Dayton’s “Dog Doe”

“If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” That quote, falsely attributed to Harry Truman, may be on Governor Mark Dayton’s mind as the bachelor prepares to adopt his THIRD black German Shepherd.

Dayton is in the news today inviting Minnesotans to help name his adorable new pup. To give you a sense of the Governor’s naming tastes, the first two were named Mingo and Mesabi, and Dakota recently passed away.

Some of the early nominations for Dog Doe’s new name:

• From Republican Senate Majority Amy Koch: “Marx.”
• From DFL Chair Ken Martin: “Taxable.”
• From Democratic U.S. Senator Al Franken: “Smalley.”
• From accuracy challenged U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann: “Cat.”
• From Minnesota Democrats Exposed blog: “Dog of Satan.”
• From Former Governor Tim Pawlenty: “President Pawlenty.”
• From MN Independence Party Chairman Mark Jenkins: “None of the Above.”
• From GOP Chair Tony Sutton: “Target Practice.”
• From South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard: “Overtaxed.”
• From Governor’s Mansion neighbor: “ANOTHER?!”

Okay, surely you can do better. Nominations are open.

– Loveland

“The Minnesota Compromise” on Health Reform?

In the health reform debate, the Senate is split between “public option,” and “private only.” It’s reminiscent of the mid-19th century, when the split was “slave” versus “free,” and the Senate ultimately landed on middle ground, the Missouri Compromise of 1850.

In the waning days of 2009, the Senate is once again desperately searching for middle ground. For instance, some Democratic compromisers propose dropping the public option in favor of expanding eligibility of Medicare and Medicaid.

But as Minnesota Democrats look for that elusive middle ground, they, like Kansas’s Dorothy, are effectively arguing that “there’s no place like home.” Call it the Minnesota Compromise of 2010. Minnesota Senator Al Franken and Congressman Keith Ellison are pressing an amendment mandating that all health plans emulate Minnesota health plans and spend 90% of consumers’ premiums on care costs, rather than administrative and salary costs.

The Minnesota Compromise – my term, not theirs — is ideological middle ground that would require any health plan to match the efficiency of the nation’s most efficient plans. According to Minnpost:

Non-profit health plans in Minnesota spend an average of 91 percent of premium costs directly on health care. Franken’s office said the national average is around 70 percent, with large plans spending considerably more percentage-wise on average, and individual plans less.

Under this Minnesota Compromise, corporate health plans would have to get as administratively lean as the nation’s leanest plans. Business-as-usual wouldn’t be tolerated, but there would still be a way to do business.

Continue reading ““The Minnesota Compromise” on Health Reform?”

News Flash: Franken on Daily Show, And Is NOT Butt of Joke

Jon Stewart Takes On 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Franken Rape Amendment (VIDEO)-1You may recall that Senate candidate Al Franken had a bit of political trouble because of his SNL days brainstorming jokes about rape. Not his proudest moment.

So it’s not a big surprise that Senator Al is putting an early focus on building a legislative record of being decidedly anti-rape.

While Franken’s anti-rape loophole bill might not be surprising, even jaded Joe is surprised that the majority of Republicans opposed his proposal.

– Loveland

Just Because Norm’s Appeal Reeks Doesn’t Mean It’s Wrong

(Guest post from Joe Loveland)

Defending an extension of the ceaseless Minnesota Senate recount is about as popular as defending an extension of the sitcom Cavemen.

But count me in. I support Senator Coleman’s appeal questioning whether absentee ballots were judged by varying standards in the counties.scales-of-justice

By the way, this is not to say that I think the appeal is wise from a PR and political standpoint. If the Senator wants to score sorely needed PR points, he obviously should pull out with a teary eyed “for the good of the state” speech. If he some day wants to run for Governor, or even Soil and Water Conservation District, he should pull out. Heck, if he just wants to avoid a stoning in the public square – and I’m not talking about the Hofstra kind of stoning, dude – he should pull out.

But if differing election law standards have been applied to the absentee ballots in the various counties, Senator Coleman certainly has the right to raise that question in the appeals court. In fact, he has a responsibility to do it.

Look, I don’t want to go all powder wiggy on you here, but there is a pretty good reason we have a Constitution. We have a Constitution to ensure that, among other things, the the laws passed by various jurisdictions are applied in a way that give us equal protection. The equal protection clause of the Constitution says that my vote gets the same protections in Ramsey County that voters in all other counties get. No less protection. No more protection. Equal protection.

If it is true, as Coleman alleges, that absentee ballots having X, Y and Z characteristics were counted in some counties, but excluded in others, that would seem to be counter to the Constitution and the principal of equality.

Those discrepancies must be corrected. Even if sorting it out means I don’t get my heaping helpin’ of Senate representation for another few months. Even if, heaven forbid, the appeal ultimately means I get the lesser of the two dweebs as my Senator.

Does my support for Coleman’s appeal mean I relish more time observing the recount’s ridiculous brand of kabuki theater? It most certainly does not. But the election must be decided based on constitutional applications of the law, not by the relative entertainment value of the proceedings, as defined by the impatient masses.

Does this mean I think that election officials in some counties stole the election from Coleman. Absolutely not. If there are differeing standards, I have no reason to believe that they aren’t honest mistakes. But honest mistakes can disenfranchise as surely as corruption.

Does this mean I see no problem with Minnesota being underrepresented in the U.S. Senate? Nope. I agree, that it’s a big problem. And if Coleman is appealing simply to truncate Franken’s term and increase the slope of Obama’s policymaking climb, he may be earning himself a non-term limited seat in Hades.

Does it mean that I think there is merit to Coleman’s equal protection argument? No. From my place in the cheap seats, I can’t know whether there is merit. I don’t have access to the evidence, and such a determination is above my pay grade. But if the possibility exists, I want the courts to sort it out, and give me maximum confidence in our election system. Because this is an issue that really matters.

Finally, does my support of Senator Coleman’s appeal mean that I think he is a righteous champion of the Constitution and fair electioneering. No way. Based on what I’ve seen from Coleman over the years, this is a guy who will do whatever it takes to cling to power. It is very likely that he is snuggling up to an equal protection defense simply because it is his last best hope for preserving his membership in the world’s most exclusive club.

But just because the appeal reeks, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.


Political Gymnastics

backflip2Senator Norm Coleman, in possession of a narrow electoral lead the day after Election Day, November 6, 2008:

“I would step back (from challenging election results). I just think the need for the healing process is so important.”

Former Senator Norm Coleman’s attorney, facing a narrow deficit after a recount, January 5, 2008:

“I have no reason at this time … to believe we aren’t going to be contesting this thing if we’re down at the end of the day.”

– Loveland

marketing manager nice finance companies nice