Bachmann Campaign Evangelical Dog Whistles: David Vs. Saul Edition

(For an explanation of the term "Evangelical dog whistles," please see my previous post.)

There was a reference that really caught my eye this morning that came from the Facebook page of a Bachmann staffer. The comment came from Peter Waldron, who works in faith outreach on the campaign.

At first glance, this may seem like an odd choice of metaphor to most people. When David is invoked as a political metaphor, it is usually in the context of David vs. Goliath, the well known Bible story about the underdog defeating his giant opponent thanks to his faith in and commitment to God. In fact, one may even expect such a metaphor to be used here. But it's not. And I believe the chosen metaphor is far more telling of the campaign's strategy.

Saul and David were both anointed Old Testament kings of Israel. David was Saul's successor. As Peter points out in his post, Saul had that anointing removed, but still wanted to be king. So he aggressively tried to hunt down David to ensure that he would not lose his position of prominence. But in the end, it was all in vain, as David was the Lord's newly chosen leader of Israel. (If you're interested in reading the whole story, you can find in in 1 Samuel  chapters 9-31.) But the importance of its use here lies not only in the story itself, but in what group of Americans often invokes that story.

The Evangelical Dog Whistles of 2012

Over the past few decades, election season has become a time when Conservative politicians start to court the Evangelical vote aggressively through public displays and declarations of faith. This is and of itself is nothing new. But I believe there is an aspect of this that the media isn't picking up on.

Dog Whistles. Have you ever heard one? Of course not. Dog whistles are made at a pitch out of the range of human hearing. Although dogs can hear it, to humans it sounds like nothing. As I've been watching the 2012 GOP race for the nomination unfold, there have been a lot of dog whistles, but of a different sort. These are what I refer to as "Evangelical dog whistles." In no way am I calling anyone a dog, I just mean that it is a similar phenomenon.

Evangelical dog whistles are those words, phrases, and metaphors candidates use that may mean nothing to most people but are instantly recognizable to certain aspects of American Evangelical Culture. There are especially a lot of them coming out of Rep. Bachmann's campaign, so I've decided to start documenting the more prominent ones.

The Real Problem Revealed by Hoffman's Tweet

The verdict is in. The Minnesota Senate Ethics Committee  decided that Sen. Hoffman (R-Vergas) needs to apologize for  a blatantly false tweet about statements made by Sen. Goodwin (D-Columbia Heights).

In case you missed it, the complaint originated during Senate floor debate on May 18 regarding potential cuts to health and human services. Sen. Goodwin was talking about the history of the treatment of people with mental illness and how far we've come since then.



In response to this speech, Sen. Hoffman took to the Twittersphere:

Goodwin was obviously upset, and an ethics complaint was later filed. Hoffman stuck to her guns claiming that she was very sensitive to calling people those names, completely ignoring the fact that Sen Goodwin did not call people those names at all. 

This is politics at its worst. The claim Hoffman made shows her own ignorance at best and blatant deception to appease the GOP base at worst. I'm glad she needs to apologize. She should. But there's a bigger issue that is revealed by this controversy.

What do legislators think is the purpose of floor debate? To Hoffman it seems to be a time to tune out anyone you assume you will disagree with anyway and putz around online. The point of debate is to discuss the aspects of proposed legislation and their impact on constituents so that you can make the best decision for the state of Minnesota. The above tweet reveals that as Goodwin took the floor, Hoffman didn't pay attention long enough to be able to comprehend even a few simple and clear sentences. Worse than that, even if she truly believed that Goodwin had called people such awful names, isn't that why she also, as a state senator, has the opportunity to speak from the Senate floor? Debate between the two should have never ended up online. That was juvenile and unprofessional. Hoffman should have expressed her concern on the Senate floor and given Goodwin the chance to clarify.



The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Rep. Hackbarth

What is going on with Rep. Hackbarth? This week he has come under fire after a constituent received an email from him in which he compares unions to Hitler and Castro. The union in question has requested clarification but has so far received no response. I'm beginning to think that any congressional orientation should include the reminder that you don't always have to say everything your thinking. Why would you send such an e-mail? Even if that is your opinion, why would you treat your constituents so harshly? But there was something else about this story that bothered me.

Take a look at the final paragraph of the above link.

"He lost his committee chair in December after he was spotted carrying a loaded handgun in a Planned Parenthood parking lot in St. Paul. Hackbarth said he was checking up on a woman he was dating. Hackbarth had a permit to carry a handgun. No charges were filed."

That's right, this is the same legislator who was found with a loaded gun in a Planned Parenthood parking lot in St. Paul. Obviously, this was a big story initially given the history of violence at such facilities. When it was discovered that his presence there had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, many people dropped the story. Yet some of us, found the real reason he gave for being there even more disturbing.

"Hackbarth explained to police, as well as KSTP-TV, that he was checking up on a woman he was dating.
'I had a feeling she was lying to me about some different things, Hackbarth said. 'You meet somebody online like that, you want to find out what this person is all about.'

So, we're supposed to feel just fine about a man being out with a handgun because he was just "checking up on" a woman he's dating because he thinks she lied to him?? That's seriously disturbing. Now we have this tirade comparing unions to murderous tyrants. I don't know what is going on with Rep Hackbarth, but I find it troubling.

Good Grief!

To expand on yesterday's post, I wanted to present my theory that Tim Pawlenty is the Charlie Brown of the 2012 GOP presidential candidate field. Both are from Minnesota, usually mild mannered and seem rather likable overall. Yet they have trouble gaining close friends/support. Both are constantly trying to prove their abilities, but falling just short and every time they think they've gained some ground, something unexpected happens to undermine them. For Charlie Brown this came in the form of a kite eating tree, a dismal baseball season which he struggled to manage, and a "friend" that always yanked that football away at the last minute. For Tim Pawlenty this has come in the form of a drunk campaign staffer in a major primary state and an official campaign announcement that was greatly overshadowed here in his home state by a massive tornado that hit North Minneapolis. Now just when he has the chance to make a name for himself and set himself apart from the rest of the contenders at a CNN televised debate, his spotlight is stolen by Minnesota's most infamous Congresswoman. Pawlenty just can't win. He is the Charlie Brown of the 2012 GOP field.

It's Official!

More on the this here.

Budget - Spending + Tax Cuts = Prosperity?

When this session started, there were many questions that I thought had the potential to become major themes in this years legislative story line: Will one time cuts be restored? What areas will see the most severe cuts? Are we headed for a government shut down? And so on. All of those are still valid questions facing our state throughout this session, but there is one question that's not being discussed but may be one of the most important we can consider.

When facing such a massive deficit, cuts are inevitable. But the real question lies in how these cuts are being discussed and presented to the public. Are we focusing solely on numbers or are we discussing exactly what programs will be impacted due to these subtractions?

For a great perspective on this problem, I encourage you to read Bob Collins' piece on this very issue.

I was further concerned when I saw this video of a DFL Senator trying to get permission to ask a number of Republican senators a question about what exactly is in the bill rather than simply talking numbers and vague generalities.

Can the governance of Minnesota be boiled down to a simple math equation? Or do the people directly impacted by such cuts deserve more specific debate and consideration?

Collin Peterson Joins GOP in Seeking to Redefine Rape

Is rape still rape even when it's not committed by force? If the proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (HR 3) clears the US House, the answer will be "no." 

There are already federal laws in place that restrict taxpayer funding for abortions in cases other than rape or incest. Polls have consistently show that the majority of Americans (from both camps of the abortion issue) support such exemptions. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 81% believe that abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest. This new law would seek to further such restrictions by redefining exactly what types of rape or incest are valid.

In this bill, "rape" would be changed to "forcible rape"- a term that is not clearly defined, but would likely exclude such instances as being drugged and raped, statutory rape, incapacitated to the extent that one is unable to consent, rape through coercion or threats (to the victim or their family), or being unable to consent due to developmental disabilities. I also fear that it will put greater burden on victims. In many cases, it is hard enough to prove that you were raped, now you must prove that it was done with enough force to justify the term. I guess "no" means "no" unless you don't put up enough of a fight to actually prove that you meant what you said in the first place.

Incest exemptions would only qualify for victims who are minors. If you are 18 or older, it will be treated as a consensual act between adults. Hypothetically speaking this could exclude girls who were victimized throughout their childhood as long as they didn't get pregnant until after their 18th birthday.

Mother Jones points out that this bill restricts tax benefits from being used to cover abortion services. This means your HSA money cannot be used and any expenses you incur will not be deductible. Tax credits offered to purchase healthcare plans would not be able to be used for any policy that has abortion coverage.

As expected, the DCCC has already posted a petition encouraging people to "denounce Republicans' extremist legislation." But it should be noted that although this bill was authored by a Republican and primarily supported by Republicans, it also currently has ten Democratic co-sponsors, including the 7th District's own Collin Peterson.

I shouldn't be surprised. I really shouldn't. These days even Tony Sutton seems to think that Collin Peterson is a Republican. But it's still frustrating. If you want to take a stand on abortion, that's fine. But don't go after victims of rape and incest in the process.

If you feel as strongly about this as I do, especially those of you in the 7th CD,  I encourage you to contact Rep. Peterson.

GOP Legislator Defends Bill By Pointing Out That It Would Eliminate Jobs

After all the talk about jobs, it's becoming abundantly clear that the only jobs the GOP cares about trying to create/preserve are private sector jobs. They have no problem throwing hard working public employees under the bus. Today I found an interesting example of this while reading an article about the proposed repeal of state firearm background checks in Session Weekly.

H.F.161 is already considered controversial for a number of other reasons, including the unexpected manner in which it was introduced, and is opposed by many in law enforcement. The bill's author Rep. Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) claims that these checks are simply redundant to the required federal checks. During a committee hearing, Bloomington Police Sgt. Mark Elliott disagreed with that assertion and pointed out that there are two provisions where Minnesota would reject a permit (those charged with a crime of violence and in a pretrial diversion program and gross misdemeanors such as stalking, child neglect, and crimes committed benefiting a gang) that would otherwise be allowed under the federal process.

But the statement that really caught my eye in the article was this one:

Drazkowski said a sheriff in a county with a population of 21,000 said this bill would save 30 minutes to one hour of staff time per week. “If you extrapolate that up to some of the metro counties, you’re looking at a full position or positions that will be able to be eliminated by the cities and counties in those jurisdictions because of the elimination of this redundant mandate.”

Drazkowski's defense of this controversial bill? It could save us money by eliminating jobs.

More Than Just a Voter ID Bill

There's been a lot of discussion over Minnesota's proposed voter ID bill (H.F.210). Yesterday the issue elicited a large number of responses as MPR's question of the day. Those for it argue that we'll never be guaranteed fair elections without it and those opposed say it's nothing but voter suppression. But we do ourselves a disservice if we are only discussing the voter ID aspect of this bill. There are many other questionable provisions it contains. The Uptake has a good summary of what is in the bill that I wanted to highlight here.

• Changes documents allowed to register
• Requires Department of Public Safety to provide free IDs to those that need them
• Any voter who cannot provide a photo ID must cast a provisional ballot
• Establishes provisional voting guidelines
• Failure to check citizenship or age box on voter registration causes form to be deficient
• Prohibits voters from receiving assistance at the ballot from a guardian, conservator, or any paid individual who provides health care (a big hurdle for the disabled)
• Allows political buttons to be worn in the polling place as long as they are not designed to influence votes on a candidate/question on that ballot (a wink to the Minnesota Majority if ever there was one)
• Repeals the designation of incumbents on judicial ballots
• Requires at least two electronic rosters in every precinct unless it has fewer than 100 voters.
• Any precinct needing more than two rosters would have to get them at local expense.
• Initial costs for each precinct's two machines paid for by the state. Subsequent costs and maintenance would be covered locally (bill says this would be covered by the cost savings of using the new system)

Apart from the obvious measures that deter voters by placing additional hoops for them to jump through in order to vote, here is my biggest problem with the bill: Is it cost effective? Do the minute number of actual voter fraud cases in the state of Minnesota justify the expense that will be incurred by this bill?

A large portion of that expense comes not from having to provide free IDs (in order to avoid an illegal poll tax) but from having to purchase two electronic rosters for every precinct in the state with more than 100 voters. Overall, the cost requirements for the state, though not listed, must easily be in the millions. This bill clearly says that the state will pay for the machines but contains no appropriation lines that indicate just how they will be paid for. And for the large precincts that would need additional machines beyond the two covered by the state, what would be their cost?

The electronic rosters create a whole slew of additional problems when considering our rural districts. The bill creates minimum standards of network response times, which could be challenging for some precincts. Apart from that, think about the scene when you go to vote. What appears to be the average age of most poll workers? In all the precincts I have ever lived in, I would be comfortable saying 60-70 yrs old is probably an accurate average age of the poll workers I encounter. Many people in that generation are not nearly as comfortable with computers as younger generations are. For some, it will be a big leap to go from  flipping through a binder and asking someone to sign on a line to helping them to use electronic equipment. What will be the necessary training? Will it be above and beyond what is currently required in order to address the new technology? How will you ensure that these workers are not only able to facilitate use of this equipment, but to troubleshoot any problems they may encounter?

Some say it's worth it to prevent fraud. I would encourage you to read MinnPost's article on that issue from last session. In that article David Schultz, professor of government ethics and election law at Hamline University, discusses studies that he and other organizations have done. The conclusion? "There is no evidence that voter fraud is a problem that has affected any recent elections, including in Minnesota."

The article goes on to say, "The most comprehensive study so far on voter fraud largely dismisses its existence. A report by the bipartisan United States Election Commission concluded there was "little polling place fraud," including voter impersonation, "dead" voters, noncitizen voting, and felon voters. The main abuses were absentee-ballot fraud and efforts to intimidate voters on Election Day. None of this will be cured by photo IDs when voting."

So, what are we really paying for? Is it worth it?

Jobs! Jobs! Culture Wars?

This last campaign season was all about jobs and the economy. This legislative session? Not so much. As I've been following the introduced bills, I'm struck by the number that address culture wars and seek to appease the Republican base with little or no consideration of the cost or economic impact of such legislation.

I came across yet another example of this today in H.F. 7.  H.F. 7 is actually pretty interesting in content, although the text is rather dry. Basically, it addresses the repeal of a number of local government mandates. There's a lot of stuff buried in there. Much of it is expected (though some is controversial) and previously publicized targets for repeal such as mandates that address funds to be used for staff development in public schools, requirements that schools reach contract agreements by January 15 or pay a penalty, municipality reporting requirements, requirements that benefits agreed to through collective bargaining need approval of employee representative in order to be reduced, etc.

But tucked away in the midst of it all is a repeal of laws that established standards to eliminate sex based pay disparities among public employees. They are seeking to repeal Minnesota's Local Government Pay Equity Act (LGPEA) which was adopted in 1991 in order to guarantee equal pay for equal work regardless of gender. Some argue that such laws are outdated and no longer needed. However, the Pay Equity Coalition of Minnesota rightly points out that the Minnesota Management & Budget Department's January 2011 report notes pay raises given in order to eliminate disparities in wages across the state increased women's pay from $16.27/hr to $17.86/hr. Based on a 40 hour work week, by my calculations that amounts to an additional $63.60 every week or $3307.20 every year.

How exactly does stripping women's right to equal pay create jobs or strengthen our economy?

The K-12 Shift Comes Back to Haunt Us

As this legislative session gets underway, the GOP has come out swinging and they've got Minnesota's public K-12 schools squarely in their sights.

H.R. 2 authored by Rep. Buesgens (R-Jordan) puts out a proposal as to where K-12 spending levels should be set for this biennium. He fiercely defends these numbers by claiming that this is not a cut in funding, but rather simply a freeze to previous spending levels. I would disagree with that assertion for a number of reasons. (Many of these are based on issues I've previously discussed here.) For one, under this bill the legislature will NOT repay the funding shift that diverted allotted money from our schools in order to temporarily balance the budget.

This was a major concern at the time this shift was enacted by then Gov. Pawlenty, with many in public education opposing such a move mainly because they knew that there was absolutely no guarantee that the future legislature would pay it back. I also suspected this may be part of the plan proposed by the Republicans. That suspicion was largely confirmed by the non-committal answers I received from candidate Tom Emmer when I asked him about this issue at the state fair. As Rep. Buesgens asserts in his defense of the proposal, previous legislatures cannot tie the hands of future legislatures. Which is exactly why so many opposed funding shifts to start with. They knew that in all likelihood it was merely a cut disguised as a delay.

Many Conservatives rightly point out that the DFL controlled House at the time also proposed a K-12 funding shift. They argue that it is hypocritical to be opposed to Pawlenty's shift but in favor of the one proposed by the DFL. What that argument missed what that there is a substantial legal difference in a legislative shift and a unilateral shift implemented by the Governor. MinnPost addressed just that in an article at the time.  As they noted:

"Some schools worry that if this remains Pawlenty's unilateral shift, there will be no legal authority mandating that the schools ever receive the $1.8 billion. If it becomes a legislative shift, state law requires that the schools be second in line to be paid back, right after rainy-day funds are restocked. Payback might take 10 or 20 years, but eventually there would be a payback. ... Though school funding shifts have become an almost routine part of the biennial state budget balancing act, the governor's unilateral action was unique. There is concern among some legislators, school superintendents and, perhaps, even the governor about no payback requirement tied to the governor's action. And some school officials fear that at the end of the biennium in 2011, the $1.8 billion will simply disappear into thin air."

It looks like their fears are coming true. In short, Minnesota law contains guarantees that any legislative shift be repaid. It has no such provisions that apply to a governor's unilateral cuts through unallotment.

MNpublius breaks down why they view this not as a simple freeze in funding levels, but actually a 20% cut. This is in large part because it views the spending levels at the amount of money the schools actually received, not considering the amount taken away in the shift. Because that was proclaimed a temporary measure, many schools that saw little benefit in further slashing their services, took out loans to cover the missing funding until it was repaid. They factor in that combined with the fact that because funding is determined on a per pupil basis and schools are expecting increased enrollment, under long used funding calculations they were actually anticipating an increase in funds to accommodate the additional students.

Instead our schools are left with broken promises, further public demonization, and the challenge of continuing to serve more students with fewer resources.

Update: Speaking of education proposals, it's also worth noting that there is another proposal in the works in the Senate that would freeze wages for ALL public school employees.

Book Blogging: The Cause is Mankind

When I was visiting my parents over the holidays, I came across a copy of Hubert H. Humphrey's 1964 book "The Cause is Mankind: A Liberal Program for Modern America." In case you haven't figured it out, Humphrey is a political hero of mine. In my quest to take a look at more political history, I thought this would be a great place to start.

I just started reading it, so I'm only a few chapters in, but already there's one passage that really caught my attention.

"I do believe, however, that freedom has grown enormously in the past half-century. This is an astonishing fact, a tribute to the vitality of our institutions, when you look at the outlines of the history of the era. In those fifty years, we've gone through two World Wars and several minor but deadly ones; a Depression that lasted the better part of a decade; a proliferation of extremist views of the right and left, here and abroad; the rise of totalitarian systems of unprecedented strength and horror; the Cold War of the nuclear age; such phenomena as the Ku Klux Klan, McCarthyism, and black-lists; the murder of a beloved President.

And yet, democracy has weathered all these threats to freedom. On the balance, today, our civil liberties and civil rights appear to be at least as secure as they ever have been-and, in some conspicuous cases, much more secure."

Each generation seems to have a romantically misleading view of the previous generations. Each thinks of itself as the most troublesome generation and longs for the assumed security of the past. I see that currently in our own nation. So many people lament at the situation they see in our society and how it may be the very thing that will rob us of our freedom. Yet, here Humphrey points out all the turmoil that the US has faced in his lifetime alone (up to that point-1964). When each event is laid out side by side, it certainly seems like enough to be the undoing of many of America's liberties. Yet, Humphrey proclaims that in spite of all of this democracy has not only weathered the storm, but come out better for it. It's an interesting contrast to the rhetoric we hear today.

Political Fatigue

I'm a little burnt out on politics these days. It's not because I don't enjoy following the political process and monitoring what is going on in St. Paul and Washington, D.C. I do. It's not that I don't find the ridiculously exaggerated claims during policy debate amusing.  I do.  I think my fatigue comes from the division of the potential that I see in the political process and the reality of how it is currently playing out.

My interest in politics is rooted deeply in my passion for social justice. In it I see the vast potential for our nation to band together for the betterment of our society. At it's best it is a catalyst for justice.  A great example of this (and the major reason for the name of this blog) is the 1948 Democratic National Convention speech of then Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey.



In my opinion, this is an example of politics at its best. A moment when our leaders stand up and fight for what is right, even in the face of opposition. A moment when the fight isn't about what will get you elected next cycle, but about what will make our country better. Growing up, a teacher of mine had a sign on her desk that read "What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular." That's the spirit I'd like to see more of in politics. I'd like to see more concern over what is the right thing to do and less about what will boost approval ratings.

Today ushered in a new governor for the state of Minnesota. Soon we will see a new crop of legislators both locally and nationally. I hold out hope and keep looking for elected officials who will walk in the example of Hubert Humphrey and fight for what they believe is the right thing to do. We need to stop seeing government merely as a ledger sheet of expenses and start seeing it as what it was intended to be, an entity that seeks to serve the best interest of its citizens in order to make this a nation that lives up to its reputation as a land of freedom and opportunity.

A Month After the Fact

I had the misfortune of being in the process of moving over the last month, so I really haven't had much of a chance to post anything. I just wanted to post a few post election thoughts.

Am I surprised that the GOP captured both houses of Minnesota's congress? Absolutely. Was I slightly surprised by some of the national level losses (including MN's 8th district)? Sure. Am I surprised to see another major recount? Not so much. Mid term elections are a very reactionary time and it's common for control to change from one party to the other. There are a lot of people who don't necessarily vote for a candidate or party, but against another. If this election were truly about stopping deadlock, you'd expect to see the moderates do well and those with more extreme positions struggle. That's essentially the opposite of what we saw in this election. Most moderates lost their seats and the candidates who are considered far to the left/right generally won their elections without a lot of problems. With the likely election of a DFL governor, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I have trouble seeing how a pledge to raise revenues and pledges to not raise taxes can be compromised.

One thing remains certain. Our state has a hard road ahead. Whatever path is taken, there are people who will be hurt by the decisions. Tough choices need to be made and it will be painful. Even with GOP majorities, it looks likely that everything will need to be signed into law by a Democrat. On the national level, President Obama isn't likely to agree to repeal healthcare and bow to the GOP agenda. On  state level, Tom Emmer has a fairly large chunk of votes to make up in order to come out with a victory and it's a long shot for him to be able to do so. If Mark Dayton is certified as our governor, he's also unlikely to just agree to anything the Republicans present him.
I honestly have a hard time believing the GOP will be able to deliver on many of their promises. They have promised tax cuts and deficit reduction. They have pledged to work to elimination of entire government offices and lower unemployment. They have vowed to shrink government but ensure prosperity for more people. These are very hard goals to accomplish simultaneously and contrary to the rhetoric, tax cuts are not a magic bullet. The deficit is looming and there will be painful cuts. Even if these approaches work, they would likely need years to have any impact. And if we've learned anything from Obama's presidency it's that as a nation we have political ADD and demand instant gratification. (How many people have declared that healthcare reform doesn't work when the majority of it hasn't even taken effect yet?) Regardless of how long a plan would take to have any impact, the voters still go to the polls every two years. The tea party may have some surge of popularity among many Conservatives now, but how long can they continue to ride a wave of rallying against the establishment when they ARE the establishment?

How to Mislead Voters Lesson #2: What's in a Name?

With the election only two weeks away, more ads are hitting the airways every day. Needless to say, there is a lot of money changing hands this time of year. People are donating to the campaigns of candidates they support in hope that it will lead to increased ad presence and a greater chance at winning the seat. But people aren't the only ones donating. There are a number of corporations and special interest groups that are also putting money into the races. But at the same time many of these corporations or groups may not want their name publicly aired on the ads that they fund. After all, they still want to maintain their customer base regardless of consumers' political leanings. So what's a corporation to do?

Give money to other groups that will put out the ads in their own names. And boy, what names they are! Every day I turn on the TV I see ads from groups like MN Forward, Minnesota's Future, Alliance for a Better Minnesota, Americans Against Food Taxes, etc. That brings me to the first rule in naming your political organization.



1. Pick a Name That Few Would Disagree With

Who doesn't want to move forward? Who doesn't care about the future? Who doesn't want their state to be better? Who wants all their food taxed? No one! So you've won the first battle in putting forth something people can relate to.


2. Pick a Name That Sounds Far More Optimistic Than Any of Your Ads Will Ever Be

Hopefully people will be so inspired to dream about the future and how we should move forward after seeing your name that they will forget that the entire previous 30 seconds were spent trying to scare the hell out of them. After all, Minnesota's future looks bright as long as we don't elect the drunk driver, the erratic unreliable one, or the Democrat/Republican in Republican/Democrat clothing who will only enact policies that will destroy everything you hold dear.


3. Pick a Name That Sounds Like You're Just a Group of Average Americans Who Bought An Ad

Americans Against Food Taxes is a great example of name that achieves exactly that. Sounds like people are finally standing up to The Man and telling him to leave their food alone! Wait. What? What do you mean the group is primarily comprised of companies that produce/sell unhealthy high sugar content beverages with little nutritional value that would be subject to these proposed taxes? If that's the case, I'm sure they would have disclosed that in the ad. Which brings me to the next rule...


4. Make People Work to Find Out Who You Actually Are

Many people today have the attention span of a gnat. (I'll be shocked if they are still reading this post!) So most will never discover who is funding your group if finding out requires more than three steps. Hide it in a fancy website where they will be too distracted pressing other buttons telling them why you are on their side or looking at beautiful pictures of happy families that look just like theirs to notice anything else. Even better, simply leave it on your IRS disclosure form. Who looks up that? They'll never know that the Republican Governors Association is behind Minnesota's Future. They're too busy telling their neighbor about how erratic Mark Dayton is to bother looking at some stuffy old tax forms.


5. Fill Your Website With Undefined Terms

Rather than have the "about us" section of your website filled with detailed information, I would recommend you bust out your political ad thesaurus. For example, replace "Group of large corporations" with "Group of job creators." "Corporate board" becomes "Families just like yours." "Life long partisan political strategists" can be "Your neighbors and coworkers." I don't know about you, but I'm feeling better already.


6. Take Your Issues Directly From a Single Political Party While Insisting You're Non-Partisan

Feel free to cut and paste the issues section directly from the local Republican or DFL website. That won't matter as long as you don't tell people you did. Also make sure to pepper your site with the terms "non-partisan," "no political affiliation," "values," and "the state's best interest." Those terms will make people feel so good that they'll notice neither the blatant cut and paste nor the fact that all of your ads support only one political party.


7. Mention Things That Make People Feel All Warm and Fuzzy

It's even better if those things mentioned also leave visions of "Leave it to Beaver" era security and morality dancing in people's heads.  Children - Values - Our Community - Small Businesses - Freedom - Families - Prosperity. People love those things. And if they think you love those things, they will love you.


I hope that helps you get well on your way to starting your very own political group. As long you follow these guidelines it's sure to succeed.

This message has been brought to you by Americans For Children With Adorable Rescued Kittens.

Constrasting the 6th District Campaigns

Last night challengers Tarryl Clark (DFL) and Bob Anderson (I) participated in a debate in Stillwater.

Where was Michele Bachmann??



I assume this will become a major talking point in the Clark and Anderson campaigns in these last few weeks leading up to election day.

Education Minnesota's Real Problem

Today's debate on MPR's Midmorning took an interesting turn. For the first time that I can recall in this election cycle, a candidate chose to call out a specific person outside of the elections as the poster child of the problems our schools face. Who was this newly appointed poster child?


Tom Dooher
courtesy Education Minnesota

This morning Tom Emmer decided to name names and in doing so publicly declared that the problem in our educational system is Tom Dooher.

Blaming the union isn't anything new. Especially during elections, pointing to an alleged source of the problem is much easier than finding solutions for extremely complex problems. But this is the first time I've heard a candidate try to pin the state's problems specifically on the president of the state's largest educators' union. Emmer literally said "I think the union boss, Tom Dooher, is the problem."

Dooher sent MPR the following response:

"There is no place in the debate about education for personal attacks. The futures of our students and state are at stake and all Minnesotans deserve better.

Education Minnesota has vowed repeatedly to work together with anyone who is truly interested in improving education in our state. Minnesota’s biggest challenge in education is eliminating the achievement gap. Education Minnesota proposed a detailed plan in the last legislative session that relied on research-proven methods to help struggling students learn. We proposed bringing health, nutrition and dental services directly into the schools. We proposed smaller class sizes, longer school days or longer schools years when appropriate, as well as new methods of evaluating the performance of teachers.

Personal attacks do nothing to solve the broken system of education funding in Minnesota. Our state  is now well below the national average when it comes to per pupil spending. These are the kinds of true education challenges that get masked or ignored when politicians resort to personal attacks instead of policy solutions to deal with our problems.

It is the responsibility of Education Minnesota to stand up for what teachers know will work in the classroom. We will continue to champion research-proven methods that will improve Minnesota’s many excellent public schools. And we’ll continue to speak out against meaningless policy changes and gimmicks that serve political purposes but do nothing to help children learn.”

I don't think that the union is perfect by any means, but I also don't think they are the beast that is standing in the way of improving our state's schools. And Emmer's comments do little to actually address the challenges in our educational system. Tom Dooher is correct that many of the proposed educational reforms have not shown proven results and he does well to point out the types of initiatives they've been supporting. Yet, I do think that Education Minnesota does have one major problem. A PR problem.

In the past few years, many stalemates on educational policy in the legislature have been blamed on Education Minnesota. They've been maligned in political press conferences as the roadblock to real solutions. My issue with the union is that I often don't feel that they do enough to portray the positive work they do to find new solutions to improve education in our classrooms. Their opponents have been winning the PR battle and as such many in the public now believe that the union's primary mission is to ensure that your school has bad teachers who are overpaid and don't care about students at all.

In the interest of full disclosure, I came to this belief due to my experiences growing up in a family that contained a number of public school educators including a few that also worked for Education Minnesota. Because of that, I discovered that Education Minnesota provides a number of grants to teachers in order to explore new solutions in their classrooms. Over the years they have funded 915 projects through grants totaling $2.4 million. You can find more information on these projects here. There's a great story from WCCO this past spring about how a teacher used one of these grants to design a new type of desk to help her students stay focused in the classroom. These desks have gained a lot of attention throughout the world and the story was also featured in the New York Times.

Ironically, the grants cover everything from early education intervention, classroom behavior management, student learning methods, mentoring, better engaging kids in science, and so on. Many of these are the very issues that Emmer himself suggests we need to invest in.

 In my opinion, it may be in the best interest of Education Minnesota to highlight more of these projects publicly and in doing so start to peel the target of their back.

Articles of Interest 10/8/10

MN Governor's Race

It looks like Tom Emmer is being hit with a malpractice lawsuit.

NFIB endorses Tom Emmer.

Mitt Romney is coming to town to headline an Emmer fundraiser.

Tom Emmer released his third TV ad.

KSTP releases a confidential memo about campaign strategy from Tom Emmer's campaign.

Tom Horner picks up endorsements from thirteen former Republican state legislators.

It increasingly looks like Horner and Emmer will be competing for the GOP base.

Mark Dayton is hoping to start airing a new ad featuring his sons soon.

There will be a televised debate on KMSP tomorrow night.


US House

In CD-1, Randy Demmer has released his first TV ad complete with towering images of a monstrous looking Obama, Pelosi, and Reid back lit by flashes of lightning.

CD-5: A group called "Americans Against Hate" is pushing to get Rep. Ellison removed from a committee on anti-Semitism.

CD-6: In case you missed it, you really ought to read the confusing conversation MPR's Annie Baxter has with Rep. Bachmann's  spokesman. She has since confirmed commitments to three debates.


State Races

In the state auditor's race, Pat Anderson's complaint against incumbent Rebecca Otto is tossed out. She's not happy about it.

If you live in the West Central area of the state, Pioneer Public Television has a number of local Senate & House debates available to watch online.


Misc.

A coalition led by Minnesota Majority will be sending voter surveillance teams to the polls this November. Here is their watch list of what they will be looking for. I'm still not exactly sure how they plan to pull this off considering MN law requires them to keep 100' from polling places. No word on if there are specific polling places they will be targeting.

Politics in Minnesota has a look at the history of redistricting and the mess that comes with it.

The head of the MN GOP should probably make a point to be a little more familiar with the history behind the terms he uses to avoid any future Nazi references. Some of the former GOP legislators that were the subject of his statement (which also said there was a special place in hell for them) are obviously upset with his choice of words.

Three big name medical groups in Minnesota decide to send their health reform suggestions directly to Washington themselves since Pawlenty declined to do so.

The president of the Minnesota Family Council appeared on Anderson Cooper 360 to discuss their stance on LGBT bullying in schools.

Minnesota receives a $1.2 million federal grant to study the costs of tranisitoning from conventional to organic farming.

MN Supreme Court Justice Alan Page will be speaking at the University of Minnesota College of Continue Education's "Witness to History" series on October 21.

How to Mislead Voters Lesson #1: The Law of Averages

Note: This is the first in what will hopefully be a recurring series of blog posts on tactics that are commonly used to mislead voters during the elections. This isn't about fact checking. These posts are about methods that use facts but present them in a way that is incorrect or deceptive.


There's an important lesson that I've learned when following politics. Whenever you hear anyone say "That's an average of..." you should probably just assume that things aren't as they seem. I rarely take the "fact" that follows that statement at face value. Let me explain why.

Averages are pretty straight forward mathematically speaking. It is simply the sum of all elements divided by the total number of elements. I've often heard it said that "numbers don't lie." It's true that you can't make 2 + 2 suddenly equal 5. But that doesn't mean that numbers can't be presented in a deceptive manner.

Let's take a look at the latest ad from MN Forward that is asking us to look at an average.




Did you catch that? $2,300 per Minnesota family is a pretty big hit for most of us. If taken at face value, it could be pretty scary to people who are barely able to pay their mortgage or rent. But campaign ads should rarely be taken at face value and this one is no exception.

How did they get to that number? Pause the video at 0:09 and 0:14 and look at the citations. They arrived at this number through some simple math. The first number they take is the fact that Mark Dayton will raise taxes by $5 billion. This number is from a June MPR story covering the DFL primary debates. Dayton claimed that he is the only candidate willing to raise $5B in taxes through his tax proposals and closing tax loopholes. The second number in their equation comes from the fact that Minnesota has 2,108,843 households. This number is taken from the State Demographic Center. So they simply took the original $5B estimate and divided it by the total number of households in the state, thus arriving at over $2,300 per family. (It ends up at $2,371 per family.)That math checks out, so what makes it misleading?

After weeding through a number of news stories and tax incidence studies, it's pretty clear that Dayton's plan falls primarily on the top 10% of earners in Minnesota. That means that 90% of Minnesotans would see no income tax increase under his taxation plans. Herein lies the fatal flaw of averages. If I walked into a room of 100 people and decided to give 50 of them $100 each and 50 of them nothing, I could honestly say that I gave everyone in the room an average of $50. I think it's fair to assume that the half who received nothing would argue with that presentation of the situation, but my math would technically be correct.

In this case MN Forward stacks the numbers by arriving at an average after spreading out the tax increases across all Minnesotan families rather than simply applying them to the tax brackets for which they are intended. 90% of the households included this number would actually not see an income tax increase. Those are the people who could afford such an increase least. Presenting the numbers as an overall average affecting all Minnesotan families is most likely intended to scare them into thinking that Dayton will come after what they cannot afford to lose.

This isn't a new strategy. It's been used over the years not only in this negative context but also in a positive light to sell tax cuts to a small percentage of the wealthiest Americans by making it seem like everyone will get a piece of the pie.

The moral of the story: It's pretty easy to stack the outcome when the numbers used to calculate your average include a large portion of zeros.