), Issakson (R-GA), and Thune (R-SD) when they established the Gang of 10 to address energy legislation … plus he could have joined with Senator Graham who joined the group to promote the nuclear industry (something that Coleman supports). Now, Coleman is joining to be part of a Gang of 20 … better late than never … however the legislation is not as good as the bi-partisian legislation (which included those sources but also wind) supported in the House (notable Minnesotans Tim Walz (D-01), John Kline (R-02) and Michele Bachmann (R-06).
Yes, Coleman did support SCHIP, but he knew that Bush’s vetos would stand … and isn’t that one of Franken’s main positive points. Coleman has been steadfast in his support for maintaining the current tax policies while others like Congressman Walz want to lower taxes for the middle class.
Based on current polls, it appears that the Democrats will gain seats in the Senate relegating Coleman to a lower influence … in fact, Senators Snowe and Collins (R-ME) are more likely to have influence on legislation since for years they have supported Democrats proposals.
Coleman is hardly a maverick … more of an opportunist than anything else. He stood strong with Bush on issues ranging from FISA to the recent bailout.
Oh, I could vote for Al Franken as I am encouraged by the comment in the Pioneer Press endorsement “We initially took Franken for a hard-core partisan, and that gave us pause. But we sense that he is learning to fight for a "progressive" agenda with less rancor and more reason.” Although I have concerns that Franken could become a showman on cable television (taking Congresswoman Bachmann’s slot since I have hunch she will be declining those YouTube opportunities in the future), he would be restrained the next President’s desire for a second term. It’s safe to assume that there will not be any middle class tax increase or major expansion of government managed health care regardless of who is elected … maybe in a second term but not the first term.
Dean Barkley appeals to my fiscal conservatism and may be the true “the Minnesota maverick” that the Star-Tribune desires. Barkley has been consistent in the polls at 18 % … so he would need to virtually double his poll numbers to be elected. If he was rising in the polls, that might be possible, but he has stayed where he is at since the primary election. Historically, as voters realize that a third party candidate is not going to win, they switch to one of the two major party candidates. Voting for Barkley may be wasting my vote.
Somehow I must balance “wasting a vote” with voting for the candidate that best matches my issues. A maverick may be a good vote … but if I want somebody that supported funding for I-35, the Farm bill, a new energy policy featuring wind, SCHIP, a tax policy that benefits the middle class, opposes FISA and the bailout, my maverick vote would be a write-in vote for Tim Walz who would be part of the new Democratic majority.
OK, so since you took the time to read this, tell me why I should vote for someone else other that a write-in for Walz ?
Showing posts with label Norm Coleman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Norm Coleman. Show all posts
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
MN-06 : GOP Platform is a Nightmare for Bachmann
For Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to control the Party’s agenda, the best way is to get involved in approval of the Party Platform. Thus far, the results may not be to her liking.
Bachmann is one of 112 Republican activists writing the planks for the RNC Platform. There are a number of key issues :
Drilling in ANWR
Cap and Trade legislation to curb greenhouse gas emission
Immigration
And even, gun ownership ( The Bush Administration wants background checks prior to someone on the Terrorist Watch List before being able to buy a gun. )
Surely, at the top of Bachmann’s list is Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Of expanding oil drilling into ANWR, she recently said, "Currently, the U.S. is the only country in the world that discourages using its own energy resources. Our country imports 10 billion barrels of crude oil every day. And we are importing 1.3 million barrels of refined gasoline.”
But drilling in ANWR is not something that everyone agrees. Bachmann said in an interview with Townhall.com “It’s difficult when our nominee is not on the same page with us.”
CQ Politics reports the draft proposal unveiled Tuesday called for “accelerated exploration, drilling and development in America, from new oil fields off the nation’s coasts to onshore fields such as those in Montana, North Dakota and Alaska” but was silent on the specific issue of ANWR.
Additionally, from the CQ article “the platform committee also rejected a proposal to discourage the export of oil and gas garnered from any new leases.
Consider that DOE data revealed “A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month. The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. ”
Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) protested this exporting practice to President Bush writing that projections from the Department of Energy for offshore drilling say that “at the height of production, in 2030, increased offshore drilling would produce only 200,000 barrels per day – one ninth the amount of oil we currently send to foreign countries every day.”
While the RNC Platform Committee may be rejecting her plea, she has offered a Discharge Petition on HR 6107 that would open ANWR for drilling. Thus far 90 Republicans have not signed her petition.
And as a side note, this platform plank is in direct opposition to the stated goals of Dr. Brian Davis, State Senator Dick Day, Congressman John Kline (R-02), and Ed Matthews (whose speech at the MN-GOP convention demanded drilling). But Erik Paulsen and Senator Norm Coleman do not support drilling in the ANWR.
So for voters that hear MN-GOP Party Chairman Ron Carey attempting to blame Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN-01) for the failing to open ANWR for drilling, they need to be reminded that the RNC is not committed to that goal.
On Immigration, the draft does not include stronger anti-amnesty language that some advocates wanted. It does not specifically oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” and is silent on a guest worker program, a policy that President Bush and McCain have both supported.
On Cap and Trade, the Platform Committee included no amendments to oppose cap-and-trade explicitly, in fact there were no amendments on climate change at all. By taking a heavy pen to the section that used to read “Global Warming and Environmental Protection”, they decided to strike the phrase “global warming” anywhere it appeared in the document, either replacing it with the more neutral “climate change,” or removing it altogether.
Ah, thus RNC answers the question – If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a sound?
If the RNC does not acknowledge “global warming”, then it must not be happening.
And on another annoyance for Bachmann, the Platform Committee voted down a proposal to call the opposition the "Democrat Party" in the 2008 platform. Instead, they'll go with the proper Democratic Party. "We probably should use what the actual name is," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman. "At least in writing."
Bachmann, as evidenced by her appearance on television broadcasts has a tendency to use the “Democrat” term.
The decision on Gun Ownership has not been publicized yet.
Bachmann is one of 112 Republican activists writing the planks for the RNC Platform. There are a number of key issues :
Drilling in ANWR
Cap and Trade legislation to curb greenhouse gas emission
Immigration
And even, gun ownership ( The Bush Administration wants background checks prior to someone on the Terrorist Watch List before being able to buy a gun. )
Surely, at the top of Bachmann’s list is Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Of expanding oil drilling into ANWR, she recently said, "Currently, the U.S. is the only country in the world that discourages using its own energy resources. Our country imports 10 billion barrels of crude oil every day. And we are importing 1.3 million barrels of refined gasoline.”
But drilling in ANWR is not something that everyone agrees. Bachmann said in an interview with Townhall.com “It’s difficult when our nominee is not on the same page with us.”
CQ Politics reports the draft proposal unveiled Tuesday called for “accelerated exploration, drilling and development in America, from new oil fields off the nation’s coasts to onshore fields such as those in Montana, North Dakota and Alaska” but was silent on the specific issue of ANWR.
Additionally, from the CQ article “the platform committee also rejected a proposal to discourage the export of oil and gas garnered from any new leases.
Consider that DOE data revealed “A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month. The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. ”
Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) protested this exporting practice to President Bush writing that projections from the Department of Energy for offshore drilling say that “at the height of production, in 2030, increased offshore drilling would produce only 200,000 barrels per day – one ninth the amount of oil we currently send to foreign countries every day.”
While the RNC Platform Committee may be rejecting her plea, she has offered a Discharge Petition on HR 6107 that would open ANWR for drilling. Thus far 90 Republicans have not signed her petition.
And as a side note, this platform plank is in direct opposition to the stated goals of Dr. Brian Davis, State Senator Dick Day, Congressman John Kline (R-02), and Ed Matthews (whose speech at the MN-GOP convention demanded drilling). But Erik Paulsen and Senator Norm Coleman do not support drilling in the ANWR.
So for voters that hear MN-GOP Party Chairman Ron Carey attempting to blame Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN-01) for the failing to open ANWR for drilling, they need to be reminded that the RNC is not committed to that goal.
On Immigration, the draft does not include stronger anti-amnesty language that some advocates wanted. It does not specifically oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” and is silent on a guest worker program, a policy that President Bush and McCain have both supported.
On Cap and Trade, the Platform Committee included no amendments to oppose cap-and-trade explicitly, in fact there were no amendments on climate change at all. By taking a heavy pen to the section that used to read “Global Warming and Environmental Protection”, they decided to strike the phrase “global warming” anywhere it appeared in the document, either replacing it with the more neutral “climate change,” or removing it altogether.
Ah, thus RNC answers the question – If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a sound?
If the RNC does not acknowledge “global warming”, then it must not be happening.
And on another annoyance for Bachmann, the Platform Committee voted down a proposal to call the opposition the "Democrat Party" in the 2008 platform. Instead, they'll go with the proper Democratic Party. "We probably should use what the actual name is," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman. "At least in writing."
Bachmann, as evidenced by her appearance on television broadcasts has a tendency to use the “Democrat” term.
The decision on Gun Ownership has not been publicized yet.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Where’s Norm Coleman Press Release on Tax Fairness ?
Republican Senator Norm Coleman is a PR machine … so when Norm doesn’t issue one there must be a reason.
So far this month, there have been thirteen, such as :
--- FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR MINNESOTA CRITICAL-NEED LANGUAGE PROGRAMS (somewhat notable since Senator Obama has been criticized for encouraging foreign languages, yet, Coleman states “Allowing our young people to become more connected with the global community will not only enrich students’ education, it will strengthen America’s place in the world for years to come.”);
--- SENATOR COLEMAN ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR HOMELESS VETS CENTER IN ST. CLOUD (somewhat notable since Representative Michele Bachmann has taken the “No Earmark” pledge and St. Cloud is in her district.);
--- COLEMAN, LANDRIEU, BAYH ASK SEC. RICE TO NEGOTIATE WITH VIETNAM ON INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION (somewhat notable since Coleman does not acknowledge that other members of the Minnesota delegation also signed the letter … including Jim Oberstar immediately below Coleman’s signature, Amy Klobuchar on the same page as Coleman, then after the other Senators starts Tim Walz on page 7, Keith Ellison on page 8, John Kline and Betty McCollum on page 10 and finally Collin Peterson on page 11. Absent are Michele Bachmann and Jim Ramstad and for those that complain about how the presidential campaign has affected the involvement of the principles, Barack Obama signed the letter while John McCain did not.);
--- BILLINGS USED DEAD DOCTORS' NAMES (notable because this involved Coleman’s role on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.)
What a second … wasn’t there some other notable news from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations this week ?
Yes, there was … on Thursday, the Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance hearing was held.
From news reports : Wealthy Americans are hiding about 1.5 trillion dollars in overseas tax havens in a "deceptive" partnership with top foreign banks such as UBS, resulting in 100 billion dollars in lost US tax revenue.
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) asked the fundamental question : Why would a U.S. taxpayer open a UBS account in Switzerland, when it could bank with UBS right here in the United States? Why would 19,000 U.S. clients with nearly $18 billion in assets choose to open Swiss accounts?
And that’s just one bank.
Think about it … that’s millions of dollars in each account ! Dollars that should be going to pay for the Global War on Terror and reducing the national debt.
Senator Coleman said, “It is simply unacceptable that some individuals are using offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions to shelter trillions of dollars from taxation, forcing working families to shoulder the tax burden. By exploiting gaping loopholes, these foreign banks are enabling felony tax evasion. Simply put, foreign banks should not be Al Capone safe-houses for evading taxes. Closing these loopholes means we must strengthen reporting requirements, broaden the scope of the audit program, and extend the amount of time the IRS has to investigate cases involving an offshore tax haven.”
I think all of us can agree with Senator Coleman’s statement, yet I have to ask two questions :
This story has been rumbling around for years, so why did it take until Senator Levin took over as Chairman of the Subcommittee to get the investigation moving?
Why hasn’t Coleman issued a press release reporting these findings ?
I can only speculate that the answers to both questions are the same --- it might be embarrassing for Senator Coleman and for others.
Coleman was thrilled to get his assignment in 2003 to be the Chairman of the Subcommittee. Others have identified at least 18 oversight opportunities that Coleman did not investigate, so I will not go into detail on this. Suffice it to say, that the Republican Congress allowed the Executive Branch to operate without oversight wasting billions of dollars, lives, and America’s standing in the world. By his assignment, Coleman is complicit in those failings.
But the second question is more relevant.
By issuing a press release Coleman would be further highlighting people that may be problematic for the political parties. After all, bundlers and campaigns need money and where do you get money but from the affluent. The violator’s names are not listed, but I am sure that many have contributed to members of both political parties.
And as who those people may be mystery at this time, it is not surprising to hear the name of Cindy McCain being mentioned in the blogosphere. With an estimated wealth of $100 Million (before the InBev buyout), she certainly would fit the mold of a candidate that could use UBS’s Private Wealth Division. Add to that, that Phil Gramm, who until Friday was John McCain’s campaign co-chair, is vice-chairman of UBS Investment Bank and a former lobbyist on behalf of UBS. (Note : this is not the UBS division that is involved with the offshore tax haven scandal, but it would be surprising that a US vice-chairman would not be aware of his company’s Private Wealth Division.) It would be wise for Mrs. McCain to release her complete tax returns for the past ten years. It would be also advisable for every member of the current Congress, and every candidate for this upcoming election, issue a statement whether they have investments in offshore bank accounts.
$100 billion dollars in lost revenue is a lot of money. As the candidates talk about issues that voters can relate … like the impact of the rising cost of a gallon of gas and the cost of health insurance, we must talk to them about tax fairness. We struggle though life -- struggle with tax forms -- paying our fair share, but some have access to hid their income.
Coleman’s right when he says that it is wrong for ”working families to shoulder the tax burden” … now the question, what will Coleman do about it ?
So far this month, there have been thirteen, such as :
--- FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR MINNESOTA CRITICAL-NEED LANGUAGE PROGRAMS (somewhat notable since Senator Obama has been criticized for encouraging foreign languages, yet, Coleman states “Allowing our young people to become more connected with the global community will not only enrich students’ education, it will strengthen America’s place in the world for years to come.”);
--- SENATOR COLEMAN ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR HOMELESS VETS CENTER IN ST. CLOUD (somewhat notable since Representative Michele Bachmann has taken the “No Earmark” pledge and St. Cloud is in her district.);
--- COLEMAN, LANDRIEU, BAYH ASK SEC. RICE TO NEGOTIATE WITH VIETNAM ON INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION (somewhat notable since Coleman does not acknowledge that other members of the Minnesota delegation also signed the letter … including Jim Oberstar immediately below Coleman’s signature, Amy Klobuchar on the same page as Coleman, then after the other Senators starts Tim Walz on page 7, Keith Ellison on page 8, John Kline and Betty McCollum on page 10 and finally Collin Peterson on page 11. Absent are Michele Bachmann and Jim Ramstad and for those that complain about how the presidential campaign has affected the involvement of the principles, Barack Obama signed the letter while John McCain did not.);
--- BILLINGS USED DEAD DOCTORS' NAMES (notable because this involved Coleman’s role on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.)
What a second … wasn’t there some other notable news from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations this week ?
Yes, there was … on Thursday, the Tax Haven Banks and U.S. Tax Compliance hearing was held.
From news reports : Wealthy Americans are hiding about 1.5 trillion dollars in overseas tax havens in a "deceptive" partnership with top foreign banks such as UBS, resulting in 100 billion dollars in lost US tax revenue.
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) asked the fundamental question : Why would a U.S. taxpayer open a UBS account in Switzerland, when it could bank with UBS right here in the United States? Why would 19,000 U.S. clients with nearly $18 billion in assets choose to open Swiss accounts?
And that’s just one bank.
Think about it … that’s millions of dollars in each account ! Dollars that should be going to pay for the Global War on Terror and reducing the national debt.
Senator Coleman said, “It is simply unacceptable that some individuals are using offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions to shelter trillions of dollars from taxation, forcing working families to shoulder the tax burden. By exploiting gaping loopholes, these foreign banks are enabling felony tax evasion. Simply put, foreign banks should not be Al Capone safe-houses for evading taxes. Closing these loopholes means we must strengthen reporting requirements, broaden the scope of the audit program, and extend the amount of time the IRS has to investigate cases involving an offshore tax haven.”
I think all of us can agree with Senator Coleman’s statement, yet I have to ask two questions :
This story has been rumbling around for years, so why did it take until Senator Levin took over as Chairman of the Subcommittee to get the investigation moving?
Why hasn’t Coleman issued a press release reporting these findings ?
I can only speculate that the answers to both questions are the same --- it might be embarrassing for Senator Coleman and for others.
Coleman was thrilled to get his assignment in 2003 to be the Chairman of the Subcommittee. Others have identified at least 18 oversight opportunities that Coleman did not investigate, so I will not go into detail on this. Suffice it to say, that the Republican Congress allowed the Executive Branch to operate without oversight wasting billions of dollars, lives, and America’s standing in the world. By his assignment, Coleman is complicit in those failings.
But the second question is more relevant.
By issuing a press release Coleman would be further highlighting people that may be problematic for the political parties. After all, bundlers and campaigns need money and where do you get money but from the affluent. The violator’s names are not listed, but I am sure that many have contributed to members of both political parties.
And as who those people may be mystery at this time, it is not surprising to hear the name of Cindy McCain being mentioned in the blogosphere. With an estimated wealth of $100 Million (before the InBev buyout), she certainly would fit the mold of a candidate that could use UBS’s Private Wealth Division. Add to that, that Phil Gramm, who until Friday was John McCain’s campaign co-chair, is vice-chairman of UBS Investment Bank and a former lobbyist on behalf of UBS. (Note : this is not the UBS division that is involved with the offshore tax haven scandal, but it would be surprising that a US vice-chairman would not be aware of his company’s Private Wealth Division.) It would be wise for Mrs. McCain to release her complete tax returns for the past ten years. It would be also advisable for every member of the current Congress, and every candidate for this upcoming election, issue a statement whether they have investments in offshore bank accounts.
$100 billion dollars in lost revenue is a lot of money. As the candidates talk about issues that voters can relate … like the impact of the rising cost of a gallon of gas and the cost of health insurance, we must talk to them about tax fairness. We struggle though life -- struggle with tax forms -- paying our fair share, but some have access to hid their income.
Coleman’s right when he says that it is wrong for ”working families to shoulder the tax burden” … now the question, what will Coleman do about it ?
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Feeling Pain at the Pump ? Congress needs to pass the PUMP Act
Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Kline and Senator Norm Coleman, all seem to believe that by opening areas for drilling will reduce oil prices.
That may be true, but how long and how much ?
Guy Caruso of the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration said “Drilling in U.S. waters offshore would produce nothing for five or 10 years and even then only add a minimal amount of oil for the supplies. And so, in the year 2018, it would not knock more than a nickel off your gallon of gas.”
While ANWR and OCS may part of the solution, the emphasis on those proposals will take too long. Plus, no one mentions how much the royalties will be nor who will get those royalties (individual states or the US Treasury) nor if they will be subject to any cap.
At a hearing held by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on June 23rd, Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) posed a timely question. Inslee forced witnesses to chose between opening up undeveloped Alaskan oil fields and increased government regulation. All panelists said regulation would have an immediate impact, whereas new Alaska oil would take years to affect the market.
The solution must address the abilities of speculators to impact the market price.
Don’t believe that speculators are driving the price?
Americans are consuming less (as of March highway travel is down 4.3% and the auto industry is seeing a dramatic drop in sales of SUVs and trucks as people look to more fuel efficient vehicles) but prices have continued to rise.
The Saudi petroleum minister, Ali I. Al-Naimi, said his country will reach the 9.7 million level by July (up from 9 million) and the Saudi government will invest in oil projects that would allow Saudi Arabia to have the capacity to produce 12.5 million barrels per day by the end of next year; yet prices have continued to go up.
So while our consumption is going down and world production is increasing, prices are rising.
To address the problem, the government needs to have all the tools it needs.
There are two types of oil futures speculation. Market trading takes place through the New York Mercantile Exchange and is overseen through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). However, most oil futures speculation occurs “over-the-counter.” This speculation is conducted off of the market, without any regulation or oversight by the CFTC. The CFTC needs to have the manpower and mission to address this problem. It is not unreasonable that a 30% reduction in price could occur if the CFTC had greater control to collect trading data on foreign trading boards.
This legislation would make immediate impacts … not years.
Congress has a number of bills pending, but the most comprehensive was proposed by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) in the “Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act of 2008″ ( HR 6330 ) – aka the PUMP Act. It was initiated June 20 and already has bi-partisan support. There are 58 co-sponsors including Jim Oberstar (MN-08) and Tim Walz (MN-01) .
The Minnesota delegation needs to expedite the passage of this bill. It has been assigned to the Agriculture Committee where Collin Peterson (MN-07) is the chairman and Walz is a member. Peterson and Walz were effective earlier this year in the farm bill when Congress addressed the controversial “Enron loophole”; however that piece of legislation only closed the door to natural gas trades on unregulated exchanges - not oil trades.
Please contact your member of Congress to encourage them to become a co-sponsor of this legislation. If they do not wish to support it, then ask the question how they will address the speculators influence on the price of oil. Those that do not have a plan are the problem -- and those that only believe that drilling is the answer -- are dictating a decade of higher prices.
FYI - a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate - S 3185
Please encourage Senators Coleman and Klobuchar to support this bill. Once again, because their positions on the Agriculture Committee, they will be the first to address the legislation.
Regardless of your opinion on drilling, this legislation can only help.
That may be true, but how long and how much ?
Guy Caruso of the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration said “Drilling in U.S. waters offshore would produce nothing for five or 10 years and even then only add a minimal amount of oil for the supplies. And so, in the year 2018, it would not knock more than a nickel off your gallon of gas.”
While ANWR and OCS may part of the solution, the emphasis on those proposals will take too long. Plus, no one mentions how much the royalties will be nor who will get those royalties (individual states or the US Treasury) nor if they will be subject to any cap.
At a hearing held by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on June 23rd, Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) posed a timely question. Inslee forced witnesses to chose between opening up undeveloped Alaskan oil fields and increased government regulation. All panelists said regulation would have an immediate impact, whereas new Alaska oil would take years to affect the market.
The solution must address the abilities of speculators to impact the market price.
Don’t believe that speculators are driving the price?
Americans are consuming less (as of March highway travel is down 4.3% and the auto industry is seeing a dramatic drop in sales of SUVs and trucks as people look to more fuel efficient vehicles) but prices have continued to rise.
The Saudi petroleum minister, Ali I. Al-Naimi, said his country will reach the 9.7 million level by July (up from 9 million) and the Saudi government will invest in oil projects that would allow Saudi Arabia to have the capacity to produce 12.5 million barrels per day by the end of next year; yet prices have continued to go up.
So while our consumption is going down and world production is increasing, prices are rising.
To address the problem, the government needs to have all the tools it needs.
There are two types of oil futures speculation. Market trading takes place through the New York Mercantile Exchange and is overseen through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). However, most oil futures speculation occurs “over-the-counter.” This speculation is conducted off of the market, without any regulation or oversight by the CFTC. The CFTC needs to have the manpower and mission to address this problem. It is not unreasonable that a 30% reduction in price could occur if the CFTC had greater control to collect trading data on foreign trading boards.
This legislation would make immediate impacts … not years.
Congress has a number of bills pending, but the most comprehensive was proposed by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) in the “Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act of 2008″ ( HR 6330 ) – aka the PUMP Act. It was initiated June 20 and already has bi-partisan support. There are 58 co-sponsors including Jim Oberstar (MN-08) and Tim Walz (MN-01) .
The Minnesota delegation needs to expedite the passage of this bill. It has been assigned to the Agriculture Committee where Collin Peterson (MN-07) is the chairman and Walz is a member. Peterson and Walz were effective earlier this year in the farm bill when Congress addressed the controversial “Enron loophole”; however that piece of legislation only closed the door to natural gas trades on unregulated exchanges - not oil trades.
Please contact your member of Congress to encourage them to become a co-sponsor of this legislation. If they do not wish to support it, then ask the question how they will address the speculators influence on the price of oil. Those that do not have a plan are the problem -- and those that only believe that drilling is the answer -- are dictating a decade of higher prices.
FYI - a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate - S 3185
Please encourage Senators Coleman and Klobuchar to support this bill. Once again, because their positions on the Agriculture Committee, they will be the first to address the legislation.
Regardless of your opinion on drilling, this legislation can only help.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Will John Kline Lobby Norm Coleman on Earmark Proposal
Have you made your 2009 New Year’s Resolution yet ?
Well, according to The Hill, the Senate Republican are scheduled to discuss a conference-wide rule change and policy statement regarding earmarks on Tuesday.
So, will John “Pork-Free” Kline lobby Norm “Minnesota’s $10,780,000 Man” Coleman ?
Will it make any difference ?
Well, first of all, the changes would take effect the first day of the next Congress. This is not the first time Republicans have tried this joke before as some Republicans called for a six month moratorium on earmarks … what a joke … we have a Fiscal Year … all the money gets authorized at year end, so what would 6 months due ?
This meeting is a result of a meeting at the beginning of the year which was reported by Roll Call.
Senate Republicans outlined a modest election-year agenda Wednesday based on the cooperative, bipartisan approach that new Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) has pushed while avoiding issues like immigration and earmark reform that have caused rifts within the party.
[SNIP]
Republican leaders … made it clear during the retreat that they would not support any effort by President Bush to strip earmarks from this year’s omnibus bill and saw no need to overhaul the practice … arguing any move {by Bush} to eliminate the earmarks would be an inappropriate infringement on Congress’ authority to appropriate funding.
[SNIP]
A Senator attending the retreat said later, "to the extent that the floor was open I didn't hear much opposition... I kept expecting to hear someone say 'yeah but earmarks are evil,' but I didn't."
Also, The Washington Examiner writes
“House Republican Whip Roy Blunt R-MO, has reportedly warned administration officials that meddling with earmarks will anger GOP members who are responsible for 40 percent of those in the 2008 spending bills.”
Republicans, based on their votes and comments by party leaders, are not serious about ending the use of earmarks.
And they shouldn’t.
All earmarks are not pork barrel spending. Without earmarks, the Executive Branch can spend funds as they deem appropriate.
For example, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention which issued grants to youth golf programs and other projects--often run by administration cronies.
Or, the $350 to $500 million spent on Al-Hurra -- "The Free One" –US sponsored Arabic television.
Or, even $2.4 million for COMIC BOOKS !
There are plenty of “projects” that should be carefully reviewed, that’s why transparency and accountability are important.
The Republican Senators policy change is just an election year campaign trick to garner some media attention … and like many New Year’s Resolutions will be long forgotten by mid-2009.
John Kline’s pork-free diet has only cost the State getting a fair return on the monies that Minnesota taxpayers have sent to Washington.
Well, according to The Hill, the Senate Republican are scheduled to discuss a conference-wide rule change and policy statement regarding earmarks on Tuesday.
So, will John “Pork-Free” Kline lobby Norm “Minnesota’s $10,780,000 Man” Coleman ?
Will it make any difference ?
Well, first of all, the changes would take effect the first day of the next Congress. This is not the first time Republicans have tried this joke before as some Republicans called for a six month moratorium on earmarks … what a joke … we have a Fiscal Year … all the money gets authorized at year end, so what would 6 months due ?
This meeting is a result of a meeting at the beginning of the year which was reported by Roll Call.
Senate Republicans outlined a modest election-year agenda Wednesday based on the cooperative, bipartisan approach that new Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) has pushed while avoiding issues like immigration and earmark reform that have caused rifts within the party.
[SNIP]
Republican leaders … made it clear during the retreat that they would not support any effort by President Bush to strip earmarks from this year’s omnibus bill and saw no need to overhaul the practice … arguing any move {by Bush} to eliminate the earmarks would be an inappropriate infringement on Congress’ authority to appropriate funding.
[SNIP]
A Senator attending the retreat said later, "to the extent that the floor was open I didn't hear much opposition... I kept expecting to hear someone say 'yeah but earmarks are evil,' but I didn't."
Also, The Washington Examiner writes
“House Republican Whip Roy Blunt R-MO, has reportedly warned administration officials that meddling with earmarks will anger GOP members who are responsible for 40 percent of those in the 2008 spending bills.”
Republicans, based on their votes and comments by party leaders, are not serious about ending the use of earmarks.
And they shouldn’t.
All earmarks are not pork barrel spending. Without earmarks, the Executive Branch can spend funds as they deem appropriate.
For example, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention which issued grants to youth golf programs and other projects--often run by administration cronies.
Or, the $350 to $500 million spent on Al-Hurra -- "The Free One" –US sponsored Arabic television.
Or, even $2.4 million for COMIC BOOKS !
There are plenty of “projects” that should be carefully reviewed, that’s why transparency and accountability are important.
The Republican Senators policy change is just an election year campaign trick to garner some media attention … and like many New Year’s Resolutions will be long forgotten by mid-2009.
John Kline’s pork-free diet has only cost the State getting a fair return on the monies that Minnesota taxpayers have sent to Washington.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
How long have Republicans opposed funding PTSD ?
With the questions of Barak Obama’s patriotism and his stated support of the troops, I decided to do a little Googling. To eliminate potential pandering (or political posturing that occurs many times before an election,) I focused on 2005.
My question was: What legislation did Obama sponsor related to Veterans Issues ?
On September 17, 2005 Obama spoke in support of his amendment SA 2616 : To accelerate marriage penalty relief for the earned income tax credit, to extend the election to include combat pay in earned income, and to make modifications of effective dates of leasing provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
The amendment, argued Obama on the Senate floor, would "... ensure that the families of our men and women in combat are not deprived of their tax benefits. In the midst of war, are we really going to tell our troops that their combat pay doesn't count as earned income for purposes of calculating tax credits? That is hard to imagine. Our troops not only earn their combat pay, but they have also earned our respect. They deserve our commitment of support."
The amendment failed.
Remember that in 2005, the Republicans were in the majority party and even though SA 2616 had the support of every Democrat, the Republicans killed it.
That got me looking at other amendments offered to the bill, and this is what really galls me.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposed SA 2634 : “for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder.”
Boxer cited that "This amendment is backed by the American Legion, AMVETS, and Disabled American Veterans." She closed her floor argument by quoting an e-mail from the wife of an Iraq War Veteran who committed suicide upon his return. "I got an e-mail from a woman who was married to Captain Michael Jon Pelkey, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for over a year. He sought help on several occasions but was discouraged by the wait time and the stigma, " said Boxer.
Boxer then read directly from the e-mail which said "Michael passed away in our home at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest on November 5, 2004. I feel that my husband is a casualty of this war and to date the Army has not done enough for post-traumatic stress. "
That funding also FAILED.
Once again, every Democrat voted for the funding but only one Republican voted for it – Gordon Smith who’s own son suicide lead to the funding of $82 million for youth suicide prevention programs at college campus mental health centers.
Yes, that means that John McCain (and Norm Coleman) voted against funding PTSD.
That was 2005.
What could that funding have accomplished ?
How many lives affected ?
IF the problem was evident in 2005, is it a bigger or smaller problem today ?
The RAND Corporation issued a report on April 16th titled Invisible Wounds of War which stated that 300,000 (or 18.5%) of the troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may have PTSD. "These consequences can have a high economic toll," RAND said. "However, most attempts to measure the costs of these conditions focus only on medical costs to the government. Yet, direct costs of treatment are only a fraction of the total costs related to mental health and cognitive conditions. Far higher are the long-term individual and societal costs stemming from lost productivity, reduced quality of life, homelessness, domestic violence, the strain on families, and suicide. Delivering effective care and restoring veterans to full mental health have the potential to reduce these longer-term costs significantly."
In addition, the Veterans Administration reported in April that 60,000 discharged vets have been diagnosed with mental health problems.
One of the common complaints that have been directed at the Bush Administration is that they only planned for the invasion of Iraq and not for the occupation and resulting consequences (old weaponry, inadequate body armor and helmets, minimally protected vehicles, etc.)
But considering PTSD, the Senate --- led by the blocking wedge of Republicans – has failed in funding.
The Senate could still do something.
Those of us in Minnesota’s First District are well aware (and appreciate) Congressman Tim Walz’s efforts on Veterans issues. But he cannot do it alone … he needs Senate support. For example, Walz was an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2874 Veterans' Health Care Improvement Act of 2007. Although the House passed Walz’s bill last August, the Senate has failed to act on it.
That doesn’t mean that the Republicans in the Senate won’t acknowledge the problem. For example, Senators Richard Burr (NC) and Larry Craig (ID) have proposed S. 2573 Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act. The bill does more to LIMIT veterans’ benefits and requires extensive requirements for participation. Little wonder that there are only two Senators willing to put their name on the legislation.
Besides the PTSD issue, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) is another issue that is a major concern. Once again, Congressman Tim Walz (joined by Keith Ellison D-MN-05 and Jim Oberstar D-MN-08) co-sponsored HR 2199 : Traumatic Brain Injury Health Enhancement and Long-Term Support Act of 2007. Once again, the House passed this legislation in May 2007, but the Senate has failed to act.
Voters will decide in November whether McCain’s patriotism is more relevant that Obama’s support for Veterans issues.
While these two Senators take time to campaign, why cannot Norm Coleman get his Republican colleagues to address these issues.
Remember, VOTE 60.
My question was: What legislation did Obama sponsor related to Veterans Issues ?
On September 17, 2005 Obama spoke in support of his amendment SA 2616 : To accelerate marriage penalty relief for the earned income tax credit, to extend the election to include combat pay in earned income, and to make modifications of effective dates of leasing provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
The amendment, argued Obama on the Senate floor, would "... ensure that the families of our men and women in combat are not deprived of their tax benefits. In the midst of war, are we really going to tell our troops that their combat pay doesn't count as earned income for purposes of calculating tax credits? That is hard to imagine. Our troops not only earn their combat pay, but they have also earned our respect. They deserve our commitment of support."
The amendment failed.
Remember that in 2005, the Republicans were in the majority party and even though SA 2616 had the support of every Democrat, the Republicans killed it.
That got me looking at other amendments offered to the bill, and this is what really galls me.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) proposed SA 2634 : “for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder.”
Boxer cited that "This amendment is backed by the American Legion, AMVETS, and Disabled American Veterans." She closed her floor argument by quoting an e-mail from the wife of an Iraq War Veteran who committed suicide upon his return. "I got an e-mail from a woman who was married to Captain Michael Jon Pelkey, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder for over a year. He sought help on several occasions but was discouraged by the wait time and the stigma, " said Boxer.
Boxer then read directly from the e-mail which said "Michael passed away in our home at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest on November 5, 2004. I feel that my husband is a casualty of this war and to date the Army has not done enough for post-traumatic stress. "
That funding also FAILED.
Once again, every Democrat voted for the funding but only one Republican voted for it – Gordon Smith who’s own son suicide lead to the funding of $82 million for youth suicide prevention programs at college campus mental health centers.
Yes, that means that John McCain (and Norm Coleman) voted against funding PTSD.
That was 2005.
What could that funding have accomplished ?
How many lives affected ?
IF the problem was evident in 2005, is it a bigger or smaller problem today ?
The RAND Corporation issued a report on April 16th titled Invisible Wounds of War which stated that 300,000 (or 18.5%) of the troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may have PTSD. "These consequences can have a high economic toll," RAND said. "However, most attempts to measure the costs of these conditions focus only on medical costs to the government. Yet, direct costs of treatment are only a fraction of the total costs related to mental health and cognitive conditions. Far higher are the long-term individual and societal costs stemming from lost productivity, reduced quality of life, homelessness, domestic violence, the strain on families, and suicide. Delivering effective care and restoring veterans to full mental health have the potential to reduce these longer-term costs significantly."
In addition, the Veterans Administration reported in April that 60,000 discharged vets have been diagnosed with mental health problems.
One of the common complaints that have been directed at the Bush Administration is that they only planned for the invasion of Iraq and not for the occupation and resulting consequences (old weaponry, inadequate body armor and helmets, minimally protected vehicles, etc.)
But considering PTSD, the Senate --- led by the blocking wedge of Republicans – has failed in funding.
The Senate could still do something.
Those of us in Minnesota’s First District are well aware (and appreciate) Congressman Tim Walz’s efforts on Veterans issues. But he cannot do it alone … he needs Senate support. For example, Walz was an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2874 Veterans' Health Care Improvement Act of 2007. Although the House passed Walz’s bill last August, the Senate has failed to act on it.
That doesn’t mean that the Republicans in the Senate won’t acknowledge the problem. For example, Senators Richard Burr (NC) and Larry Craig (ID) have proposed S. 2573 Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act. The bill does more to LIMIT veterans’ benefits and requires extensive requirements for participation. Little wonder that there are only two Senators willing to put their name on the legislation.
Besides the PTSD issue, TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) is another issue that is a major concern. Once again, Congressman Tim Walz (joined by Keith Ellison D-MN-05 and Jim Oberstar D-MN-08) co-sponsored HR 2199 : Traumatic Brain Injury Health Enhancement and Long-Term Support Act of 2007. Once again, the House passed this legislation in May 2007, but the Senate has failed to act.
Voters will decide in November whether McCain’s patriotism is more relevant that Obama’s support for Veterans issues.
While these two Senators take time to campaign, why cannot Norm Coleman get his Republican colleagues to address these issues.
Remember, VOTE 60.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
VOTE 60 : Norm Coleman Rejects Role of Dissident
While the House mourns the death of a Human Rights advocate, Norm Coleman is leading the opposition against dissenting at a human rights conference.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble form the bedrock of the American democratic spirit.
Politicians need to embrace these rights even if they are the target of dissidents.
Recently, Barak Obama was confronted by abortion protesters at a campaign rally. While Obama’s supporters wanted to out-shout the protesters, Obama defended Free Speech stating "Let me just say this though. Some people got organized to do that. That's part of the American tradition we are proud of. And that’s hard too, standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard."
Barak Obama sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and through CSPAN, citizens have been able to see Committee sessions. Long before Obama had announced his candicacy for President, viewers saw an intelligent, thoughful Senator in action. At the other side of the Committee, viewers also saw Norm Coleman in action … most memorable was Senator Barbara Boxer schooling Coleman in the US Constitution during the John Bolton confirmation hearings during which Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said "I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton" for the United Nations.
Coleman's battles with the United Nations have been well documented and he is at it again.
Now, Coleman is leading a group of Senators (not one Democrat in group) to demand that America not participate in the Durban II Conference - UN World Conference on Racism in 2009. Many of the specifics involved in plans for Durban II remain vague, but the Conference participants include Libya, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, and Russia.
Now the participants’ agenda at the Conference may not yield the results that America wants. Yes, there could be complaints of human rights abuses on Cuban soil … but those complaints could concern Guantanamo Bay. After all the first Durban Conference resulted in Secretary of State Colin Powell stating “You do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of ‘Zionism equals racism;’ or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world — Israel — for censure and abuse.”
That’s the point. Obama’s words are apropos – “standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard."
By not being a disadent at the conference, hateful talk will be unchecked.
But then again, Coleman has been idle when presented with other opportunities. For example, the Republicans have shown no leadership in approving the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW is a UN Resolution `to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women; to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises'.
To date, over 180 countries have ratified the agreement.
The United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified CEDAW. By not ratifying, the US is in the company of countries like Iran, Sudan, and Somalia. Senator Klobuchar has indicated her support for passage, but she is not on the Foreign Relations committee which has jurisdiction. Senator Coleman has not responded to my request for action.
It is with sadness, that Coleman leads the Durban II protest while the House mourns the death of Congressman Tom Lantos who was the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee.
Lantos was a strong supporter of Israel and is the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress. As chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, he advocated on behalf of human rights, championing pro-freedom activists in China, Burma, and elsewhere. In 1993, he bitterly complained to the State Department for failure to be a dissident as China sold missiles to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Lantos was one of the key lawmakers who helped establish a dialogue with Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, when it became apparent that Gaddafi was preparing to switch sides in the war on terror and support the United States. Lantos had visited Syria and encouraged Speaker Pelosi to visit there also. Lantos wanted to visit Iran. "We talked to the Soviet Union for over half a century, and there is no doubt in my mind that the tremendous amount of interchange had something to do with the collapse of the system."
Lantos was not limited to talking about human rights abuses, in August of 2006, he and five other members of Congress participated in a protest that lead to their arrest. "We have been calling on the civilized world to stand up and to say, 'Enough,' " Lantos said. "The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end."
That’s the key Norm … talking with your adversaries … convincing them to change their ways … not rejecting an opportunity to present an alternative view.
Sanctions don’t work. Engagement works.
There is a role for a dissident.
We can respect a man who can “stand in the midst of people who disagree with you and let your voice be heard."
Senator Coleman could have learned a lot from Congressman Lantos.
NOTE : VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble form the bedrock of the American democratic spirit.
Politicians need to embrace these rights even if they are the target of dissidents.
Recently, Barak Obama was confronted by abortion protesters at a campaign rally. While Obama’s supporters wanted to out-shout the protesters, Obama defended Free Speech stating "Let me just say this though. Some people got organized to do that. That's part of the American tradition we are proud of. And that’s hard too, standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard."
Barak Obama sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and through CSPAN, citizens have been able to see Committee sessions. Long before Obama had announced his candicacy for President, viewers saw an intelligent, thoughful Senator in action. At the other side of the Committee, viewers also saw Norm Coleman in action … most memorable was Senator Barbara Boxer schooling Coleman in the US Constitution during the John Bolton confirmation hearings during which Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said "I have come to the determination that the United States can do better than John Bolton" for the United Nations.
Coleman's battles with the United Nations have been well documented and he is at it again.
Now, Coleman is leading a group of Senators (not one Democrat in group) to demand that America not participate in the Durban II Conference - UN World Conference on Racism in 2009. Many of the specifics involved in plans for Durban II remain vague, but the Conference participants include Libya, Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, and Russia.
Now the participants’ agenda at the Conference may not yield the results that America wants. Yes, there could be complaints of human rights abuses on Cuban soil … but those complaints could concern Guantanamo Bay. After all the first Durban Conference resulted in Secretary of State Colin Powell stating “You do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of ‘Zionism equals racism;’ or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world — Israel — for censure and abuse.”
That’s the point. Obama’s words are apropos – “standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard."
By not being a disadent at the conference, hateful talk will be unchecked.
But then again, Coleman has been idle when presented with other opportunities. For example, the Republicans have shown no leadership in approving the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW is a UN Resolution `to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women; to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises'.
To date, over 180 countries have ratified the agreement.
The United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified CEDAW. By not ratifying, the US is in the company of countries like Iran, Sudan, and Somalia. Senator Klobuchar has indicated her support for passage, but she is not on the Foreign Relations committee which has jurisdiction. Senator Coleman has not responded to my request for action.
It is with sadness, that Coleman leads the Durban II protest while the House mourns the death of Congressman Tom Lantos who was the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee.
Lantos was a strong supporter of Israel and is the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress. As chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, he advocated on behalf of human rights, championing pro-freedom activists in China, Burma, and elsewhere. In 1993, he bitterly complained to the State Department for failure to be a dissident as China sold missiles to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Lantos was one of the key lawmakers who helped establish a dialogue with Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, when it became apparent that Gaddafi was preparing to switch sides in the war on terror and support the United States. Lantos had visited Syria and encouraged Speaker Pelosi to visit there also. Lantos wanted to visit Iran. "We talked to the Soviet Union for over half a century, and there is no doubt in my mind that the tremendous amount of interchange had something to do with the collapse of the system."
Lantos was not limited to talking about human rights abuses, in August of 2006, he and five other members of Congress participated in a protest that lead to their arrest. "We have been calling on the civilized world to stand up and to say, 'Enough,' " Lantos said. "The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end."
That’s the key Norm … talking with your adversaries … convincing them to change their ways … not rejecting an opportunity to present an alternative view.
Sanctions don’t work. Engagement works.
There is a role for a dissident.
We can respect a man who can “stand in the midst of people who disagree with you and let your voice be heard."
Senator Coleman could have learned a lot from Congressman Lantos.
NOTE : VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
VOTE 60 : Norm Coleman Leadership produces Republican Victory in Farm Bill
"Judge me, Norm Coleman, by what I've done. By my ability to bring people together and my ability to make good things happen. You can measure it versus a guy who's been there 12 years; 12 years, which by the way is the time when your kids go at first grade to the time they graduate high school. If you're there, get the job done. Be measured by your ability to get the job done. I think that's fair." Candidate Coleman 2002
That was Candidate Coleman who presented an image of a can-do coalition builder. When the election results were announced that Coleman would be the representing Minnesota for the next six years, Independent voters, like me, thought “Let’s give the guy a chance ... if can work across the aisle, that would be great”
Coleman garnered two prime committee assignments – Foreign Relations (which he has disappointed me repeatedly) and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Agriculture would be the big one for many Minnesotans.
Before discussing the current Farm Bill, it should be noted that the previous Farm Bill was signed by President Bush on May 13, 2002 to be effective with the beginning of the Fiscal Year on October 1, 2002 and expiring at the end of FY2007 ( or September 30, 2007). Coleman’s challenger in 2002, Paul Wellstone was on the Agriculture Committee and despite 9/11 and the military action thereafter, Congress was able to get the bill done in a timely manner. Farmers and bankers knew what to expect.
The House of Representatives held hearings and developed a bill that was passed in July 2007. The Senate though operates on its own time table.
The technically the Farm Security Act of 2002 expired on September 30, but through Public Law No: 110-92 continuing funding for many programs was extended (at the previous funding rates.)
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved the farm bill in October without any dissenting votes. The bill then languished on the floor as Republicans and Democrats clashed over how to deal with the nearly 300 amendments that had been filed.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted to select a list of amendments that were directly related to farm policy, but Republicans said that he should not be allowed to limit their proposals on such wide-ranging legislation.
On Friday, November 16th, the Senate finally addressed the issue with a procedural vote (meaning “Do we really want to vote on this?). The vote failed as 42 Republican Senators voted “No” (meaning “We are going to drag this out”).
According to Norm Coleman’s interview with former First District Congressman Tim Penny on Friday, Reid suggested that each side be allowed 20 amendments to be considered. Coleman stated that he convinced his fellow Republicans that they should precede. [ Now, we know what Coleman meant when he said “ my ability to bring people together, he meant bringing his fellow Republicans to action. ]
The Senate proceed to consider a number of amendments. EVERY Amendment FAILED …including the amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment which would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America. President Bush had requested that payments be limited to $200,000 but the Senate bill is for $1,000,000. This fiscally more responsible amendment failed by four votes with Coleman supporting the $1 million subsidy (read more here) .
So what was the point of waiting ?
We must remember that although subsidies got a lot of media attention, the bill also is the major authorization for nuitrition programs … (Food stamps, emergency food assistance program (TEFAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), etc.) I have already written how Republicans Love Subsidies but Hate Welfare.
This delaying of approval has hurt the people who need these nutrition programs. Although Congress approved a Continuing Resolution in September, it was at the existing levels. As The Star-Tribune reported today “Food inflation has more than doubled during the past 12 months.” For example, nationally, eggs cost 37 percent more than a year ago. Chicken feed -- made mostly of corn -- is 60 to 70 percent of an egg farmer's costs. Dairy farmers pay more for feed, too, up by as much as 40 percent since last year. And why is corn up … demand for ethanol … another highly subsidized product and which will increase sixfold based on the Senate approving the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 the day before it voted on the Farm Bill.
Let’s look at just how just one program will be impacted … milk and cheese account for about 40 percent of WIC food expenditures. As a result of higher food prices, it will cost significantly more for the people to buy these commodities … but the dollars were capped at last year’s rates … so the additional cost is being born by the needy … or they go without. Further, since the cost of the foods has increased faster than the budget, state WIC programs could have to reduce participation and establish waiting lists.
The end result is a cut to the Safety Net for the working families … but the Safety Net for $1 Million Dollar Mega-Farms is retained.
Thanks, Norm. I’ll be glad to “"Judge me, Norm Coleman, by what I've done.” … you’ve done a horrible job … on a Key Assignment … but I suspect that your Republican colleagues are pleased.
You delivered legislation late, that rewards the wrong people (even above what President Bush wanted) and hurts those that need it most.
By my account, you didn't "get the job done" !
FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .
That was Candidate Coleman who presented an image of a can-do coalition builder. When the election results were announced that Coleman would be the representing Minnesota for the next six years, Independent voters, like me, thought “Let’s give the guy a chance ... if can work across the aisle, that would be great”
Coleman garnered two prime committee assignments – Foreign Relations (which he has disappointed me repeatedly) and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Agriculture would be the big one for many Minnesotans.
Before discussing the current Farm Bill, it should be noted that the previous Farm Bill was signed by President Bush on May 13, 2002 to be effective with the beginning of the Fiscal Year on October 1, 2002 and expiring at the end of FY2007 ( or September 30, 2007). Coleman’s challenger in 2002, Paul Wellstone was on the Agriculture Committee and despite 9/11 and the military action thereafter, Congress was able to get the bill done in a timely manner. Farmers and bankers knew what to expect.
The House of Representatives held hearings and developed a bill that was passed in July 2007. The Senate though operates on its own time table.
The technically the Farm Security Act of 2002 expired on September 30, but through Public Law No: 110-92 continuing funding for many programs was extended (at the previous funding rates.)
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved the farm bill in October without any dissenting votes. The bill then languished on the floor as Republicans and Democrats clashed over how to deal with the nearly 300 amendments that had been filed.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted to select a list of amendments that were directly related to farm policy, but Republicans said that he should not be allowed to limit their proposals on such wide-ranging legislation.
On Friday, November 16th, the Senate finally addressed the issue with a procedural vote (meaning “Do we really want to vote on this?). The vote failed as 42 Republican Senators voted “No” (meaning “We are going to drag this out”).
According to Norm Coleman’s interview with former First District Congressman Tim Penny on Friday, Reid suggested that each side be allowed 20 amendments to be considered. Coleman stated that he convinced his fellow Republicans that they should precede. [ Now, we know what Coleman meant when he said “ my ability to bring people together, he meant bringing his fellow Republicans to action. ]
The Senate proceed to consider a number of amendments. EVERY Amendment FAILED …including the amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment which would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America. President Bush had requested that payments be limited to $200,000 but the Senate bill is for $1,000,000. This fiscally more responsible amendment failed by four votes with Coleman supporting the $1 million subsidy (read more here) .
So what was the point of waiting ?
We must remember that although subsidies got a lot of media attention, the bill also is the major authorization for nuitrition programs … (Food stamps, emergency food assistance program (TEFAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), etc.) I have already written how Republicans Love Subsidies but Hate Welfare.
This delaying of approval has hurt the people who need these nutrition programs. Although Congress approved a Continuing Resolution in September, it was at the existing levels. As The Star-Tribune reported today “Food inflation has more than doubled during the past 12 months.” For example, nationally, eggs cost 37 percent more than a year ago. Chicken feed -- made mostly of corn -- is 60 to 70 percent of an egg farmer's costs. Dairy farmers pay more for feed, too, up by as much as 40 percent since last year. And why is corn up … demand for ethanol … another highly subsidized product and which will increase sixfold based on the Senate approving the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 the day before it voted on the Farm Bill.
Let’s look at just how just one program will be impacted … milk and cheese account for about 40 percent of WIC food expenditures. As a result of higher food prices, it will cost significantly more for the people to buy these commodities … but the dollars were capped at last year’s rates … so the additional cost is being born by the needy … or they go without. Further, since the cost of the foods has increased faster than the budget, state WIC programs could have to reduce participation and establish waiting lists.
The end result is a cut to the Safety Net for the working families … but the Safety Net for $1 Million Dollar Mega-Farms is retained.
Thanks, Norm. I’ll be glad to “"Judge me, Norm Coleman, by what I've done.” … you’ve done a horrible job … on a Key Assignment … but I suspect that your Republican colleagues are pleased.
You delivered legislation late, that rewards the wrong people (even above what President Bush wanted) and hurts those that need it most.
By my account, you didn't "get the job done" !
FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .
Saturday, December 15, 2007
VOTE 60 : Klobuchar loses Fiscal Fight to Coleman & Coburn
FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .
Wanna get a Fiscal Conservatives blood to boil ?
Ask if it is right that $3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia … or $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan … And $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210 ?
Fiscal Conservatives see that as wasteful government spending.
Farm subsidies have been getting a lot of media attention … and rightfully so.
Good news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have a Senator who wants to fight for taxpayers’ monies and added an amendment to the Farm Bill to address those excessive payments.
Bad news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have too many Senators that talk about the need for fiscal conservatism, but when it comes to the vote, they side with special interests.
The Fiscal-Fraud Du Jour is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn (R). There doesn’t seem to be a bill that comes to final vote in the Senate without Senator Coburn offering an amendment … that’s why I call him Doctor Death .
The Farm Bill was no exception as Coburn offered Amendment 3807 : To ensure the priority of the farm bill remains farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture spending on golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, and aging barns.
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion … but seven days later the amendment was withdrawn.
The efforts to reign in subsidies had an aggressive amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment (of which Senator Klobuchar was a co-sponsor.) It would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America.
Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment and it failed the SuperMajority requirement (see VOTE60).
Despite that aggressive amendment failing, Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment Roll Call 426 which would allow payments only to full-time farmers making less than $750,000 a year and part-time farmers making less than $250,000, after expenses and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit.
Once again, Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment.
Former First District Congressman Tim Penny interviewed Coleman on Friday. Penney is the ultimate Fiscal Conservative and a former member of the House Agriculture Committee and his first question was, “Why did you vote against this?” After hedging for a bit about how others voted, Coleman answered that there are some farmers with million dollar loans and they needed coverage.
Wow. I thought subsidies were to provide a safety net.
IF someone has a million dollar loan, they must also have the collateral and asset base to support that loan. Why one million … what about the poor farmer with $1,000,001 loan ? What about the $2 million dollar farmer?
Isn’t this argument akin to the Social Security argument concerning means testing ?
What is more important subsidizing mega farms or family farms? When smaller operations are driven out of business that destroys the culture of family farming and undermining rural communities.
What is a reasonable safety net ? According to Coleman, not $250,000 … not $750,000 but One Million Dollars !
That’s not a safety net.
That’s protecting a system that ensures subsidies for special interests.
According to Senator Klobuchar the average income of a Minnesota farmer is $54,000 yet there were only TWO Farm Business receiving Crop Subsidy Payments in Minnesota for 2005 that exceeded $750,000 ( oh by the way, they also exceeded $1 million ) and a total of 71 that exceeded the $250,000 threshold.
The bill will now go to a conference committee at which Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants to get the threshold down to $900,000.
As a Fiscal Conservative, I do not have a lot of hope for Congressman Peterson’s efforts as Republicans Love Farm Subsidies .
Coleman is Fiscal Irresponsibility in Action !
Wanna get a Fiscal Conservatives blood to boil ?
Ask if it is right that $3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia … or $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan … And $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210 ?
Fiscal Conservatives see that as wasteful government spending.
Farm subsidies have been getting a lot of media attention … and rightfully so.
Good news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have a Senator who wants to fight for taxpayers’ monies and added an amendment to the Farm Bill to address those excessive payments.
Bad news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have too many Senators that talk about the need for fiscal conservatism, but when it comes to the vote, they side with special interests.
The Fiscal-Fraud Du Jour is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn (R). There doesn’t seem to be a bill that comes to final vote in the Senate without Senator Coburn offering an amendment … that’s why I call him Doctor Death .
The Farm Bill was no exception as Coburn offered Amendment 3807 : To ensure the priority of the farm bill remains farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture spending on golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, and aging barns.
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion … but seven days later the amendment was withdrawn.
The efforts to reign in subsidies had an aggressive amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment (of which Senator Klobuchar was a co-sponsor.) It would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America.
Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment and it failed the SuperMajority requirement (see VOTE60).
Despite that aggressive amendment failing, Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment Roll Call 426 which would allow payments only to full-time farmers making less than $750,000 a year and part-time farmers making less than $250,000, after expenses and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit.
Once again, Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment.
Former First District Congressman Tim Penny interviewed Coleman on Friday. Penney is the ultimate Fiscal Conservative and a former member of the House Agriculture Committee and his first question was, “Why did you vote against this?” After hedging for a bit about how others voted, Coleman answered that there are some farmers with million dollar loans and they needed coverage.
Wow. I thought subsidies were to provide a safety net.
IF someone has a million dollar loan, they must also have the collateral and asset base to support that loan. Why one million … what about the poor farmer with $1,000,001 loan ? What about the $2 million dollar farmer?
Isn’t this argument akin to the Social Security argument concerning means testing ?
What is more important subsidizing mega farms or family farms? When smaller operations are driven out of business that destroys the culture of family farming and undermining rural communities.
What is a reasonable safety net ? According to Coleman, not $250,000 … not $750,000 but One Million Dollars !
That’s not a safety net.
That’s protecting a system that ensures subsidies for special interests.
According to Senator Klobuchar the average income of a Minnesota farmer is $54,000 yet there were only TWO Farm Business receiving Crop Subsidy Payments in Minnesota for 2005 that exceeded $750,000 ( oh by the way, they also exceeded $1 million ) and a total of 71 that exceeded the $250,000 threshold.
The bill will now go to a conference committee at which Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants to get the threshold down to $900,000.
As a Fiscal Conservative, I do not have a lot of hope for Congressman Peterson’s efforts as Republicans Love Farm Subsidies .
Coleman is Fiscal Irresponsibility in Action !
Sunday, December 09, 2007
VOTE 60 : Why is Dick Day running for the House of Representatives ?
State Senator Dick Day of Owatonna wants to represent the First District of Minnesota in the House of Representative and his major platform is illegal immigration.
Using the motto, Strong Borders, Strong Future; he hopes to write a bill to overhaul the entire immigration system.
Day told KEYC_TV , ''I can assure you every place that I've went in the first district eight out of ten people when I sit down and say what's your biggest concern they say illegal immigration.
Is the First District any different than the entire State of Minnesota ?
Is this a problem that Dick Day can best resolve as a member of the 435 member House of Representatives ?
If Dick Day really wants to resolve this issue, he needs to be in the US Senate.
President Bush supported the Senate's "comprehensive" approach to immigration reform which was passed in May 2006 with the support of Republican Senator Norm Coleman's vote.
The comprehensive immigration reform would have strengthened border security, but would also create a program permitting illegal immigrants who had resided in the United States for five years or more to "earn" their citizenship after paying a fine and back taxes, learning English and holding a job for six years. It also would allow illegal immigrants who have resided in the United States from two to five years to apply for a guest worker program.
Previously, in December 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437).
Actually, the immigration issue has been a major issue in the House since the establishment of Immigration Reform Caucus in May 1999.
The differences were so significant that the House and Senate were never resolved during the 109th Congress.
During the 110th Congress, the Senate has tried to address the issue with a compromise bill offered by Senators Kyl (R) and Kennedy (D) but that failed to be brought up for a final vote. This failure caused Morton Kondracke to name some Senators - including Republican Norm Coleman - the "cowardice caucus" for having voted "yes" in 2006 and "no" this year. This was not a vote For or Against the legislation … it was just a vote to whether to debate the issue … hence “cowards”.
Obviously, Norm Coleman and the Senate is where the problem lies. Day would have a greater impact on this issue in the Senate … especially since the issue has seen a number of proponents of strict immigration reform will not be in the House in 2009. The Immigration Reform Caucus will be losing its founding member – Tom Tancredo – plus other prominent members who have announced they will not be up for election including Barbara Cubin(R-WY), Terry Everett(R-AL), Duncan Hunter(R-CA), Chip Pickering(R-MS), and Rick Renzo(R-AZ). Now, I know that there is no guarantee that the people who take those seats won’t have the same passion as Day, but in the 2006 election Immigration Reform Caucus members J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), John Hostettler (R-IN — the chair in the 109th Congress of the House Immigration Subcommittee), Chris Chocola (R-IN), Anne Northup (R-KY), Melissa Hart (R-PA), Charles Taylor (R-NC), Richard Pombo (R-CA) and of course, former First District Congressman Gil Gutknecht all lost. The Minuteman successfully got Randy Graf on the Republican ballot to replace retiring Representative Jim Kolbe … Graf lost. Conversely, there was strong support against Republican Chris Cannon since he opposed strict immigration laws but Cannon successfully beat a fellow Republican in the primary and a Democrat in the November election.
Politically, I see immigration as a decisive issue that is ripping the Republican Party apart. But if Day feels that passionately it about it (and 8 or 10 people tell him so) then he needs to challenge Norm Coleman in the Republican primary.
The US Senate Straw Poll is February 5th so if you are part of the "8 out of 10" remember the name, Dick Day !
FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here.
Using the motto, Strong Borders, Strong Future; he hopes to write a bill to overhaul the entire immigration system.
Day told KEYC_TV , ''I can assure you every place that I've went in the first district eight out of ten people when I sit down and say what's your biggest concern they say illegal immigration.
Is the First District any different than the entire State of Minnesota ?
Is this a problem that Dick Day can best resolve as a member of the 435 member House of Representatives ?
If Dick Day really wants to resolve this issue, he needs to be in the US Senate.
President Bush supported the Senate's "comprehensive" approach to immigration reform which was passed in May 2006 with the support of Republican Senator Norm Coleman's vote.
The comprehensive immigration reform would have strengthened border security, but would also create a program permitting illegal immigrants who had resided in the United States for five years or more to "earn" their citizenship after paying a fine and back taxes, learning English and holding a job for six years. It also would allow illegal immigrants who have resided in the United States from two to five years to apply for a guest worker program.
Previously, in December 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437).
Actually, the immigration issue has been a major issue in the House since the establishment of Immigration Reform Caucus in May 1999.
The differences were so significant that the House and Senate were never resolved during the 109th Congress.
During the 110th Congress, the Senate has tried to address the issue with a compromise bill offered by Senators Kyl (R) and Kennedy (D) but that failed to be brought up for a final vote. This failure caused Morton Kondracke to name some Senators - including Republican Norm Coleman - the "cowardice caucus" for having voted "yes" in 2006 and "no" this year. This was not a vote For or Against the legislation … it was just a vote to whether to debate the issue … hence “cowards”.
Obviously, Norm Coleman and the Senate is where the problem lies. Day would have a greater impact on this issue in the Senate … especially since the issue has seen a number of proponents of strict immigration reform will not be in the House in 2009. The Immigration Reform Caucus will be losing its founding member – Tom Tancredo – plus other prominent members who have announced they will not be up for election including Barbara Cubin(R-WY), Terry Everett(R-AL), Duncan Hunter(R-CA), Chip Pickering(R-MS), and Rick Renzo(R-AZ). Now, I know that there is no guarantee that the people who take those seats won’t have the same passion as Day, but in the 2006 election Immigration Reform Caucus members J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), John Hostettler (R-IN — the chair in the 109th Congress of the House Immigration Subcommittee), Chris Chocola (R-IN), Anne Northup (R-KY), Melissa Hart (R-PA), Charles Taylor (R-NC), Richard Pombo (R-CA) and of course, former First District Congressman Gil Gutknecht all lost. The Minuteman successfully got Randy Graf on the Republican ballot to replace retiring Representative Jim Kolbe … Graf lost. Conversely, there was strong support against Republican Chris Cannon since he opposed strict immigration laws but Cannon successfully beat a fellow Republican in the primary and a Democrat in the November election.
Politically, I see immigration as a decisive issue that is ripping the Republican Party apart. But if Day feels that passionately it about it (and 8 or 10 people tell him so) then he needs to challenge Norm Coleman in the Republican primary.
The US Senate Straw Poll is February 5th so if you are part of the "8 out of 10" remember the name, Dick Day !
FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here.
VOTE 60 : Your only Vote that matters
The 2008 elections will be for President, 33 Senate seats and all House seats but your vote that will contribute to America's future is the election for US Senate.
Oh sure, you can vote for President, but the President is actually elected by the Electoral College. Historically, most states will overwhelmingly select one candidate leaving only a few states to determine the outcome.
Florida (with its butterfly ballot in 2000) and Ohio (with its allegations of voter suppression and disenfranchisement in 2004) may play an important part in 2008.
Some speculate that the tri-state grouping of Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin could be important in 2008, but I have no doubt that your vote - or my vote - will not determine the outcome.
Through the practice of gerrymandering to maintain favorable districts, the House of Representatives generally allows incumbents to be reelected 90 % of the time. When districts are won by 20 % or more, you know there is a problem. Look at the 2002 election where all the incumbents were re-elected with the minimum margin win by 19 % and (actually one Congressman won 72 to 27 %). Now, the 2006 elections did produce one incumbent losing (52-47%) but the other incumbents were reelected comfortably (the closest race was by 16%). In 2008, MN-01, MN-02, MN-03(retiring) and MN-05 will be contested, but otherwise, don’t expect a close call.
Should you care ? Of course, but temper that with the knowledge that party discipline is critical in the House to move any agenda. Historically, one party has had a dominant majority … currently the Democrats have a 33 seat advantage.
That might make one think that the Democrat agenda would be quickly enacted.
Not so.
The Senate operates under different rules. Under Senate Rule 22, the Senate does not have to act on any legislation unless 60 senators want to proceed with a vote.
Hence VOTE 60.
This year, voters need to weigh carefully if they wish to vote for more of the same Do-Nothing Senate or vote for progress on a variety of issues … ranging from immigration to war funding … from confirmation of judicial nominees to White House appointees.
In some ways, the 60 vote filibuster / cloture procedure allows a Senator to “hid” behind the cloture vote. It should not be surprised that a number of Republican Senators (notably, Coleman, Collins and Smith) who are up for re-election are siding with the Democrats to allow votes to move forward … knowing that it will take nine Republicans to bolt provides cover to tell the voters that you wanted to vote on it, but it was filibustered.
The 2008 Senate elections will determine domestic policy as much whomever is elected President.
The Republicans have 21 seats to defend while the Democrats have 12.
With six Republican Senators already announcing that they will not be in the 111th Congress when it convenes in January 2009, the make-up could definitely change.
If you reside in Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and of course, Minnesota, your vote in the Senate election will determine what happens for the next six years.
Weigh your choices carefully.
You're not voting for a candidate ... you're voting whether your want progress to resolve issues, or more of the same.
FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.
Oh sure, you can vote for President, but the President is actually elected by the Electoral College. Historically, most states will overwhelmingly select one candidate leaving only a few states to determine the outcome.
Florida (with its butterfly ballot in 2000) and Ohio (with its allegations of voter suppression and disenfranchisement in 2004) may play an important part in 2008.
Some speculate that the tri-state grouping of Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin could be important in 2008, but I have no doubt that your vote - or my vote - will not determine the outcome.
Through the practice of gerrymandering to maintain favorable districts, the House of Representatives generally allows incumbents to be reelected 90 % of the time. When districts are won by 20 % or more, you know there is a problem. Look at the 2002 election where all the incumbents were re-elected with the minimum margin win by 19 % and (actually one Congressman won 72 to 27 %). Now, the 2006 elections did produce one incumbent losing (52-47%) but the other incumbents were reelected comfortably (the closest race was by 16%). In 2008, MN-01, MN-02, MN-03(retiring) and MN-05 will be contested, but otherwise, don’t expect a close call.
Should you care ? Of course, but temper that with the knowledge that party discipline is critical in the House to move any agenda. Historically, one party has had a dominant majority … currently the Democrats have a 33 seat advantage.
That might make one think that the Democrat agenda would be quickly enacted.
Not so.
The Senate operates under different rules. Under Senate Rule 22, the Senate does not have to act on any legislation unless 60 senators want to proceed with a vote.
Hence VOTE 60.
This year, voters need to weigh carefully if they wish to vote for more of the same Do-Nothing Senate or vote for progress on a variety of issues … ranging from immigration to war funding … from confirmation of judicial nominees to White House appointees.
In some ways, the 60 vote filibuster / cloture procedure allows a Senator to “hid” behind the cloture vote. It should not be surprised that a number of Republican Senators (notably, Coleman, Collins and Smith) who are up for re-election are siding with the Democrats to allow votes to move forward … knowing that it will take nine Republicans to bolt provides cover to tell the voters that you wanted to vote on it, but it was filibustered.
The 2008 Senate elections will determine domestic policy as much whomever is elected President.
The Republicans have 21 seats to defend while the Democrats have 12.
With six Republican Senators already announcing that they will not be in the 111th Congress when it convenes in January 2009, the make-up could definitely change.
If you reside in Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and of course, Minnesota, your vote in the Senate election will determine what happens for the next six years.
Weigh your choices carefully.
You're not voting for a candidate ... you're voting whether your want progress to resolve issues, or more of the same.
FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Norm Coleman should heed lessons from Burma
President George Bush addressed the situation in Myanmar ( aka Burma ) at the United Nations link : “Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common. The regime is holding more than 1,000 political prisoners -- including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.
The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable. This morning, I'm announcing a series of steps to help bring peaceful change to Burma. The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members. We'll continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma. And I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom. ”
The lessons are woefully apparent yet President Bush is still trying the same approach.
Following the August 1988 massacre of demonstrators, President George H. W. Bush suspended all arms sales and foreign assistance, except humanitarian aid, to Burma. In September, 1996 President Clinton barred U.S. assistance to Burma except for relief aid and anti-narcotic purposes and calling for a moratorium on new American private investment . link
Sanctions were the message.
Bush was right -- “Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma" -- and some did try to force compliance … for example, Halliburton shareholders advanced an initiative after the Halliburton was involved in a 1997 Yadana pipeline project (NOTE : Halliburton’s CEO in 1997 was current US Vice-President Richard Cheney).
Halliburton’s response : “While the Board shares the Proponent's concern about human rights abuses in countries such as Myanmar, Halliburton has not engaged in, or condoned, such conduct. Thus, the requested report will serve only to increase administrative burdens and costs. Halliburton's Code of Business Conduct requires all employees and agents to practice honesty and integrity in every aspect of their dealings with other Halliburton employees, customers, suppliers and the public and to treat those persons with dignity and respect. As a company that operates in over 100 countries around the world, our customers, partners, suppliers and employees represent virtually every race or national origin and an associated multitude of religions, cultures, customs, political philosophies and languages.
We must, and do, respect this diversity and realize that neither the United States nor we can impose its values on the world. It is not our purpose to remake the world in the image of any particular political, moral or religious philosophy with which we are comfortable.
Rather, we hope to help improve the quality of life wherever we do business by serving as a developer of natural resources and infrastructures.
Regarding allegations of violations of human rights by the government of Myanmar, we believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies. Where the United States government has mandated that United States companies refrain from commerce, we comply, often to the advantage of our international competitors. History has shown that single country, let alone corporate boycotts and sanctions, are ineffective, often injuring the economic interests of the boycotting entity.
We do not always agree with the policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, however, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for Halliburton to establish its own country-by-country foreign policy. ”
Note : Emphasis added.
There’s the problem with sanctions … they don’t work. Halliburton’s response is similar to China which views the problems in Burma as “internal”. How can the US expect other countries to levy sanctions when US companies will not ?
While sanctions restricting foreign aid and investment may economically weaken a country, the reigning regime may retain, and even increase, its brute power. Dictators strengthen their control over reformers as contact with the outside world is restricted. Education and society advancements are restricted. The US is blamed for meddling and all difficulties that the people face. The only jobs are military jobs. The ruling power find “friendly partners” who will continue to provide what it wants ( Senator Coleman’s investigation of the Iraq Oil industry is an illustration).
The regime does not suffer … just the people.
This is not a rant on Cheney and Halliburton … but instead that sanctions don’t work. And that is why I address this commentary to Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. The committee has oversight over the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. government, including the State Department, USAID, and other agencies that implement international treaties, as well as legislation relating to U.S. foreign policy. That is the most important committee that Coleman is assigned.
Coleman has advocated sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Laos, North Korea, and Syria … just to name a few.
As Baron de Montesquieu wrote in his 1748 work, The Spirit of the Laws, “Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling: and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.”
It’s time for Senator Coleman to realize that sanctions do not work.
Nineteen years of US sanctions against Burma has not changed the regime.
Engaged diplomacy and trade is America’s best foreign policy.
Adhereing to his idealogy of sanctions actually hurts Minnesota businesses.
The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable. This morning, I'm announcing a series of steps to help bring peaceful change to Burma. The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members. We'll continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma. And I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom. ”
The lessons are woefully apparent yet President Bush is still trying the same approach.
Following the August 1988 massacre of demonstrators, President George H. W. Bush suspended all arms sales and foreign assistance, except humanitarian aid, to Burma. In September, 1996 President Clinton barred U.S. assistance to Burma except for relief aid and anti-narcotic purposes and calling for a moratorium on new American private investment . link
Sanctions were the message.
Bush was right -- “Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma" -- and some did try to force compliance … for example, Halliburton shareholders advanced an initiative after the Halliburton was involved in a 1997 Yadana pipeline project (NOTE : Halliburton’s CEO in 1997 was current US Vice-President Richard Cheney).
Halliburton’s response : “While the Board shares the Proponent's concern about human rights abuses in countries such as Myanmar, Halliburton has not engaged in, or condoned, such conduct. Thus, the requested report will serve only to increase administrative burdens and costs. Halliburton's Code of Business Conduct requires all employees and agents to practice honesty and integrity in every aspect of their dealings with other Halliburton employees, customers, suppliers and the public and to treat those persons with dignity and respect. As a company that operates in over 100 countries around the world, our customers, partners, suppliers and employees represent virtually every race or national origin and an associated multitude of religions, cultures, customs, political philosophies and languages.
We must, and do, respect this diversity and realize that neither the United States nor we can impose its values on the world. It is not our purpose to remake the world in the image of any particular political, moral or religious philosophy with which we are comfortable.
Rather, we hope to help improve the quality of life wherever we do business by serving as a developer of natural resources and infrastructures.
Regarding allegations of violations of human rights by the government of Myanmar, we believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies. Where the United States government has mandated that United States companies refrain from commerce, we comply, often to the advantage of our international competitors. History has shown that single country, let alone corporate boycotts and sanctions, are ineffective, often injuring the economic interests of the boycotting entity.
We do not always agree with the policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, however, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for Halliburton to establish its own country-by-country foreign policy. ”
Note : Emphasis added.
There’s the problem with sanctions … they don’t work. Halliburton’s response is similar to China which views the problems in Burma as “internal”. How can the US expect other countries to levy sanctions when US companies will not ?
While sanctions restricting foreign aid and investment may economically weaken a country, the reigning regime may retain, and even increase, its brute power. Dictators strengthen their control over reformers as contact with the outside world is restricted. Education and society advancements are restricted. The US is blamed for meddling and all difficulties that the people face. The only jobs are military jobs. The ruling power find “friendly partners” who will continue to provide what it wants ( Senator Coleman’s investigation of the Iraq Oil industry is an illustration).
The regime does not suffer … just the people.
This is not a rant on Cheney and Halliburton … but instead that sanctions don’t work. And that is why I address this commentary to Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. The committee has oversight over the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. government, including the State Department, USAID, and other agencies that implement international treaties, as well as legislation relating to U.S. foreign policy. That is the most important committee that Coleman is assigned.
Coleman has advocated sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Laos, North Korea, and Syria … just to name a few.
As Baron de Montesquieu wrote in his 1748 work, The Spirit of the Laws, “Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling: and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.”
It’s time for Senator Coleman to realize that sanctions do not work.
Nineteen years of US sanctions against Burma has not changed the regime.
Engaged diplomacy and trade is America’s best foreign policy.
Adhereing to his idealogy of sanctions actually hurts Minnesota businesses.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Tom Coburn : Dr. Death aims to kill Congress
Is there a Doctor in the House ?
Forget the House of Representatives, the problem is that there is a Doctor in the Senate.
Mark Kennedy tried to sell Minnesota voters that the Senate had too many attorneys and that it needed a Certified Public Accountant. Well, the problem is not the attorneys in the Senate, but instead it is the Accountant turned Doctor that is causing all the problems.
Polls of the approval of the 110th Congress performance are dismal. But who is to blame? I blame the stubborn Republican Senators who are slowing and stopping legislation. Some may argue that it is sound philosophical differences that prompts their actions. That is understandable, but there is probably a portion that is just political theatre.
The Founding Fathers created six year terms for members of the Senate and as such it is considered the more deliberative legislative body. But now, the Republicans are being more obstinate than deliberative.
First, most legislation is not voted upon until a vote in which 60 members agree to end a filibuster. The current Senate is balanced between Democrats (49) and Republicans (49) and two Independents. In the previous Congress, the threat of filibuster involving judicial appointments was resolved when 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats agreed to advance the confirmation vote on judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"). Today, the Republicans do not seem to have the same inclination to overcome the filibuster rule. So often, we now see a handful of Republicans breaking with Party Managers on specific votes, but I suspect some (Norm Coleman, Gordan Smith, and John Sununu) are motivated by the 2008 election while others (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) were original members of the compromise group. It is reasonable to question whether Coleman / Smith / Sununu votes are really symbolic since they know that the 60 vote threshold will not be met.
But there are other “procedures” that Senators can use. For example, a “hold” can be placed on a piece of legislation. Let’s look at the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Olympia Snowe - a Republican from Maine - initiated this legislation in 2002 and with every session she starts a new bill with hope and optimism. For example, February 17, 2005 the Senate passed the bill 98-0 ... in most instances, that overwhelming support would mean quick passage ... sadly, it went to the Republican-controlled House ... where it never was addressed. Fast forward, to this year , ... now with a Democratic-controlled House ... it was passed with only three dissenting votes ... but when it went to the Senate, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, put a HOLD on it. Now, why did Coburn vote for this bill in 2005 but now does not want it to be passed .... these are the games the Republicans are playing. Coburn has used the Hold procedure over 80 times.
And even when legislation is moving forward, the Republicans move into delay mode. Coburn frequently offers amendments to bills (over 80 times thus far) as they reach final vote. Some may be valid. And the outcome may even be easily forecasted before the vote. So how can that be delayed … simple require a Roll Call vote. For example, Coburn offered an amendment #2773 and required a recorded vote . Senator Leahy scoffed at the need and pleaded to have a voice vote … but the Republicans wanted a Roll Call. So the process is delayed while all the Senators come to the Clerk to announce their vote. The outcome of this vote – 92 in favor … and ONE opposed … the one Senator who voted against Coburn’s amendment was Richard Lugar – a Republican from Indiana. Reviewing the amendments offered by Coburn, if it is not approved by an overwhelming majority, they are rejected. His actions are largely to delay and impede passage.
It’s time for Norm Coleman and other Republican Senators to address Coburn. These antics are not productive and create voter dissatisfaction that Coleman and others will feel next November.
End this political theatre now !
Forget the House of Representatives, the problem is that there is a Doctor in the Senate.
Mark Kennedy tried to sell Minnesota voters that the Senate had too many attorneys and that it needed a Certified Public Accountant. Well, the problem is not the attorneys in the Senate, but instead it is the Accountant turned Doctor that is causing all the problems.
Polls of the approval of the 110th Congress performance are dismal. But who is to blame? I blame the stubborn Republican Senators who are slowing and stopping legislation. Some may argue that it is sound philosophical differences that prompts their actions. That is understandable, but there is probably a portion that is just political theatre.
The Founding Fathers created six year terms for members of the Senate and as such it is considered the more deliberative legislative body. But now, the Republicans are being more obstinate than deliberative.
First, most legislation is not voted upon until a vote in which 60 members agree to end a filibuster. The current Senate is balanced between Democrats (49) and Republicans (49) and two Independents. In the previous Congress, the threat of filibuster involving judicial appointments was resolved when 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats agreed to advance the confirmation vote on judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"). Today, the Republicans do not seem to have the same inclination to overcome the filibuster rule. So often, we now see a handful of Republicans breaking with Party Managers on specific votes, but I suspect some (Norm Coleman, Gordan Smith, and John Sununu) are motivated by the 2008 election while others (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) were original members of the compromise group. It is reasonable to question whether Coleman / Smith / Sununu votes are really symbolic since they know that the 60 vote threshold will not be met.
But there are other “procedures” that Senators can use. For example, a “hold” can be placed on a piece of legislation. Let’s look at the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Olympia Snowe - a Republican from Maine - initiated this legislation in 2002 and with every session she starts a new bill with hope and optimism. For example, February 17, 2005 the Senate passed the bill 98-0 ... in most instances, that overwhelming support would mean quick passage ... sadly, it went to the Republican-controlled House ... where it never was addressed. Fast forward, to this year , ... now with a Democratic-controlled House ... it was passed with only three dissenting votes ... but when it went to the Senate, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, put a HOLD on it. Now, why did Coburn vote for this bill in 2005 but now does not want it to be passed .... these are the games the Republicans are playing. Coburn has used the Hold procedure over 80 times.
And even when legislation is moving forward, the Republicans move into delay mode. Coburn frequently offers amendments to bills (over 80 times thus far) as they reach final vote. Some may be valid. And the outcome may even be easily forecasted before the vote. So how can that be delayed … simple require a Roll Call vote. For example, Coburn offered an amendment #2773 and required a recorded vote . Senator Leahy scoffed at the need and pleaded to have a voice vote … but the Republicans wanted a Roll Call. So the process is delayed while all the Senators come to the Clerk to announce their vote. The outcome of this vote – 92 in favor … and ONE opposed … the one Senator who voted against Coburn’s amendment was Richard Lugar – a Republican from Indiana. Reviewing the amendments offered by Coburn, if it is not approved by an overwhelming majority, they are rejected. His actions are largely to delay and impede passage.
It’s time for Norm Coleman and other Republican Senators to address Coburn. These antics are not productive and create voter dissatisfaction that Coleman and others will feel next November.
End this political theatre now !
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Norm Coleman INACTION : Iran Sanctions
The US State Department announced that the six nations (U.N. Security Council's five permanent members, all nuclear powers, plus Germany) will meet on Sept. 21 in Washington to discuss the use of sanctions, or the threat of them, to persuade Iran to drop disputed nuclear work.
This May, The Jewish Policy Center asked Senator Norm Coleman to evaluate the performance of Congress and the Bush Administration in curbing the Iranian threat.
Coleman responded ”Congress has acted decisively by passing the legislation to sanction Iran and support movements that seek regime change. Our message is that, through external and internal pressure, there will be great costs to pursuing a nuclear path.
The executive branch has worked tirelessly to isolate Iran through diplomatic means. I am frustrated that we have not yet imposed stronger multilateral sanctions through the U.N. This situation stems mainly from the economic interests of some of our international partners. Iran wields considerable influence because of its oil resources. Still, we must tell our partners that we expect them to act responsibly.
Hearing Coleman’s words, one would think that he and the State Department are doing everything possible to make sanctions work but it is the other UN members that are failing.
However, it has now been reported that the Bush Administration acknowledges “that the United States has not carried out existing Security Council penalties on several companies linked to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
Why is that ?
My assessment is that the Bush Administration is not truly committed to diplomacy. Much like their unwillingness to accept the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation of Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is now complaining that “The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy." By the US slowing up instituting sanctions, it will claim that sanctions are not working.
Coleman is uniquely charged to take action He was outspoken that sanctions did not work with Iraq. He has been outspoken of the failings of the United Nations. When Coleman was selected to be the Ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, he said ”I also want to focus attention on the destabilizing effect of Iran and its nuclear program and support for terrorism. Additionally, I will use this position to continue to articulate my strong support for our allies as well as the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.” Additionally, Bush selected Coleman to be a Congressional Delegate to the United Nations 61st General Assembly.
Coleman needs to do something about this. Idle rhetoric praising Bush’s State Department is not responsible. Instead he needs a careful examination of its failings. Otherwise, we risk magnifying this into a crisis of our own doing.
If Coleman is not up to the task, then he should resign from the Foreign Relations Committee.
To paraphrase, Senator Coleman, "we must tell the Bush Administration that we expect them to act responsibly" which could produce "an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.”
This May, The Jewish Policy Center asked Senator Norm Coleman to evaluate the performance of Congress and the Bush Administration in curbing the Iranian threat.
Coleman responded ”Congress has acted decisively by passing the legislation to sanction Iran and support movements that seek regime change. Our message is that, through external and internal pressure, there will be great costs to pursuing a nuclear path.
The executive branch has worked tirelessly to isolate Iran through diplomatic means. I am frustrated that we have not yet imposed stronger multilateral sanctions through the U.N. This situation stems mainly from the economic interests of some of our international partners. Iran wields considerable influence because of its oil resources. Still, we must tell our partners that we expect them to act responsibly.
Hearing Coleman’s words, one would think that he and the State Department are doing everything possible to make sanctions work but it is the other UN members that are failing.
However, it has now been reported that the Bush Administration acknowledges “that the United States has not carried out existing Security Council penalties on several companies linked to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
Why is that ?
My assessment is that the Bush Administration is not truly committed to diplomacy. Much like their unwillingness to accept the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation of Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is now complaining that “The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy." By the US slowing up instituting sanctions, it will claim that sanctions are not working.
Coleman is uniquely charged to take action He was outspoken that sanctions did not work with Iraq. He has been outspoken of the failings of the United Nations. When Coleman was selected to be the Ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, he said ”I also want to focus attention on the destabilizing effect of Iran and its nuclear program and support for terrorism. Additionally, I will use this position to continue to articulate my strong support for our allies as well as the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.” Additionally, Bush selected Coleman to be a Congressional Delegate to the United Nations 61st General Assembly.
Coleman needs to do something about this. Idle rhetoric praising Bush’s State Department is not responsible. Instead he needs a careful examination of its failings. Otherwise, we risk magnifying this into a crisis of our own doing.
If Coleman is not up to the task, then he should resign from the Foreign Relations Committee.
To paraphrase, Senator Coleman, "we must tell the Bush Administration that we expect them to act responsibly" which could produce "an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.”
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Obligatory Summer Respite for Norm Coleman
Ah, after all those long, grueling months of hard work, don’t you look forward to a little R&R time. For most of us, we look forward to time with the spouse, maybe taking the kids to a Twins game or the Zoo … and of course a round of golf with the buddies. Alas, we also must schedule in the Obligatory Trip to visit the in-laws. No disrespect for those wonderful members of my spouse’s family, but the thought of 500 miles on the road to spend a couple of days hearing the same old stories, is a haunting déjà vu experience that I don’t want to do again … but it’s a must do.
Poor Norm Coleman … he must feel the same way.
After months of traveling on Endangered Republican Fundraising Tour (potentially 30 joint fundraising events around the country for the four most vulnerable senators of 2008: Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire) link , Norm needs a little R&R time, too.
But alas, he must first make hit the Minnesota State Fair for the radio interview circuit as his first Obligatory event.
Oh, sure some of the people are “Minnesota Nice”, but then there are always those callers that want to talk about Iraq, the bridge collapse and the floods.
Well, voters, Norm isn’t just going to “talk” about Iraq … he’s “going” to Iraq.
I believe that is another Obligatory Tour Event.
As The New York Times describes these trips are commonplace. A typical trip begins when Senators and Representatives ” boarded a military jet at Andrews Air Force Base. Three flights and a Black Hawk helicopter ride later, they were lunching on asparagus soup and lobster tortellini at the home of Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker in Baghdad.[Snip] Then There is the helicopter ride out of the Green Zone to an open-air market, maybe in Anbar Province, a staple of Congressional tours now that local tribal leaders are cooperating with Americans in the fight against the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. A meeting with sheiks, a local mayor, or perhaps the Kurdish deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, whose name some cannot seem to remember … [Snip] and the all-important photographs with hometown soldiers to show constituents at election time. Just another day in Baghdad in August, high season for Congressional travel to Iraq.
The impression from Coleman’s comments on the radio, it seems he is just going to reinforce his beliefs.
But does he need to go to get his beliefs reinforced ?
After Gil Gutknecht visited Iraq, his assessment was that a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise. How did Gutknecht come to this assessment … no doubt from visiting Iraq … but also from a private meeting with returning National Guard members in the First District. Gutknecht never discussed what was privately said but Coleman should read the August 19, 2007 Op-Ed by seven soldiers who are just finishing their fifteen month tour. And, Coleman should follow Gutknecht’s lead and have a “private” meeting with members of the Minnesota National Guard who have returned in the past few weeks.
The trip could have some value if he also visited other countries in the region.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with his own stated commitment to ”the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace”, a visit to Syria and Lebanon is a must. Both countries are critical to achieving peace. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Mailiki visited Syria last week to ask Syria to crack down on border crossings by alleged insurgents and Iraq is trying to reopen an oil pipeline that was bombed by U.S. fighters in the 2003 invasion that would connect the two countries economically. While the visit to Lebanon would be to pressure the government to stop allowing the training Shiite fighters from Iraq in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics.
Senator Coleman, if you are going on Obligatory Tours at least visit with people who can really tell you "the other side of the story."
Poor Norm Coleman … he must feel the same way.
After months of traveling on Endangered Republican Fundraising Tour (potentially 30 joint fundraising events around the country for the four most vulnerable senators of 2008: Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire) link , Norm needs a little R&R time, too.
But alas, he must first make hit the Minnesota State Fair for the radio interview circuit as his first Obligatory event.
Oh, sure some of the people are “Minnesota Nice”, but then there are always those callers that want to talk about Iraq, the bridge collapse and the floods.
Well, voters, Norm isn’t just going to “talk” about Iraq … he’s “going” to Iraq.
I believe that is another Obligatory Tour Event.
As The New York Times describes these trips are commonplace. A typical trip begins when Senators and Representatives ” boarded a military jet at Andrews Air Force Base. Three flights and a Black Hawk helicopter ride later, they were lunching on asparagus soup and lobster tortellini at the home of Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker in Baghdad.[Snip] Then There is the helicopter ride out of the Green Zone to an open-air market, maybe in Anbar Province, a staple of Congressional tours now that local tribal leaders are cooperating with Americans in the fight against the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. A meeting with sheiks, a local mayor, or perhaps the Kurdish deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, whose name some cannot seem to remember … [Snip] and the all-important photographs with hometown soldiers to show constituents at election time. Just another day in Baghdad in August, high season for Congressional travel to Iraq.
The impression from Coleman’s comments on the radio, it seems he is just going to reinforce his beliefs.
But does he need to go to get his beliefs reinforced ?
After Gil Gutknecht visited Iraq, his assessment was that a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise. How did Gutknecht come to this assessment … no doubt from visiting Iraq … but also from a private meeting with returning National Guard members in the First District. Gutknecht never discussed what was privately said but Coleman should read the August 19, 2007 Op-Ed by seven soldiers who are just finishing their fifteen month tour. And, Coleman should follow Gutknecht’s lead and have a “private” meeting with members of the Minnesota National Guard who have returned in the past few weeks.
The trip could have some value if he also visited other countries in the region.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with his own stated commitment to ”the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace”, a visit to Syria and Lebanon is a must. Both countries are critical to achieving peace. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Mailiki visited Syria last week to ask Syria to crack down on border crossings by alleged insurgents and Iraq is trying to reopen an oil pipeline that was bombed by U.S. fighters in the 2003 invasion that would connect the two countries economically. While the visit to Lebanon would be to pressure the government to stop allowing the training Shiite fighters from Iraq in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics.
Senator Coleman, if you are going on Obligatory Tours at least visit with people who can really tell you "the other side of the story."
Monday, April 30, 2007
Norm Coleman – 21st Century Franken Pioneer
The ultimate incumbent’s freebie is the Franking Privilege which allows members of Congress to use government funds to pay for mailings to constituents. Now, I have no problem when my representative uses the Franking Privilege to reply to a question that I have asked … and it is somewhat infromative when a representative sends out a mass mailing summarizing for his constituents the highlights of the a completed session. But, I was offended when Gil Gutknecht used his Franking Privilege to mail to rural voters a glossy brochure on his 10/10 Ethanol legislation … that was target marketing to pander to rural voters for the upcoming election.
As voters realize the pandering, the politicians need to find other ways to expend our tax dollars to let us know what they are doing for us. One new method that is being used is "video news releases" (VNR). The use of VNRs is not without controversy, as the General Accountability Office concluded that the Bush administration had illegally spent taxpayer money from the Medicare Trust Fund.
While the Bush Administration may have paid columnists to write about their programs and used VNRs to peddle the Medicare Part-D program, Norm Coleman may have found the equivalent of the 21st Century Franking Privilege.
Twin Cities media will tell you that Norm Coleman is a press release machine. Unfortunately, the print media will generally want to ask a few questions and edit accordingly. But the television media may be easier to manipulate.
Case in point … KEYC in Mankato has run two VNRs highlighting Coleman in committee functions.
To KEYC, it may seem to be “reporting the news” as all they have to do is follow the tag line and run the footage.
To the viewer, he doesn’t realize that he is being feed a line.
The most recent example was after the Agriculture Committee Hearing on April 24th. Coleman issued a press release .
But somehow, KEYC ran a nice clip of Coleman talking about “the need for dairy groups to work together to strengthen the safety-net for America’s dairy industry”.
Was this news?
Well, to evaluate it, I waited to see what the print media said about the hearing. Star-Tribune, Pioneer Press, Washington Post and New York Times did not deem this hearing to be newsworthy … not one inch of column space ! But maybe KEYC deemed that it was newsworthy since the subject may have interest to its rural viewers … but how come there was no footage of Senator Klobuchar who also sits on the Agriculture Committee?
The other example was on March 6th when KEYC ran another clip presenting Coleman’s Agriculture Committee “face time” discussing school lunches.
Com’n KEYC, you’re being manipulated …. Or is there a bias For Republicans?
See my previous blog commentary for previous examples of KEYC and its favorable presentation of Republicans.
Com’n Norm, your wasting taxpayers monies.
This is not CSPAN where a committee hearing will show all the discussion … from all the elected representatives.
This is pure Norm face time.
This is wrong.
It doesn’t matter if it is being done by a Republican or a Democrat, it is wrong.
Someone has to edit the copy just for your face time and your comment and then distribute it to the media.
You may call it, keeping the public informed … I call it propaganda … and pure campaigning.
When I see this type of media manipulation (or co-operation), even "Fair and Balanced" news reporting doesn't seem so slanted.
As voters realize the pandering, the politicians need to find other ways to expend our tax dollars to let us know what they are doing for us. One new method that is being used is "video news releases" (VNR). The use of VNRs is not without controversy, as the General Accountability Office concluded that the Bush administration had illegally spent taxpayer money from the Medicare Trust Fund.
While the Bush Administration may have paid columnists to write about their programs and used VNRs to peddle the Medicare Part-D program, Norm Coleman may have found the equivalent of the 21st Century Franking Privilege.
Twin Cities media will tell you that Norm Coleman is a press release machine. Unfortunately, the print media will generally want to ask a few questions and edit accordingly. But the television media may be easier to manipulate.
Case in point … KEYC in Mankato has run two VNRs highlighting Coleman in committee functions.
To KEYC, it may seem to be “reporting the news” as all they have to do is follow the tag line and run the footage.
To the viewer, he doesn’t realize that he is being feed a line.
The most recent example was after the Agriculture Committee Hearing on April 24th. Coleman issued a press release .
But somehow, KEYC ran a nice clip of Coleman talking about “the need for dairy groups to work together to strengthen the safety-net for America’s dairy industry”.
Was this news?
Well, to evaluate it, I waited to see what the print media said about the hearing. Star-Tribune, Pioneer Press, Washington Post and New York Times did not deem this hearing to be newsworthy … not one inch of column space ! But maybe KEYC deemed that it was newsworthy since the subject may have interest to its rural viewers … but how come there was no footage of Senator Klobuchar who also sits on the Agriculture Committee?
The other example was on March 6th when KEYC ran another clip presenting Coleman’s Agriculture Committee “face time” discussing school lunches.
Com’n KEYC, you’re being manipulated …. Or is there a bias For Republicans?
See my previous blog commentary for previous examples of KEYC and its favorable presentation of Republicans.
Com’n Norm, your wasting taxpayers monies.
This is not CSPAN where a committee hearing will show all the discussion … from all the elected representatives.
This is pure Norm face time.
This is wrong.
It doesn’t matter if it is being done by a Republican or a Democrat, it is wrong.
Someone has to edit the copy just for your face time and your comment and then distribute it to the media.
You may call it, keeping the public informed … I call it propaganda … and pure campaigning.
When I see this type of media manipulation (or co-operation), even "Fair and Balanced" news reporting doesn't seem so slanted.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Is Cheney dictating Norm Coleman’s inaction ?
On Rush Limbaugh’s April 5 radio program, Dick Cheney was interviewed :
THE VICE PRESIDENT: “I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it”
Earlier in the interview, Cheney stated : “Obviously, she's the Speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations” [snip] “In this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage, it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashir Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interest of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He, obviously, is heavily involved right now in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government of Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior, he should not be rewarded with visits by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. ”
So “bad behavior” must be a Cheney code word to tell others not to go to Syria. But since Cheney was not there, he does not know what message Speaker Pelosi conveyed.
Even the editorial page of The Washington Post blasted Pelosi, but what doesn’t get the same attention is a letter in response from Congressman Tom Lantos who was on the trip with her. Describing the meetings of April 3rd, he wrote : “As a part of that delegation and a participant in its every meeting, I would like to set the record straight. [Snip] the Speaker told Assad that Syria must end its support for terrorists, including Hamas and
Hezbollah, if it wants peace talks with Israel. [Snip] She delivered tough messages to Assad regarding Iraq, Lebanon, and the Hariri assassination tribunal. As the Speaker said during her visit, she supports the Administration's policy goals in Syria [Snip] … constructive dialogue is a critical means of addressing our concerns with Damascus. The Administration's approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence. Five Republican congressmen have visited Assad this week. Based on the traffic to Syria, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats share the Speaker's misgivings about the White House's ineffectiveness in the region. ”
My reaction to Pelosi’s trip is that it should have been recognized as America demonstrating its diversity and commitment to promote Israel-Syria peace and discouraging Syria from support terrorist organizations. Think about it – a Holocaust survivor (Lantos), a Muslim (Keith Ellison,) and three Democratic and one Republican Congressmen are lead by a woman to address the most critical issue of modern times. Congress has a responsibility in foreign affairs … after all, the House is budgeting $35.3 billion for the International Affairs.
In my blog entry of of January 23,2007, I encouraged Norm Coleman to follow the path of Senators Arlen Specter, Bill Nelson, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry and visit Syria first hand. They visited Syria this past December and Specter after meeting with Bashar Assad, stated "Assad stated an interest in negotiating with Israel to try to bring a peaceful settlement to the Syrian-Israeli dispute under the U.N. doctrine of land-for-peace. "
Why wasn’t Norm Coleman there ? Well, would going to Syria interfere with his ability to attend a $100 per person fund raiser offered by Ventura County California on his behalf on April 5th ?
It’s too bad that we have a Senator that is too addicted to soliciting monies for a re-election campaign, then pursuing a dialogue with the other countries. Funny how in his “Bringing People Together to get things done” campaign for US Senate in 2002, he stressed the need to “put aside partisan politics and listen to the average person.” Well, he doesn’t have to listen to me, but how about the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group ?
The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that investing in international programs today will help reduce the costs of having to engage military for humanitarian or other reasons in troubled regions in the future.
The Iraq Study Group encourages high level diplomacy stating "In diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests."
Cheney’s statements and the media’s proliferation only help to discourage Coleman from doing his job as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Coleman needs to realize that Bush is a lame duck and there will be a new administration in place after the 2008 elections.
It’s time to shake the shackles of Cheney and go to Syria.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: “I'm obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it”
Earlier in the interview, Cheney stated : “Obviously, she's the Speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations” [snip] “In this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage, it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashir Assad for his bad behavior. He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interest of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq. He, obviously, is heavily involved right now in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government of Lebanon. This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior, he should not be rewarded with visits by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. ”
So “bad behavior” must be a Cheney code word to tell others not to go to Syria. But since Cheney was not there, he does not know what message Speaker Pelosi conveyed.
Even the editorial page of The Washington Post blasted Pelosi, but what doesn’t get the same attention is a letter in response from Congressman Tom Lantos who was on the trip with her. Describing the meetings of April 3rd, he wrote : “As a part of that delegation and a participant in its every meeting, I would like to set the record straight. [Snip] the Speaker told Assad that Syria must end its support for terrorists, including Hamas and
Hezbollah, if it wants peace talks with Israel. [Snip] She delivered tough messages to Assad regarding Iraq, Lebanon, and the Hariri assassination tribunal. As the Speaker said during her visit, she supports the Administration's policy goals in Syria [Snip] … constructive dialogue is a critical means of addressing our concerns with Damascus. The Administration's approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence. Five Republican congressmen have visited Assad this week. Based on the traffic to Syria, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats share the Speaker's misgivings about the White House's ineffectiveness in the region. ”
My reaction to Pelosi’s trip is that it should have been recognized as America demonstrating its diversity and commitment to promote Israel-Syria peace and discouraging Syria from support terrorist organizations. Think about it – a Holocaust survivor (Lantos), a Muslim (Keith Ellison,) and three Democratic and one Republican Congressmen are lead by a woman to address the most critical issue of modern times. Congress has a responsibility in foreign affairs … after all, the House is budgeting $35.3 billion for the International Affairs.
In my blog entry of of January 23,2007, I encouraged Norm Coleman to follow the path of Senators Arlen Specter, Bill Nelson, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry and visit Syria first hand. They visited Syria this past December and Specter after meeting with Bashar Assad, stated "Assad stated an interest in negotiating with Israel to try to bring a peaceful settlement to the Syrian-Israeli dispute under the U.N. doctrine of land-for-peace. "
Why wasn’t Norm Coleman there ? Well, would going to Syria interfere with his ability to attend a $100 per person fund raiser offered by Ventura County California on his behalf on April 5th ?
It’s too bad that we have a Senator that is too addicted to soliciting monies for a re-election campaign, then pursuing a dialogue with the other countries. Funny how in his “Bringing People Together to get things done” campaign for US Senate in 2002, he stressed the need to “put aside partisan politics and listen to the average person.” Well, he doesn’t have to listen to me, but how about the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group ?
The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that investing in international programs today will help reduce the costs of having to engage military for humanitarian or other reasons in troubled regions in the future.
The Iraq Study Group encourages high level diplomacy stating "In diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests."
Cheney’s statements and the media’s proliferation only help to discourage Coleman from doing his job as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Coleman needs to realize that Bush is a lame duck and there will be a new administration in place after the 2008 elections.
It’s time to shake the shackles of Cheney and go to Syria.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
MN Voters Need Joe Atkins in US Senate Race
It’s Hot Stove League time for baseball fans. That time of the season when you sit around the stove talking about the next season … optimism abounds as your team has not lost a single game and the next season always looks promising … young players are expected to emerge and veterans can only get better.
Talking baseball isn’t the only game that can be discussed among friends on a chilly winter day. In fact, although the Federal Election isn’t for another 21 months, now is the time to look at the potential candidates. It is my belief that Minnesotans will not play a role in selecting the next president. By the time, Minnesota holds its caucus and primaries; the nominees will have been long been determined. Since the Presidency is based on the Electoral College, a very few states will really matter. Minnesota may not be a fly-over state, but with only ten votes, once again Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will get the maximum attention.
That stated, elections do matter. This past November saw a sea change in the Congress. Committees determine legislative action or inaction. Cases in point, let’s consider the issue of global warming. Under the Republican controlled Senate, James Inhofe (R-OK), was the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a major foe of mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The November election not only brought the Democrats the Committee control but also allowed for changes in the Republican committee structure. John Warner, who is known as a moderate on environmental issues, is now the ranking Republican. An issue that was dormant under the prior Congress will now be actively debated and addressed. So, having the best representation in Congress might be the best that Minnesotans can do to influence national policy.
Although the November 2008 may seem like a long time from now - to compete against an incumbent, that is about the time that is required. Tim Walz’s successful campaign to challenge Gil Gutknecht was first reported by Mankato’s Free Press on a cold winter day in 2005. At that time, it seemed odd that someone would be thinking that far ahead, but countless county fairs, and meet-and-greets later, the First District has a new Congressman.
To me, the most interesting race will be the US Senate race. Personally, I would not be surprised if Norm Coleman got more than token competition for the Republican nomination. The former DFLer, may be too moderate for many social and fiscal conservatives. But with his campaign war-chest and incubency may be too much for Republicans to turn their backs on Coleman … if Rhode Island Republicans wouldn’t turn on Lincoln Chaffee, Norm’s got the nomination.
On the Democratic side, there is the perrienial talk about Mike Ciresi and would Ford Bell try again? Al Franken has proven to be a good fundraiser and motivator for DFL candidates. And then there are the others that are largely unknown.
Competition is good as ideas are debated, positions formulated, electability considered and best of all, voters get to meet the candidates. Amy Klobuchar was helped by the process and the competition from Patty Wetterling and Bell. Klobuchar spent time traversing the state visiting every county. Conversely, the annoitting of Mark Kennedy was a determent – he gained nothing and the voters knew only of his bio and Congressional voting record.
Ciresi, Franken and Bell may be viable candidates, but I favor those that have previous legislative experience. I am reminded of Molly Ivins’ book Shrub in which she chided why it is that so many people only want the top job … her case in point, George Bush. If Bush wanted to be in government, why start at the Governor slot? And, I agree. This past November, the Mankato area saw the retirement of three state legislators. The voters elected three people with experience on school boards or the city council. It’s those community service functions that the art of being a good legislator is learned. As one County Commissioner told me the first thing that he learned upon his election was how to count to three …. with a five seat commission, if he wanted anything, he had to get cooperation from at least two others. That on-the-job experience teaches how to listen to other’s concerns, compromise and resolve issues.
As I look at the afore mentioned candidates, that legislative experience is missing. Based on ideology, Franken might satisfy many in his party, but I need someone who can be operate within the system to advance legislation that will improve America.
If Betty McCollum wants to move up from the House, she meets my requirements.
From the Minnesota Legislature, Representative Joe Atkins of Inner Grove Heights has indicated that he is interested. I don’t know anything about Atkins – his philosophies or motivations. His bio states that he is an attorney who graduated Magna Cum Laude … impressive. His legislative website lists his press releases. First off, I noticed that he recognizes the role of our military. Specifically, his legislation that he offered in 2006 to provide body armor for the troops being deployed overseas.
Just last week, Reuters quoted the Department of Defense's inspector-general reported "Service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions," and here is Atkins recognizing that we have a duty to provide body armor. Once again, I am impressed.
Politicians are great at issuing press releases, but the real test is when that time of compromise is at hand … how they voted on the issues that matter. Using MPR’s Votetracker program, I find myself in agreement with him on issues that matter to me … abortion, government spending, voter ID, definition of marriage, etc. The only area that I was disappointed in was his support for stadiums, but considering that he is a U of M alumnus and represents the Twin Cities, that may have been a motivation.
As I stated, I did not know Joe Atkins before, but he is now on my radar as someone to watch. There are others that have been mentioned, such as State Senators Mee Moua and Tarryl Clark and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner; and all should be given consideration. Remember, this is not for homecoming queen, but for who can advance the philosophies of government that you desire.
For a meaningful election, the parties need an aggressive debate on the issues with the party membership deciding the nominees, not a backdoor anointing by State and national party officials.
Talking baseball isn’t the only game that can be discussed among friends on a chilly winter day. In fact, although the Federal Election isn’t for another 21 months, now is the time to look at the potential candidates. It is my belief that Minnesotans will not play a role in selecting the next president. By the time, Minnesota holds its caucus and primaries; the nominees will have been long been determined. Since the Presidency is based on the Electoral College, a very few states will really matter. Minnesota may not be a fly-over state, but with only ten votes, once again Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will get the maximum attention.
That stated, elections do matter. This past November saw a sea change in the Congress. Committees determine legislative action or inaction. Cases in point, let’s consider the issue of global warming. Under the Republican controlled Senate, James Inhofe (R-OK), was the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a major foe of mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The November election not only brought the Democrats the Committee control but also allowed for changes in the Republican committee structure. John Warner, who is known as a moderate on environmental issues, is now the ranking Republican. An issue that was dormant under the prior Congress will now be actively debated and addressed. So, having the best representation in Congress might be the best that Minnesotans can do to influence national policy.
Although the November 2008 may seem like a long time from now - to compete against an incumbent, that is about the time that is required. Tim Walz’s successful campaign to challenge Gil Gutknecht was first reported by Mankato’s Free Press on a cold winter day in 2005. At that time, it seemed odd that someone would be thinking that far ahead, but countless county fairs, and meet-and-greets later, the First District has a new Congressman.
To me, the most interesting race will be the US Senate race. Personally, I would not be surprised if Norm Coleman got more than token competition for the Republican nomination. The former DFLer, may be too moderate for many social and fiscal conservatives. But with his campaign war-chest and incubency may be too much for Republicans to turn their backs on Coleman … if Rhode Island Republicans wouldn’t turn on Lincoln Chaffee, Norm’s got the nomination.
On the Democratic side, there is the perrienial talk about Mike Ciresi and would Ford Bell try again? Al Franken has proven to be a good fundraiser and motivator for DFL candidates. And then there are the others that are largely unknown.
Competition is good as ideas are debated, positions formulated, electability considered and best of all, voters get to meet the candidates. Amy Klobuchar was helped by the process and the competition from Patty Wetterling and Bell. Klobuchar spent time traversing the state visiting every county. Conversely, the annoitting of Mark Kennedy was a determent – he gained nothing and the voters knew only of his bio and Congressional voting record.
Ciresi, Franken and Bell may be viable candidates, but I favor those that have previous legislative experience. I am reminded of Molly Ivins’ book Shrub in which she chided why it is that so many people only want the top job … her case in point, George Bush. If Bush wanted to be in government, why start at the Governor slot? And, I agree. This past November, the Mankato area saw the retirement of three state legislators. The voters elected three people with experience on school boards or the city council. It’s those community service functions that the art of being a good legislator is learned. As one County Commissioner told me the first thing that he learned upon his election was how to count to three …. with a five seat commission, if he wanted anything, he had to get cooperation from at least two others. That on-the-job experience teaches how to listen to other’s concerns, compromise and resolve issues.
As I look at the afore mentioned candidates, that legislative experience is missing. Based on ideology, Franken might satisfy many in his party, but I need someone who can be operate within the system to advance legislation that will improve America.
If Betty McCollum wants to move up from the House, she meets my requirements.
From the Minnesota Legislature, Representative Joe Atkins of Inner Grove Heights has indicated that he is interested. I don’t know anything about Atkins – his philosophies or motivations. His bio states that he is an attorney who graduated Magna Cum Laude … impressive. His legislative website lists his press releases. First off, I noticed that he recognizes the role of our military. Specifically, his legislation that he offered in 2006 to provide body armor for the troops being deployed overseas.
Just last week, Reuters quoted the Department of Defense's inspector-general reported "Service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions," and here is Atkins recognizing that we have a duty to provide body armor. Once again, I am impressed.
Politicians are great at issuing press releases, but the real test is when that time of compromise is at hand … how they voted on the issues that matter. Using MPR’s Votetracker program, I find myself in agreement with him on issues that matter to me … abortion, government spending, voter ID, definition of marriage, etc. The only area that I was disappointed in was his support for stadiums, but considering that he is a U of M alumnus and represents the Twin Cities, that may have been a motivation.
As I stated, I did not know Joe Atkins before, but he is now on my radar as someone to watch. There are others that have been mentioned, such as State Senators Mee Moua and Tarryl Clark and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner; and all should be given consideration. Remember, this is not for homecoming queen, but for who can advance the philosophies of government that you desire.
For a meaningful election, the parties need an aggressive debate on the issues with the party membership deciding the nominees, not a backdoor anointing by State and national party officials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Vote 60](http://img%20src=http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/ravendog/clic.gif%20border=”0"){kind=link}