Monday, August 21, 2006
Ex-mayors say the nicest things about me
I had a letter published in which I took issue with Senator Tarryl Clark's vote on the Minneapolis stadium issue (by the way, if you live in Hennepin, there are hearings about this fait accompli the next three nights -- and there will at least be a few people venting.) The Times chat included this late entry:
Others made note of the fact that I'm not a DFL-loving professor -- sorry, I hate typecasting -- and that I am only looking at one issue. Well yes, I am, but it's no different than the Ned Lamont campaign. Taxation without representation, or more specifically taxation without a referendum that the same legislative body had made law, and still maintains as law, choosing only to ignore it in this case, was the fundamental cause of the American Revolution. Was John Hancock a single-issue voter?
And to the questions about who I'll vote for governor: In a contest between TPaw and Hatch, yes I'll vote for Pawlenty in a heartbeat. But that's a choice for me between second-best and worst. My decision, as I mentioned on the radio Saturday, is whether I can afford to express my displeasure with Pawlenty with a protest vote for Sue Jeffers, given my doubts that she could beat Hatch in a general if it came to that. And had she run as a Libertarian, the problem would be the same, so those who still kvetch about her choice to run as Republican are missing the point -- if she loses as expected in September, most of her voters will return to TPaw in November. You should thank her for doing what she's doing: She's getting her protest done and over before it interferes with the general election.
Worth reading: David and Margaret are also having at TPaw; she says "Pawlenty [is] basically a pro-life democrat."
UPDATE: Marty piles on.
John Ellenbecker from St. CloudYup, that John Ellenbecker. Peach of a guy; he's a guy who thinks political ads that mention him by name are reasons to sue.
Posted: Aug 20, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Deminn - hate to break it to you but the letter writer is just another partisan hack who doesn't give a damn about the stadium issue, just about getting his candidate elected. His candidate is also a fellow faculty member at SCSU.
Others made note of the fact that I'm not a DFL-loving professor -- sorry, I hate typecasting -- and that I am only looking at one issue. Well yes, I am, but it's no different than the Ned Lamont campaign. Taxation without representation, or more specifically taxation without a referendum that the same legislative body had made law, and still maintains as law, choosing only to ignore it in this case, was the fundamental cause of the American Revolution. Was John Hancock a single-issue voter?
And to the questions about who I'll vote for governor: In a contest between TPaw and Hatch, yes I'll vote for Pawlenty in a heartbeat. But that's a choice for me between second-best and worst. My decision, as I mentioned on the radio Saturday, is whether I can afford to express my displeasure with Pawlenty with a protest vote for Sue Jeffers, given my doubts that she could beat Hatch in a general if it came to that. And had she run as a Libertarian, the problem would be the same, so those who still kvetch about her choice to run as Republican are missing the point -- if she loses as expected in September, most of her voters will return to TPaw in November. You should thank her for doing what she's doing: She's getting her protest done and over before it interferes with the general election.
Worth reading: David and Margaret are also having at TPaw; she says "Pawlenty [is] basically a pro-life democrat."
UPDATE: Marty piles on.
Please try to do better than "Pawlenty is bad but Hatch is worse." Such arguments do have some merit. However, I have considered this argument and I'm not convinced by it right now. I would rather regain some of my principles and face a Hatch governorship then lose all I have come to believe as a fiscal conservative.That's been David's position for awhile. What you would need to do to convince me to sit on my hands is establish that a defeat in November will win back the party to fiscal conservative principles. I'm not at all encouraged by what I see -- who do you think will lead that charge? Do you see the Chris Coleman tax increase in St. Paul leading to more fiscal conservativism or less?
