Monday, May 14, 2007

Too much Mr. No? 

Andy makes a very good point:

I don�t think �Vetos!!!� is a good message for 2008. Yes, it helps with the GOP�s conservative base as far as fixing the volunteer turnout, but our moderates (Read: RINOs) are actually upset that some of us are not willing to just tax and spend to �get stuff done� and think that we are what is ruining the party. (I know it sounds funny, but some of them are serious)

I also feel that the praising the vetoes as a public relations move is going to be used against the GOP. Don�t get me wrong, these vetoes are fabulous, and I hope Pawlenty does the right thing and vetoes the smoking ban so he can look limited government conservatives in the face still, but the public may see �Vetos!!!� as a whole, much differently.

If the DFL can continue down this road of party line votes on absolute liberalism vs. conservatism, and Pawlenty keeps vetoing bills, they will have ammo for 08.

So what is one to do? Andy thinks repackaging the vetoes to "being responsible" will help.

As soon as Seifert and the others in the Legislature get some rest if when the session ends, I hope they can throw together a little �if Republicans had the gavel� alternative/comparison recap of the 2006 sessions so voters can see what would have happened.
But we have that, Andy, and it's called the governor's budget. Even that spent more money than I would have preferred and provided no tax relief, but it provides a fairly stark contrast to the DFL in terms of the gas tax and roads, as well as property tax relief, and higher education. The veto letters lay that out quite clearly.

It is important, however, that Pawlenty, Seifert, Senjem, et al. get out the word that this is the budget they wanted if not for the greed of the DFL's tax consumers. It is more difficult for moderate GOPers to rail against the fiscal conservatives when there is an alternative budget with 9.3% more money included.

Labels: ,