counter statistics

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Edwatch Exporting Their Poison to Other School Districts

A parent in the Upper St Clair School District (close to Pittsburg, PA) wrote me for more information about Alan Quist and Edwatch, specifically wanting to know about Edwatch's support for Creationism. Articles by Alan Quist posted on Edwatch's website are being used to try to shut down the district's International Baccalaureate program.

A group of parents in the district interested in keeping the IB program has set up a website here.

It looks like these school board members ran a stealth campaign, mentioning the need for fiscal accountability in the schools, but not mentioning things like closing the IB program. As soon as they got elected, the story changed.

There will be a school board meeting this Monday to discuss the IB program. The parents group has been effective in mobilizing supporters. An event last week supporting the IB program drew 350 people.

The Minnetonka parents group, Tonka Focus got started to defend the Minnetonka IB program. They broadened out to expose former Minnetonka School Board member, Dave Eaton's efforts to push for creationism (using the title "Intelligent Design") to be taught in Minnetonka and other school districts.

Edwatch will deny supporting Creationism. I think I have demonstrated they are pushing creationism pretty conclusively. (The use of the "Santorum amendment" has been fairly standard fare for those pushing for creationism).



Lloydletta's Nooz posts on Edwatch and Creationism. These were adapted from the posts on MN Politics.



It is embarrassing to the state of Minnesota that Edwatch originated here.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Peter Idusogie Runs for Senate as Independent

He makes his announcement on Inside Minnesota Politics. He's running as an Independent.

Wendy Wilde will be taking over the show.

Inside Minnesota Politics Producer Mike McIntee issued the following statement:

"To avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest, Peter and I have decided it is best that he no longer host Inside Minnesota Politics. However, the podcast will continue with its mission to report on Minnesota politics including interviewing candidates, and tackling those tough issues we face today in our democracy.
"Like any other US Senate candidate, Peter will be welcome as an occasional guest at the Inside Minnesota Politics microphone.

"I'm happy to report that long-time radio talk show host Wendy Wilde has agreed to help out with hosting the show. Wendy most recently was the morning host on Air America Minnesota and before that worked for WCCO-AM.
"I thank Peter for the inspiration he has brought our podcast listeners and me. I look forward to maintaining the high level of quality Peter has brought to Inside Minnesota Politics with the help of the incredibly knowledgeable and talented Wendy Wilde."

You can subscribe to our podcast in iTunes with just one click.

Comments or questions please call our hotline 206-33-TALKS or email us at insidemnpolitcs@mac.com.


MN Publius is dismissive.

Is Matt Entenza Pressuring DFL Legislators to Support Rebecca Otto?

From MN Publius comments:

I had lunch with a state senator this week. The conversation got around to the DFL State Auditor's race. We couldn't figure out why Entenza is expending so much political capital to help Otto. She termed it "bullying" of DFL representatives and lobbyists. Besides they were both at Mac at the same time, can someone enlighten us to why this is happening? A black dude that can speak well isn't a bad choice either.

Posted by: Lobbyist | February 15, 2006 08:18 PM


I hope Lobbyist comes back and elaborates.

Rebecca Otto, Matt Entenza and Mike Hatch - Oh My!

Stonewall DFL deserves kudos for endorsing Otto's opponent, Reggie Edwards, who has better qualifications for the auditor position. What I don't get is why they rated Rebecca Otto acceptable. She voted in favor of the Bachmann amendment. In 2005, Stonewall initially failed to give RT Rybak (who has been outspoken in support of gay marriage) an acceptable rating. I understand from talking with Paul Skrbec, Chair of Stonewall that part of this was because RT Rybak gave a very weak answer to the question about "Party and Play drugs". Compare Stonewall to Log Cabin Republicans who withheld endorsement from President Bush in 2004, and also withheld endorsement from Governor Tim Pawlenty in 2002. Some Stonewall DFL activists like to call gay republicans "Jews for Hitler", but then those same activists won't stand up and be publicly be counted when Democrats make anti-gay votes.

My post about the MN Publius thread commenting negatively on Rebecca Otto and Matt Entenza has gotten some comments.

Okay, there's one comment about Otto being anti-labor (posted by "Angry Labor Guy" -- but no details, no supportive information, etc.

Eva writes something to the effect that she wasn't aware of Otto having labor issues ... as if the statement by ALG is a valid one.

Clearly you don't like Otto due to her vote on the Bachmann Amendment ... but this kind of BS renders you without credibility.
Rick Mons 02.15.06 - 12:25 am | #

That doesn't change that fact that Otto seems to be, shall we say, "less than forthcoming" about her business. That "Angry Labor Guy" didn't give details doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth. I would brag if I started a successful business, but Otto doesn't seem to want to give any details. Something does not fit.
James the Fourth 02.15.06 - 12:47 am | #

Commentators at Mn Publius added more sketchy info about Rebecca Otto's former company Fresh Paint, but not the name of the union or the local she tussled with. It would be important to find those details for this take on Otto to be credible.

Her web site says she was the CEO of the business before going into teaching; it's now Onyx Properties but was Fresh Paint until the Ottos spun off that line of work. An old Strib article about her husband notes that they sold the company in the mid 1990s.

Otto's voting record on labor issues was decent, but the recent split in the union movement reflects a concern for organizing over supporting politicans who don't care for workers to actually be able to join unions.
Joe Hill 02.15.06 - 3:51 am | #


Commenters over at MN Publius are scathing in their criticism of Otto. Some highlights:



I would ask Pat (Awada) Anderson where she stands if there wasn't another Democrat running for Auditor who has been very clear on what he believes. As far as Winsted is concerned, I have no idea why otherwise smart DFLers think haughty, unqualified Otto is their dream candidate (other than Otto's darling Matt Entenza, that is). And I don't know why DFLers back candidates who have shown their willingness to sell out groups like the Stonewall to further their own political interests. Otto isn't the next Hubert Humphrey; she's the next Norm Coleman.

Posted by: anonymous

For whatever reason, you also mention a former State Representative [Rebecca Otto] that was indicted for her campaign practices, who did not have the courage to stand with her fellow DFLers when it came time to support a minority, (namely the gay community), and whose former family business, Fresh Paint, Inc. has an "interesting" labor history.

I thought my legacy would live on. Because the DFL needed to do the right thing, I was there when they voted on the Bachmann amendment. I stood with the union painters when they took on a company that was viciously anti-union. I still stand for the poor and the weak. You only see white urban and suburban people for future DFL leaders. If this is my DFL 60 years later, where did I go wrong? HHH

Posted by: HHH


I couldn't resist a shot at Otto over at MN Publius:



Otto isn't a homophobe any more than Norm Coleman is a homophobe. She voted for the Bachmann amendment out of political expediency.

In addition, Otto won't be able to say - oh the Republican is MORE anti-gay in the auditor race. Pat Awada has no history of focusing on anti-gay activism for political gain - a marked contrast to Tim Pawlenty and George W Bush.

Reggie Edwards is much more qualified for the state auditor position.

I haven't heard about Rebecca Otto's labor practices - but it wouldn't surprise me. Matt Entenza claims to be a friend of labor, but treats people who work for him abysmally.

Posted by: Eva Young


You mention on the comments about how Entenza treats his employees...

For those of us not familiar with his emplyment practaces, what are you refering too, and do you have any examples. I like him, and hate to hear bad things, but if you have hard facts, I am more then willing to listen
Anonymous


I have talked to a number of people who got let go when Matt Entenza took over from Irv Anderson. As I recall, Ed Fesler did some posts on the mn-politics-discuss list at the time. I will look for the specific posts, and post a link later this weekend. There were allegations of age discrimination - among other things.

I get blamed for all the Otto bashing comments. (They started BEFORE I added some fuel to the fire.)

If you guys are such DFL purists why do you let a republican activist like Eva Young define your conversation for you (see above). I've heard Rebecca Otto speak in Mpls about the anti-gay marriage vote (she was 1 of 25 DFLers to vote the way she did) and she said that in her district, which she shared with Bachmann, the Bachmann camp dearly wanted that to be the only contrast issue they ran Matt Dean on, bashing gays so they didn't have to talk about all the other issues. Rebecca didn't give them that vote, a vote that was going to pass the house overwhelmingly anyway, thanks to Eva Young's republican party's control. Because Otto didn't let that or Sviggum's bogus lawsuit stop her, because she stayed focused on the broader issues, she was able to turn out 350 volunteers on election day for GOTV and got a 98% turnout in the district (I know, I drove to Stillwater to volunteer) So what is smarter? Which is more moral? Which causes less harm? And in this case, which is a better use of political debate in a swing district that would have tied up control of the house: A) more Republican gay bashing, or B) Otto's state-wide work on the state budget deficit, and fighting no new taxes, cut schools, spending the tobacco fund, cut social programs for the elderly, cut daycare assistance, cuts of over 2000 union teacher jobs, cut MN Care, tax breaks for the wealthy, creationism and placing the 10 commandments in schools, and the rest? The republicans want to make everything black and white, and when you make it so, you do their bidding.

Posted by: MNDemocrat


Otto was effective on the creationism issue. Others respond:



Oh, I see how I was mistaken. How could I have been so wrong! I forgot how she singlehandedly defeated the Republicans in the 2003-04 legislative session. There were no massive cuts to schools, programs for the elderly, or daycare assistance! Thanks to Otto, the last three years never happened!
And how can I have been so selfish to think that lining up with the Bachmann types was anything other than Otto's way of telling the Stonewall she cared? Otto would have lost if she would have done what she promised to the Stonewall. That totally excuses her!

Wait a minute. Didn't she lose anyway?

Posted by: Anonymous


Yes, Rebecca Otto was the only DFLer to lose reelection, when the DFL picked up 13 seats. When Mindy Greiling spoke to the Minnesota Atheists, she said that Otto's loss could be partly blamed on this vote.



The rest of us have been underwhelmed by the Otto's complete lack of experience and her pliable relationship with the truth. The Ottocrats should stop babbling about the Taxpayers League and focus on the fact that OTTO DOESN"T ANY EXPERIENCE. I've met Otto too, and she sidestepped every question I and everydoby else had by saying "its a legislative issue" First of all, they weren't legislative issues. Secondly, wasn't she a legislator? Ability to do the job counts even more.

How the hell are people supposed to take Democrats seriously when we go out of our way to find the least qualified candidate?


Posted by: Another MN Democrat | February 15, 2006 07:18 PM

All these comments about Otto and Reggie are great. It's good to see people fired up about an office that tends to get overlooked.

Now, I will say that as of now I am an Edwards supporter. I have seen his 4 year plan and am very impressed.

I would be willing to give Otto a chance but she doesn't seem to have anything to say about the office of state auditor besides no new taxes is a bad idea.

before we start getting too ugly within our own family lets get back to talking about ideas. Remember, there is a third party trying to do just that.

Posted by: nostausquo | February 15, 2006 07:24 PM

Otto picked up a seat because we caught the GOP napping. During her campaign she gained the reputation for dirty campaigning. Otto proceeded to lose her seat in a year when the DFL picked up 13 seats in the House. She was the ONLY sitting DFLer in the House to lose. Don't blame the district.

Posted by: Another MNDemocrat | February 15, 2006 07:28 PM


From a reader tip:

Rebecca Otto seems to have a character problem. You know about Otto lying to the Stonewall Caucus, and she apparently had a union problem that she isn't disclosing. But the reason I am writing has to do with her claim that she ran a levy campaign when she was on the school board in Forest Lake.

I used to live in Forest Lake, and I can tell you that Otto is lying. The person who ran the levy campaign was Pat Forciea. Otto was only the chair of the group that hired him. She is claiming credit for his work. You might know that Forciea is currently serving time in prison for embezzlement.


Rebecca Otto does seem to have some character problems.

Lloydletta's Nooz Has Freedom of Information Act Request for Hennepin County

From: Eva Young
To: Sandy Vargas, County Administrator
CC: Linda Koblick, Penny Steele, Mike Opat, Dan Kenney (Chief of Staff to Mike Opat)

Date: Feb 15, 2006
Subject: Public Records Request

Dear Ms Vargas:

Commissioner Koblick suggested I send this request to you. A few days, I sent an email to Dan Kenney, in Mike Opat's office requesting this information. I have received no response. I have also sent you a fax with a similar request for information.

How much is the county spending on lobbying for the stadium - in 2005, and what is budgeted for 2006? Also, what percentage of staff time in Commissioner Opat's office, both by commissioner Opat, and his staff member Dan Kenney, as well as other county commissioner staff, is being spent on the stadium issue? How long has Dan Kenney and Mike Opat been spending this amount of time on the stadium issue? It seems like this should be public information someplace - how can I get my
hands on this information?

Is there any problem with putting some language into the twins stadium proposal that would preclude County Commissioners who vote in favor of the stadium from later benefiting from getting on the stadium commission?

Please respond by March 15, 2006. If this information isn't available, please explain the problems are with providing the information.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Eva Young

Lloydletta's Nooz
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com


Commissioner Koblick suggested that I make this more formal. I had sent a simlar request for information to Dan Kenney, Mike Opat's assistant a few days ago.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Scott Johnson and Eric Black at Forum on Blogging and the Media

Doug Bass at MOBANGE live blogged the event. Doug Bass did an excellent job of what I consider reporting the event. He took good notes, and gave the facts of the case rather than his opinion.

King Banaian who moderated the event has his take.

Black's last ten minutes were spent, however, in a tawdry descent into Bush hatemongering. I saw Scott taking notes and I fully expect him to have something more to say. But Black's repeated use of "confirmation bias" was little more than calling the blogosphere an echo chamber and calling bloggers hypocrites. I thought it spoiled the rest of his lecture, and it unfortunately invited more of the questions to be about press coverage of Bush than about blogs and journalism, which was supposed to be the point.


Black's last ten minutes talked about the questions about Bush's military record. Calling any criticism of Bush "hatemongering" gets old.

I think the questions would have been about blogs and journalism if Scott Johnson had talked about blogs and journalism in his talk - rather than re-telling the Rathergate story.

Confirmation bias is a legitimate thing to be concerned about. In clinical trials, they call something similar the placebo effect - and that's why when you conduct a trial, you want to compare a placebo group with a treatment group.

I was very interested to hear that Ward Connerly might be a future speaker at one of these events. I would be very interested in hearing Ward Connerly speak.

Strib - West Metro Edition's Sam Carnes Carries Water on Stadium Boondoggle

From a reader tip.

Did you read Sam Barnes (Strib West Editor) editorial in the West edition today on the Twins. He goes into the "feelings" stuff about the Twins and its identity to our state and whatever city they end up in and the "good" professional sports do for our economy etc... He is asking for people to share their thoughts on this - which I thought was good. Your readers, especially west suburbanites, should share, share, share. I might send in something.


I do not get the west metro edition of the strib, so I did not see this. Here's the editorial.

With apologies to 3M, General Mills and, yes, even the Star Tribune, I never associated them with Minnesota until much later in life.

When I thought Minnesota, I thought of the Twins and the Vikings.

I also remember from my childhood years how the state of Virginia spent a lot of money buying gobs of TV time to promote its "Virginia is for Lovers" campaign. It was trying to woo tourists to its wealth of historic sites and boost the image of the state in general.

None of that, though, carried the cachet of the Twin Cities' twin coup: landing both the old Washington Senators and the newfound Vikings during the early 1960s.

To those who dislike pro sports and some of the less appealing aspects of grown men's games (such as cruises on Lake Minnetonka), it must be galling to consider their reach. But professional sports do more to boost a city's image than all the "Virginia is for Lovers" ads you could ever buy.

Mainly, they tell the world that pays attention to sports -- a large percentage of the population -- that a city is big enough and has its act together enough to support a pro sports franchise. And that in turn hints that there is a lot more going on in the city as well.

But is that worth spending tax dollars to help build a stadium?

Contact the writer at 612-673-7840.


This economic development argument is based on emotion. It does not hold water. In fact the Twins quit using this argument last summer. See also the Cato Institute report on this topic.

Give Sam Carnes a ring or an email..... He's also asking for email feedback.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Write us and tell us whether you want to see Hennepin County tax dollars go to help pay for a new stadium for the Twins in Minneapolis. Or are you willing to take the chance on losing the Twins? E-mail your responses to sbarnes@startribune.com.


Fill up his inbox!

David D to Lloydletta: Don't Get Distracted by Technicalities

From the comments to this:

While I realize the point being made here, I only partially agree. By bringing this issue into the sphere of discussion is counterproductive. Because, (1) people will only view this as an attack upon them by the gay community, not upon the policies of the Church, and therefore they will take it personally and it is detrimental to our goals. (2) It takes the focus away from the real issue at hand, equality, and turns this into a discussion of technicalities in the law.

What the real message should be is "The Catholic Church is advocating discrimination under the law and is ignoring the true message of Christ."
DavidD


David raises a good point about what the main message should be. David is correct that this is the most important message.

That said, I do still think it's worth calling foul plays when you see them. I'd expect the other side on this issue would call foul if OutFront Minnesota were shown to engage in similar shenanagans. I'm a strong believer in exposing the money trail on these sorts of things. I have no problem with the Catholic Church organizing on this issue, but think they should be doing so under the same rules other groups do, and organize a PAC and disclose their donors on this political project to the Campaign Finance Board. Michele Bachmann's fundraising email signed by the President of Edwatch is a good example of calling a foul on a technicality. As far as I know, the FEC has still not acted on the complaints on that one.

Coverage of the Bachmann Amendment in Willmar

Democrat Al Juhnke gets praised by the a speakers at the Willmar Bachmann amendment rally.

Correction: A commenter who was at the rally said only one speaker at the Willmar rally, MN for Marriage Communications Director, Chuck Darrell, mentioned Juhnke.

You can comment on this topic at the West Central Tribune here.

West Central Tribune reporter, David Little interviews a
Hamline Law Professor who opposes the Bachmann amendment.

Law professor says amendment prevents people from changing law in the future
David Little West Central Tribune
Published Monday, February 13, 2006

A constitutional law professor says the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution are intended to protect people's rights, rather than restrict them.

"One of the things people have to remember about amendments is they're very difficult to change. They're really anti-democratic," says Marie A. Failinger, professor of constitutional law at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul.

"I think whenever someone proposes an amendment, they say this is a chance for the people to vote on something. But once you have an amendment ... it prevents the people from changing the law," she said.

"And that's why certainly, historically, in the United States Constitution, most of the amendments have been rights-protective amendments. They're trying to protect minorities against majorities who they're afraid might harm minority groups in a fit of passion," Failinger told the Tribune in a phone interview from her Hamline office.

Failinger said amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage are being proposed because people argue that judges will interpret state constitutions or the U.S. Constitution in a way that would protect the rights of same-sex couples to get married.

"Of course, there's no absolute guarantee that that won't happen. It's happened in Massachusetts and happened in Canada and some other places, to honor those protections," she said.

On the other hand, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a case in 1971 that same-sex marriage is not permitted by state law or the state Constitution, and the Legislature has passed a law which states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Because state law and the state Supreme Court have said "no," Failinger believes an amendment is not needed, and she thinks the court is unlikely to overturn both the statute and the precedent.

"Our court was one of the first to say no — the Minnesota Constitution doesn't protect same-sex marriage — so the chances that the court would reverse itself, I think, are probably quite slim," said Failinger.

"I'm more sympathetic to the issue, but I think the main point is why not let the people make a decision on this through the regular (legislative) process, which is they vote for representatives and the representatives decide if they're going to change the law or not," she said.

The request by amendment proponents for a popular vote sounds democratic, says Failinger, but approval would restrict the rights of a future public that which might support same-sex marriage. She said removing an amendment is more difficult than approving it or having lawmakers change a statute or law.

"They're really taking away the rights of future generations to change their mind about this question, which is anti-democratic," says Failinger. " … In this particular case, it's taking away the chance for the people to vote for a change in their marriage law."


When I've used this argument about protecting unpopular minorities from hostile majorities, when debating Michele Bachmann on KKMS radio, she did not have a good response, and callers were uncomfortable doing this. I tend to think of this as a traditionally liberal argument, but I have seen conservative columnist, Craig Westover use this argument.

David Little also attended and reported on the Willmar Bachmann amendment rally.

Marriage amendment supporters say their issue is mainstream
David Little West Central Tribune
Published Monday, February 13, 2006

WILLMAR — Mainstream Minnesotans support a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, several speakers told a rally for traditional marriage Saturday afternoon in Willmar.


They avoided signs like this one, which was prominent during the 2004 Bachmann amendment rally at the state capitol.



They urged amendment supporters to write letters, call their legislators and become active in their churches to get the amendment on the ballot in this fall’s 2006 general election. Supporters believe voters should decide matters of constitutional importance.

An amendment is needed because marriage laws are being struck down in a growing number of states, they said, and Minnesota’s 1997 Defense of Marriage Act and a 1971 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, which said same-sex marriage is not permitted by state law or the state Constitution, could be struck down.

"This grassroots effort here is important to making sure that we can get this issue on the ballot for the citizens of Minnesota to decide," Rep. Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, and speaker of the Minnesota House, told 250 people attending the rally at Harvest Community Church.

Sviggum said the amendment passed the House in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, "and we can pass it again in 2006." However, the amendment has been bottled up in the Senate, which he said is preventing the measure from being placed on the ballot.

"The governor supports it, the House strongly supports it. Right now, only the Senate and maybe your senator right here in this town … " said Sviggum, referring to DFL Sen. Dean Johnson. "He may hold the key. That's tough to say it that directly, but it is that direct."

Sviggum predicted Minnesota would be the 20th state to pass an amendment if it's placed on the ballot.

"I've seen polls that are very significant in support of the amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman. It is mainstream, not the extreme," he said.

The House author of the amendment bill, Rep. Daniel Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, said he felt prayers of intercession made the difference in the bill's 77-56 bipartisan passage. Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, and Rep. Bud Heidgerken, R-Freeport, were later thanked for their support.


Juhnke gets a positive mention. Will anti-gay DFLer Al Juhnke speak at the 2006 Bachmann amendment rally at the capitol?

Severson called defense of traditional marriage an important fundamental issue.

"For Minnesota, that building block for our society is between one man and one woman," he said. "You must make a difference on this issue. Talk to your pastor; have him be bold in the pulpit. If we can get it to the floor (of the Senate), we can get it through. But the only way we’re going to do that is if you will engage in this warfare."

Sixth District Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy, who supports a similar federal amendment, said a super-majority is needed in the House, Senate and the states.

"We have justices and elected officials that understand a few basic things about the constitution … and that is the First Amendment is there to protect people of faith from the government, not the government from people of faith, and that this nation is under God whether some crazy California judge thinks so or not," he said to applause.


Actually Kennedy should read the federal constitution. The federal constitution mentions that the government derives its authority from "We the People" and not God. This was debated at the constitutional convention.

"And finally, that the fundamental question of whether or not marriage is a building block of our society for millennium … is a decision for we the people, not a few justices in Massachusetts or a few senators in Minnesota," he said.


Does Kennedy understand the separation of powers?

Dan Johnson, senior pastor of First Covenant Church of Willmar, said he wants to safeguard the human family.

"For me, it's not a political issue. It’s a pastoral issue. As a pastor, I have a pastoral concern for the marriages and the families that I deal with on a regular basis. The statistics are just staggering. There are just too many divorces. I see the hurt and the heartache that goes with divorce. I especially see the devastating effects on children," he said.


What is this amendment going to do to reduce the incidence of divorce?

Charles Darrell, communications director for Minnesota for Marriage — a group working for the passage of a marriage amendment, said supporters are mainstream, not extremists or homophobic. He said the African-American community supports the amendment.

"You are right smack dab in the middle of the road," said Darrell. "Don't let them challenge you about whether you are violating separation of church and state. Don't let them freak you out about that you're violating civil rights."


Has Darrell ever publicly condemned the mean spirited signs from the 2004 Bachmann amendment rally?

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Archdiocese Raising Tax Free Money to Push Bachmann Amendment

Here.

Is this really C3 activity? Is there a lawyer in the house? Should they be able to raise money earmarked towards activism on the marriage amendment tax free. It's interesting that the reference on the US Council of Catholic Bishops suggests the answer is no.

DFL Attacks Kennedy's Extremism in Support of the Federal Bachmann Amendment

On their blog here. It's worth mentioning that Minnesota has two congress critters who were original co-sponsors for this amendment - Republican Mark Kennedy and Democrat Colin Peterson. I'm sure that schools out, will make another comment about how I'm "attacking rural DFLers". Schools out avoids my posts which criticize DFLers like Rebecca Otto and Matt Entenza - neither of whom are rural.

I read a comment on a blog earlier this evening, that said Republicans were not emphasizing the Bachmann amendment on their shows on the road, it's what the media is focusing on. I find that disingenuous when you are talking about rallies organized by Minnesotans for Marriage.

Rebecca Otto and Matt Entenza Get Ripped by MN Publius Commenters

Zack from MN Publius listed Rebecca Otto as an up and coming DFLer. Commenters jumped on this one. Deservedly so. I wasn't aware that while Otto pontificates about being a friend of labor, she doesn't treat her workers well. This is Entenza's achilles heel also.

A number of commenters mentioned Otto's self-serving vote in favor of the Bachmann amendment, after getting Stonewall DFL's endorsement for her special election. Rebecca Otto gets compared to Norm Coleman.

Go check out the comments over at MN Publius. They are quite amusing.

It's worth noting that Bev Scalze and Denise Dieterich are two other DFLers who told constituents they would vote against the Bachmann amendment prior to getting elected, then voted in favor of the Bachmann amendment.

Rebecca Otto deserved to lose in 2004. She doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from her loss.

There have been a few shots taken at AG candidate Matt Entenza. I encourage Lloydletta readers to go over there and take a few more shots.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Don't They Have Better Things to Do?

The St Cloud Times reports that the St Cloud Diocese is launching a campaign to push the Bachmann amendment:

St Cloud Times commenters aren't happy.

Deminn from Minnesota
"Minnesota bishops are urging Catholics to petition state legislators Sunday to amend the constitution to define marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman."

The St. Cloud Diocese's Office of Marriage and Family ordered 36,000 postcards for parishioners, to be mailed to legislators Sunday, which is World Day for Marriage.

"We're asking parishes to send the postcards to their lawmakers in St. Paul, asking that the Senate allow for a vote on the floor to put the issue of a constitutional amendment . . . before the voters of Minnesota," Diocese of St. Cloud spokesman Steve Gottwalt said.

A: We already have a law against this, why a CA, isn't a law mandating discrimination sufficient? Why wouldn’t this be the same position taken by intelligent people concerning abusive eminent domain proceedings as well then? Common sense topped yet again by special interest.

B: This sounds like political activity, not spiritual communion. Isn't, or perhaps shouldn't, that be a sign of a taxable organization?

The Voice Reason from Home
Yet one more example of why this past alter boy has left the church with no thoughts of ever returning. (Catholic church is fine, unless you really listen to their message)

Prof. Plum from Cluesville
Here we go again.... I say, as a Catholic, to first clean up the pedophiles in the priesthood and pay off the lawsuits and forget the postcards. Count me out on this week's envelope. I don't want any part of this..... I thought all people were God's children. Same old, same old.


The St Cloud Times also published an opinion piece on this.

This generated some lively commentary

KT from THE HILL
This view just doesn't seem "Christian" to me. When a church advocates for exclusion of a group of people I stop short. It seems to me that they (in this case the Catholic bishops) are "judging" and we should leave that up to the higher power that these individuals believe in. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is pretty self explanatory and does not come with qualifications.

brian from StCloud
Exactly, KT. Anti-gay legislation is for people of weak faith that don't really trust or believe that God will adequately punish gays in the afterlife.


Brian is on to something.

Brooklyn Center City Council Considered a Resolution to Oppose the Stadium Tax without Referendum

I'm hoping to get more details on what happened. Will it be a repeat of the Edina rudeness?

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Matt from North Star Liberty Gives an Account of the Edina City Council Meeting

Council members were not happy with Laura Lehmann asking them to take a public stand in opposition to the stadium.

Read the account of the meeting at Matt's Blog North Star Liberty.

Are they always so rude to constituents in Edina?