Barack Obama coming to town

May 29th, 2007 – 11:01 AM by Eric Black

ebmug.jpgGood Tuesday morning Fellow Seekers,

obama.jpgSen. Barack Obama will be in the Twin Cities June 29 for a public rally and a fund-raiser at the Minneapolis home of noted DFL fund-raisers Sam and Sylvia Kaplan. It will be Obama’s first trip to Minnesota as a presidential candidate.

The Kaplans, whom I did not previously link to Obama in any of my who’sfor whom for prez posts, are both on Obama’s national finance committee. The fund-raiser will be $1,000 a head. the precise time and place of the public rally have not been determined yet.

47 Responses to "Barack Obama coming to town"

flash says:

May 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am

Probably his first visit as a candidate, but he did stump for Amy last Spring. I visited with him briefly:

http://centrisity.blogspot.com/2006/04/exclusive5-minutes-with-sen-barack.html

Flash
Centrisity.com

Michael Blaine says:

May 29th, 2007 at 11:24 am

With the intensive “fund-raising” they do, the nation’s candidates for political office really are little different from used car salesmen or prostitutes.

And we expect them to provide leadership?

It’s time to drop the asphyxiating two-part system, and make all campaigns publicly financed.

Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

Michael Blaine says:

May 29th, 2007 at 11:26 am

“two-party”

BTW, I think the Republicans should choose Paul Wolfowitz as their VP. Or, the Democrata could, too, for all the difference it would make.

Michael Blaine says:

May 29th, 2007 at 11:27 am

“Democrats”

Bill Prendergast says:

May 29th, 2007 at 11:48 am

Well, if Obama does come here, he’d better bring his passport and his birth certificate. He’s got a “foreign-sounding” name, and Norm Coleman says he’s going to start checking everyone’s i.d.

http://tinyurl.com/27wwl4

Coleman is obviously trying to ensure dare2sayit’s vote. Read how Norm says he is sure that the “overwhelming majority” of illegal immigrants are not terrorists. (Whew! That’s a relief. That means that (according to Norm) if there’s 11 million of ‘em, only a tiny fraction, perhaps as few as ten thousand, are in the country to destroy us. You see,Norm wouldn’t want to sow a panic or anything by inflating the terror.)

Anyway–all the cops have to do is check the illegal immigrant’s i.d. and deport him and his family, and the GOP businessmen/cheap labor lobbyist who employed the illegal immigrant hires another illegal immigrant. That’s how Norm’s system works–he gets the heads of every busted illegal immigrant to hang on his trophy wall, the GOP leadership keeps their cheap labor supply, and everybody’s happy except the guy who got deported. Especially happy are the coyotes who ship the illegals over the Mexican border, because the guys we deport become return customers.

So watch out, Obama–or change your name to “Sven Anderson” or something more acceptable before you come here. Norm will sic the cops on ya with that Muslim sounding name of yours.

bsimon says:

May 29th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Bill, seeing how Senator Obama is a black man from Chicago, changing his name won’t get him off the hook – he still fits the daretosayit.com profile of a northside gang-banger / welfare migrant.

swschrad says:

May 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

that would be rich. “Sven Anderson” or not, Obama is still a black man who is from the opposite political persuasion of the governor. they’d get something on him if that’s what they’re after.

I strongly suspect NOTHING will happen. the Kaplans will help Obama raise some money for his campaign, republicans will look the other way so as to not have their name and party linked to those Heathen Liberals in public, and life will go on.

next few years, under almost any democratic administration and especially under Obama’s if elected, there will be some things done to try and help change conditions for the lower middle class and below. which hopefully will help give hope to the gang’ers and maybe inspire a few to make something of their life other than a spreading stain on the pavement some late night.

because that’s all that gangs do, create more targets for more inner city bullets.

bsimon says:

May 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pm

In other Pres race news, MPR’s Polinaut blog has a fascinating piece on parallels between Mitt Romney & our own Governor…

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2007/05/sound_familiar.shtml

Bill Prendergast says:

May 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Yeah, that Polinaut story is good–it’s under the heading “Sound Familiar”. It’s about how Romney pulled a Pawlenty in cutting state aid to local government.

Essentially the same GOP scam to avoid tax increases on the rich, by passing on the tax burden to the middle class.

Warning: if you comment on the story, pro or con–Polinaut will not post your comment until “they get around to it.”

Brian G says:

May 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

bsimon says, “he still fits the daretosayit.com profile of a northside gang-banger / welfare migrant.”

Let’s not forget Cocaine user!!

Exciting times!!! Hillary will be here soon, and will get a chance at a new accent.
Obamamomma can talk about the last tornado we had where Tim P. did nothing after 10,000 people died!

Great candidates. Can’t go wrong with either of them.

Cash N. Carey says:

May 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

BP – Funny how you can’t say anything positive about a liberal candidate. Also amusing how you criticize d2sayit, while your hatred of conservative Christians is so apparent.

Charley says:

May 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

I am not sure I understand why Barack Obama is going to be at a $1,000 per plate Republican fundraiser. Surely that isn’t a Democratic Party function!

Bill Prendergast says:

May 29th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

CNC–
Funny how you never say anything nice about me.

bsimon says:

May 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am

Charley writes
“I am not sure I understand why Barack Obama is going to be at a $1,000 per plate Republican fundraiser. Surely that isn’t a Democratic Party function!”

Charley, initially I was going to comment on that, in the interest of fairness, to offset a prior comment about Hillary holding a “Cake-eaters for Clinton” fundraiser. Then I noticed that Mr Obama is also holding a public rally for the unwashed masses. So while, yes, I too find it a little tasteless that people spend a grand on dinner with a candidate, at least this candidate is also making some time for people who can’t pony up that kind of dough.

Mark the sequel says:

May 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am

bsimon says:

So while, yes, I too find it a little tasteless that people spend a grand on dinner with a candidate, at least this candidate is also making some time for people who can’t pony up that kind of dough.

Darned magnanimous of him. Still, stuff like this sure puts the complaints about the Republicans being the “party of the rich” in perspective, no? The D’s are too often the “party of the old money/I’ve got mine and it’s protected from taxes because I can afford clever lawyers and financial experts.” But sometimes they hold public rallies, too.

Les says:

May 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

BP;

let me get this straight, You beleive that someone who has committed a crime should be protected from being asked about if they have committed that crime by the police. Correct?

No doubt you’d then support the next gag order banning the question ‘Have you been drinking’ from the traffic cop’s vocabulary.

I also found it interesting to learn from you that “coyotes” issue student and other temporary visa’s to the US for a fee.

The final enlightment you provide is that supporting the use of ID’s to help police identify illegal immigrants absolutely, positively, without question precludes supporting any increased enforcement efforts/new legislation punishing those knowingly empoying illegal immigrants.

Hey, thanks alot for the FACTS

Bill Prendergast says:

May 30th, 2007 at 2:06 pm

“let me get this straight, You beleive that someone who has committed a crime should be protected from being asked about if they have committed that crime by the police. Correct?”

Wow. Where’d you get that? No, I don’t. If the cop has a reason to believe that a person’s committed a crime (eg, in the country illegally) he’s got the right to stop that person and ask questions. That’s Fourth Amendment law. Coleman’s proposing something more than that, via legislation.

Let’s not attribute arguments to Bill that Bill isn’t making.

“I also found it interesting to learn from you that “coyotes” issue student and other temporary visa’s to the US for a fee.”

Where are you getting this stuff from? True or false, I didn’t write it.

“The final enlightment you provide is that supporting the use of ID’s to help police identify illegal immigrants absolutely, positively, without question precludes supporting any increased enforcement efforts/new legislation punishing those knowingly empoying illegal immigrants.”

I didn’t write that either! Who is sending you stuff under my name?

If all Coleman had done was propose stiffer penalties and enforcement against citizens who employ illegal immigrants–that would be something. Instead he’s proposing busting the laborers. This is the GOP hypocrisy–the “cheap labor” fans in the party make the “c’mere” gesture to illegal immigrants, and the “keep them out” Republicans make the “handcuffs” gesture.

That’s the GOP problem with immigration–the wealthy Republican employers want it, the working class Republicans fear it. So the President has decided to come down squarely on both sides of the fence, injuring his testicles in the process.

Les says:

May 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

BP.

Nice try, you are in fact writing this stuff:

to wit: Especially happy are the coyotes who ship the illegals over the Mexican border, because the guys we deport become return customers.

To have an “expiration date” on an ID, one must have a temporary visa.

and again: and the GOP businessmen/cheap labor lobbyist who employed the illegal immigrant hires another illegal immigrant. That’s how Norm’s system works

You state Norm’s system doesnt follow up on the employer.

So, come again, what didnt Billy write?

Bill Prendergast says:

May 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

I must confess, Les, I simply don’t understand what you are talking about–expiration dates, temporary visas–you lost me. I don’t think I could have written the opinion you are attributing me, because I don’t even understand the opinion you are trying to attribute to me.

I didn’t *state that Norm’s proposal doesn’t follow up on the employer.* Here’s what I wrote:
*If all Coleman had done* was propose stiffer penalties and enforcement against citizens who employ illegal immigrants–that would be something. Instead he’s proposing busting the laborers. This is the GOP hypocrisy–the “cheap labor” fans in the party make the “c’mere” gesture to illegal immigrants, and the “keep them out” Republicans make the “handcuffs” gesture.

If you want to explain how my take is wrong, you might want to just stick to what is wrong with my take–the thing I wrote.

bsimon says:

May 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Les, I know you didn’t ask me, but I’ll tell you what I don’t like about Coleman’s plan.

1) federal control of local jurisdiction. What happened to limited-government conservatism? If local jurisdictions don’t find illegal immigration to be a big enough problem to deserve their attention, why should the fed gov’t be allowed to force them to take on that burden?

2) Perhaps the fed government should instead fund its own agencies to do their jobs, rather than pushing the burden downhill – again – to local government & local taxpayers. I saw on the news recently a story about state troopers that pull over people who they determine are not here legally. So they call ICE. ICE says “how many people?” If its less than 5 (might have been 10), ICE won’t bother to come down and pick them up – so the troopers let them go.

I’ve also shared an anecdote from my wife’s line of work. She’s called the gov’t to find out how to determine if social security cards are real or not. The response: if they have a card, give them a job. In other words, her company is trying to do the right thing and only hire people who are legally eligible to work, but the gov’t wont give them a hand in making that determination. WTF?

The problem we’re facing – if illegal immigration is even all that much of a problem – is that existing laws are not being enforced. We don’t need an ineffective overly expensive fence on the border. We don’t need the feds to direct law enforcement operations at local levels. We need the fed gov’t to do its own job, instead of passing the buck to everyone else.

Les says:

May 31st, 2007 at 9:01 am

Bill wrote:
must confess, Les, I simply don’t understand what you are talking about–expiration dates, temporary visas

Bill:
You dont recall writing this:

Anyway–all the cops have to do is check the illegal IMMIGRANT’s I.D. and deport him and his family (caps added)

Sanctuary Policies used by state governments include preventing printing the expiration date of visa’s on resident alien DL’s and other documents. You refered to the cop checking ID’s.

I did misread your position on the employers.

Bsimon:
Couldn’t agree more that the federal government should fund it’s own efforts, but I dont see this bill calling for an unfunded mandate, it only ALLOWS the local authorties to ask the question. If the ICE isn’t picking up groups of less that 10, then we have an additional problem, which should also be addressed.

I feel sorry for empoyers. Their damned if they do and damned if they dont. Sometimes it just depends on whose on the other end of the phone when they call… Kinda like the IRS, and when I deal with the SSA concerning my son.

parthian says:

May 31st, 2007 at 9:16 am

I think this blog has been given up on by the hosts.

What think?

Les says:

May 31st, 2007 at 9:47 am

Seems that way.

I suppose they’re busy doing “more with less” since the downsizings.

Bill Prendergast says:

May 31st, 2007 at 10:45 am

I saw Mr. Tice’s picture on the back of a milk carton this morning.

Let’s hope they’re okay, wherever they are.

Anyway, Les:
“Sanctuary Policies used by state governments include preventing printing the expiration date of visa’s on resident alien DL’s and other documents. You refered to the cop checking ID’s.”

I simply didn’t know that, about the policy of forbidding printing of expiration dates on their documents. Is that a long standing policy? My parents were resident aliens (in the country legally) from about 1958-1970 or so, when they became citizens. All their children were born in the US while they were resident aliens.

I was just a kid, I don’t know whether their documents had expiration dates or not, all I know was that they were required to register every year.

parthian says:

May 31st, 2007 at 11:56 am

More developments in the Heffelfinger/US attorneygate situation today—check out TPM, which reports on a big LA Times story.

Basically the evidence is showing that attempts by US attorneys to protect Indian voting rights and oppose Repub “voter fraud” nonsense tarnished their position within DOJ as “loyal Bushies” and likely led to their being put on the “To Be Fired” list. Just as many here thought.

swschrad says:

May 31st, 2007 at 1:06 pm

it was nice of Scripps to rent the Strib a desk and coathook in Washington to restaff the bureau in the nation’s capitol. they lost their decades-old space to McClatchy in the merger and resale.

“just business.”

which is what the present administration seems to consider the deification efforts for one dubya and his buddies.

and you look at how it turns out, and who gains..

“just business.”

Bill Prendergast says:

May 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pm

From the LA times story on Heffelfinger/Paulose situation:

“WASHINGTON – For more than 15 years, Tom Heffelfinger was the embodiment of a tough Republican prosecutor. Serving as U.S. attorney for Minnesota from 1991 to 1993 and from 2001 to 2006, he won a series of high-profile white-collar-crime and gun and explosives cases. By the time he resigned last year, his office had collected a string of awards and commendations from the Justice Department.
So it came as a surprise — and something of a mystery — when he turned up on the list of U.S. attorneys who had been targeted for dismissal.

Part of the reason, government documents and other evidence suggest, is that he tried to protect Indians’ voting rights.

At a time when GOP activists wanted U.S. attorneys to concentrate on pursuing voter-fraud cases, Heffelfinger’s office was expressing deep concern about a state directive that could have the effect of discouraging Indians in Minnesota from casting ballots.

Citing requirements in a new state law intended to prevent voter fraud, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Indians living outside reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver’s licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes’ picture IDs.”

parthian says:

May 31st, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Bit of a shame our local “lib’rul” media couldn’t have dug out this story, eh?

Les says:

May 31st, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Bill forgot the rest of the article:

From the LA times story on Heffelfinger/Paulose situation. (as printed in the Strib)

—Heffelfinger said he would not speculate whether the matter played a role in his name being put on any dismissal lists, but he called the idea “a pretty large leap.”I don’t see it that way,” he said.

Suspicion of Indian voter fraud was strong among Republicans in the Upper Midwest in advance of the 2004 election. The GOP blamed what it said was fraud on Indian reservations for the narrow victory of South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson over Republican John Thune in 2002.

‘suggest’ away, but the ‘victim’ doesnt even believe it. And of course, we all know that politics in the Indian reservations are all above board, now dont we.

Justin C. Adams says:

May 31st, 2007 at 4:54 pm

So this hasn’t anything to do with anything, but I was just at a function to recognize volunteers who participated at Patrick Henry High over the past year.

Some of you may remember that they put on political forums during the election cycle last time around – I’m pretty sure there was a Gubinatorial debate schedled for the forum at one point but it was canceled on short notice as neither Gov candidate particularly liked debating. They had a couple dozen of them, with probably more than 100 candidates total who visited.

We all got invited to this event, but only one other candidate showed up – Mary Kiffmeyer. Probably should have taken the oppurtunity to say thanks for the notice of nomination she signed. I suppose you all will never forgive me for not finding out what she plans to do next.

Anyway, like I said, not germain to anything, but it’s almost open thread friday now, isn’t it?

Les says:

May 31st, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Justin;

Kuddo’s to the HS kids.

O.T. says:

May 31st, 2007 at 8:53 pm

i do find it odd that heffel himself said he had no problems with kiffmeyer but yet that is not mentioned anywhere in this article- talk about conspiracy theories.

Justin C. Adams says:

June 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am

Man. I really should have gone and talked to Madam Secretary.

I don’t see what is so outlandish about this theory.

Surely the posters here are aware of the various intimidation, resourse allocation, and out and out wrongful scrubbing of voter rolls which have occured across the country since 2000.

Surely they are aware of the statistical insignificance of the actual voter fraud cases in the outcomes of anything and how illogical it would be to use extensive DoJ resources on these few cases.

Surely they are aware that ‘voter fraud’ is a phrase which could be construed as newspeak for ‘voter suppression’, even if they would argue that elected officials, because of their enormous competency and uniform desire to act in good faith against their own personal best interest would not use the term ‘voter fraud’ in this newspeak way.

Thankfully, I’m just a ‘conspiracy theorist’, ergo, my wacky, cocktail party lightening ideas don’t really need to be taken seriously, and we can just go on having fixed elections.

Hurray.

bsimon says:

June 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am

Justin, that’s the beauty of voter fraud – nobody’s for it. Nevermind that the actual voter fraud rates are so infinitesimally small they’re nearly immeasurable. But when the lefties start talking about voter fraud prosecutions & investigations as voter supression, the lefties come off as being pro-voter fraud, if not outright delusional conspiracy theorists.

Bill Prendergast says:

June 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am

There’s no new topic, so I’m hijacking.

The GOP “hike your property taxes, instead of the rich people’s state income taxes” scam succeeds, again. Democrats wouldn’t go to special session, so:

“City leaders are stomping mad over Pawlenty’s veto of a tax bill that would have increased state aid to local governments. The move left St. Paul with a projected $15 million budget shortfall, one year after closing a $16.5 million gap without layoffs.

Pawlenty vetoed the bill after warning Democratic-Farmer-Labor leaders not to include a provision that would have included inflation in future budget projections…”

“…St. Paul may have to cover its newfound shortfall on the backs of homeowners with a second consecutive tax hike after raising taxes 8.5 percent this year, though a mayoral spokesman said it was too early to say that.

That hike could be painful.

In order to raise $9 million, average St. Paul homeowners would see their property taxes rise $95, according to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5, the union that represents one-third of St. Paul’s city workers.

And that doesn’t count probable increases from other taxing authorities, such as the school district…”

http://tinyurl.com/2l699j

Les says:

June 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Bill; if your hijacking, you should include the rationale from both sides, From the same article:

Pawlenty vetoed the bill after warning Democratic-Farmer-Labor leaders not to include a provision that would have included inflation in future budget projections.

Blame for the city’s woes lies there, Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said.

“They had the time and opportunity to remove it before final passage. Anyone who is upset at the loss of provisions in the tax bill should direct their concerns to DFL legislative leaders who took the bill down through their decisions,” McClung said.
—-

The DFL could of had their funds for local government and property tax relief, and fought this battle at a later date. Rather than doing that, they did the one thing that guaranteed a veto, and not only that, they did it knowing they were plum out of time to even attempt an override. I see it as very poor planing on the DFL’s part.

By the way, can I have a yearly automatic increase built into my funding too?

Justin C. Adams says:

June 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Les, of course you can have the automatic yearly increase too, since it is imaginary.

The bill wouldn’t have directly impacted allocations. It would impact projections, which are used in funding requests.

You also can imagine that your health insurance costs won’t change between now and 2017 while your income does increase and budget accordingly. Thing is, that would lead you to spend your increased income along the way. Then you would need to borrow money to cover the difference when, amazingly, those costs increase, or just chose some of your children not to cover at that time.

Justin C. Adams says:

June 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm

You do, however, have a point about the DFL. They did a terrible job in anticipating the governor’s actions, which is inexcusible as they had been explicitly told what the governor would do. They needed to exert some pressure, somethign I didn’t see much of. I guess they thought they wanted a feel-good session. It cost them their policy objectives to achieve this ‘tone’. It was a bad trade.

Bill Prendergast says:

June 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Les–

There’s no doubt about it–the DFL caved. I’m not posting this here to “defend” the DFL, they can try to do that. I posted it here to remind people what the DFL lost: the chance to roll back or at least limit the property tax burden of folks who work for a living and senior homeowners on fixed incomes and small businesses.

No apologies for the DFL, from me. That doesn’t mean that the Pawlenty/GOP scam isn’t a scam.

Justin–
The DFL *did* anticipate the governor’s actions, they simply decided not to fight him on it. In the same article, local government officials are making noises about calling a special session of some sort. They really need that money, it’s not as if they have fat to cut and they don’t want to raise taxes–but that’s the position they’ve been stuck with, due to the Pawlenty/GOP class war and the cave-in by the DFL.

I think it was a huge political mistake by the DFL to cave. They’ll be blamed for local prop tax hikes and fee increases anyway. So, this one was a win for Pawlenty and the GOP, again.

bsimon says:

June 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm

The governor’s objections to the provision to include inflation in budget forecasts are summed up in his phrase “we don’t want the government on autopilot.” Why not? Since when are autopilots bad things? They do a great job of keeping things flying smoothly by keeping disruptive influences – human interaction – out of the system. It seems like the governor’s preference is to keep meddling in the budget year after year, rather than trying to find a system that works and avoid mucking with it.

Though, in the end, if the governor wants to keep inflation out of budget forecasts, it wouldn’t bother me so much – as long as he also kept inflation out of revenue forcasts. And that’s the rub. The gov wants to plan for the larger revenue (from inflation) without planning for larger expenses (from inflation). For whom is this rational? It doesn’t make sense for me to do it with my personal budget, nor does it make sense for the government to do it for the state.

Bill Prendergast says:

June 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm

“Though, in the end, if the governor wants to keep inflation out of budget forecasts, it wouldn’t bother me so much – as long as he also kept inflation out of revenue forcasts. And that’s the rub.”

Amen.

swschrad says:

June 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm

fact is, it’s just more “creative accounting” on the part of the state.

you and I can’t do that. they’ll reopen the debtors’ prisons, put cattle back at the ramsey county farm and make us muck out the milking stalls.

but government? hey, throw the bills over the fence for the grandkids to take care of, finagle the special funds, fiddle the budgets at midnight on the last day of the session and have “allinfavorallopposedDONEadjournedsinedie, night all!” sessions.

first bill they ought to send over IMHO should be the tax bill. if the legislators don’t like how that turns out, either keep sending it back with the commas moved around, or change it. then send the spending bills in order of importance. when the two balance out, go home.

you can jaw for two and a half months, wait out funding, then whip out the spending bills and be done and actually be productive. and in case of the odd veto or line-item veto, hold hostage whatever the other party wants until you get it resolved.

so you have everything. accountability, voting records, balanced budget, and you are actually making decisions based on public policy, not sneaky-pete tactics.

now, hand me that glass slipper, and I will find me a fairy princess and live happily ever after.

Justin C. Adams says:

June 1st, 2007 at 3:16 pm

I actually agree with Bsimon and Bill that the inflation should be left out of both projetions as inflation as measured by either of the standard guages will predict revenue growth well but will underpredict the increases in cost for services government provide.

Healthcare, education, construction materials, pensions, virtually everything the government spends money on is getting more expensive faster than the average consumer’s cost of liviing is increasing, so including inflation in the revenue and spending projections won’t actually solve the problem of pretend surplusses, which is what I’d really like to see erased with the reform. We should leave inflation off both sides.

And bsimon, ‘autopilot’ is just a lie, isn’t it? See my comment above chideing les.

bsimon says:

June 1st, 2007 at 3:40 pm

To hijack an already highjacked thread, I see the Wash Post mentions our own Senator Coleman prominently in an article about Republicans running from the party, in terms of their voting records. Norm is #2 in the amount of change in his ‘party loyalty’ index, among Republicans. If he’s the consistently moderate guy he claims to be, shouldn’t the reverse be true? With his party in control, you’d think a moderate would disagree more, but the opposite is true. Odd, that.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/coleman_smith_republicans_runn.html

Les says:

June 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm

I’m not trying to defend the Govenors position, Although I must say I understand what he is against, because as a former GI, I routinely added inflation to our yearly budgets, and guess what, we didnt necessarily need to. We did, however, buy lots of goodies at the end of Sept, ’cause we had to use it or lose it. For if you lost it, you can bet your bottom dollar you were not gonna be funded at the same level come Oct 1.

But that isnt even all of my point. If the DFL wanted this fight, they should have forwarded the budget up for veto about 60 days ago, and then did it again 30 days ago. It’s the waiting for the last minute that really irks me. This is one of the primary tasks they have every 2 years, and they didnt do it. They did, however, finds ways to get into peoples personal lives with their “right to discriminate” law.

And yes, if he leaves it out of spending projections, then he needs to leave it out for revenue projectionis.

Beleive it or not guys, I didnt vote for the guy.

O.T. says:

June 4th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Les, I remember on mutiple occasions going out with 4-5 fellow soldiers and firing off more than a million rounds of m16 and m60 rounds just so we could justify the budget for the next year. And too, I would go to the s-4 supply building and purchase $250,000 worth of office and safety supplies in September and then stored them so our budget stayed the same or rose.

This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.

We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.

Follow The Big Question on Twitter Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.