What to do if Minnesota loses a seat a Congress?
July 6th, 2007 – 10:13 AM by D.J. Tice
According to this Associated Press story there is at least some chance that Minnesota could lose a congressional seat after the 2010 census.
The concern sounds speculative at this point. But sooner or later, population trends are likely to cost the state a seat in the U.S. House. When it happens a fierce redistricting battle will follow — and the issues raised will not be simple.
Some Minnesota community of interest, belief or place would see its representation in Washington diluted. Those communities could crudely be defined as the Iron Range (currently dominant in 1 seat); farm country (2 seats); central cities (2 seats); and suburbia/exurbia (3 seats).
One question sure to arise if and when a seat is lost is whether the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul should be combined in a single urban district instead of each anchoring a district of its own. For now, each city is large enough to dominate a district, which means two Minnesota House members are highly attuned to city concerns. But in time, one or both cities will find itself a minority interest within a district dominated by suburban voters.
Would that matter? Or would it best to keep two districts in which urban interests were important?
Would diluting farm country representation, or surburban representation, or Iron Range representation be more fair, or more prudent?
Keeping in mind that individual House members, by political necessity, are most sensitive to the views and best interests of voters in their own districts, what division of the state would result in the best representation of the broad interests of Minnesota as a whole?
73 Responses to "What to do if Minnesota loses a seat a Congress?"
There’s no good solution to losing a seat and the determining factor will be who is in power when the decision must be made. If the R’s are in control, you can say goodbye to either the 4th or the 5th. If the D’s are in control, it will likely be the end of the 2nd or the 6th. I don’t see the Range losing its seat and the current 1st and 7th are so vast geographically that it would be deeply problematic to serve those areas.
My guess is the two districts that would be most vulnerable would be the 4th (Minneapolis trumps St. Paul) and the 6th (southern suburbs trump northern suburbs).
Combine Minneapolis and St. Paul into the same congressional district.
I would suggest that if we simply got an accurate headcount of all the people actually living here, we are in no danger of losing a seat in the first place. Too many people flying under the radar right now.
The playing around with the congressional delegations at the margins will continue for a while longer. A short term concern as the monumental forces overtake us.
Conventional thinking has been that the sunbelt migration will continue unabated forever. But our selfish, willful decesion to destroy the earth’s climate will very likely change that trend not all that far into the future.
Most of Redstate Murica is only inhabitable now because of year round air conditioning and abusive water projects. As the livable temperate climate belts advance north, and as the increasing fury and frequency of global warming driven super-storms and hurricanes increases, the great sunbelt migration will cease and start to reverse as people seek to escape these hell-holes of ever increasing heat and destructive weather.
The breakdown of society that can be expected with the unsolvable energy crisis that is now upon us also will not favor crappy Red State America, with its tradition of weak, underfunded state governments and nay-saying, visionless, government-hating “conservative” citizenry. To the extent a state has large numbers of such brain dead “citizens”, it will fare very poorly in the upcoming barrage of crisis.
And of course we have no idea where the rain patterns will go as our 11,000 year old stable climate (which has been a great blessing to Murica) is destroyed.
These likely trends will cause some insurmountable problems for the (to now) increasing populations of the solid Repub South—our current “Confederacy” and the enthusiastic author of our national decline.
I will take parthain’s comments a step further and suggest that we sell the red states to Mexico, buying Canada (except for Quebec) to replace them.
My take:
Let’s have a BUNCH of babies.
What an incredibly transparent plan to maximize Republican power!
It’s gotta be babies.
Interesting catagorization.
Suburbia/exurbia should not be combined. Suburbia is urban. Exurbia is rural. Similarly, the range and farm country is rural.
I would apportion according to population along the lines of urban/rural. 5 Urban, 2 Rural. 1) Duluth and Surroundings, 2) St. Paul and Surroundings, 3) Minneapolis north and 1st ring suburbs to the north of lake street, 4) Bloomington and the rest of Minneapolis and 1st ring minneapolis suburbs 5) Rochester and Surroundings. 6) North and West Minnesota (the North Woods) and 7) Farm Country.
What is not being reported is how much other states cheat in census. I have a friend who was fired in Florida for bringing up the issue of duplicate entries.
is rural? are rural. sorry
“What an incredibly transparent plan to maximize Republican power!”
Based on census numbers ?!!@!? I’m curious, Grace……did your friend in Florida say whether the duplicate entries they were seeing in the database were Republican voters? Or traditionally Democrat supporters?
John E lacono: “My take:
Let’s have a BUNCH of babies.”
Don’t worry, John. This course of action is already being adopted. It will also make Grace and some others very happy to know that the resulting offspring should keep the Democrats firming entrenched in Minnesota for generations to come!
Don’t forget that the nouveau power of the suburban third-ring/exurbs is doomed to collapse in the near future.
These absurd, ugly asteroid belts (author James Kunstler’s phrase) exist solely because of an oil glut that occurred from 1985-2002. Gas prices were very low, we foolishly did not tax it, and instead allowed these far flung commuter bedroom “communities” to be “developed” all over Murica, where the residents think nothing of driving over a hundred miles a day, usually in an enormous gas guzzler.
The days of cheap gas are now gone for good, never to return. These 100 mile “commutes” will not be affordable for many of the current residents however sensible a vehicle they may buy, and population will start moving back to the higher density first-ring burbs and core cities.
Real estate prices in these far flung exurbs are going to implode over the next decade. They will become abandoned half-ghost towns, just like the little failed prairie towns we’ve all driven through.
Their current political power simply will not be sustainable in the face of the catastrophic energy crisis that looms before us, and their construction of only a decade of so ago will be seen by history as one of the stupidest waste of resources any society has ever undertaken.
Another great success story of the infallible “free market” and the ever helpful wealthy speculators. But it should end the exurban districts of GOoPers Kline and Bachmann.
The libs are a bit grumpy again today. I wonder if someone sang “God Bless America” at a 4th of July parade or something…
Parthian – funny how “crappy Redstate” continues to thrive. People enjoy being self empowered to succeed or fail on their merits. As far as your predictions, thanks for the laugh. I will keep my kids away from the “abusive water projects” as much as I can. In the meantime, watch your lib controlled areas decline: Duluth, the Iron Range, any major US city… Why? Because of poverty, crime and lack of opportunity. Go to the Redstates young men and thrive.
Cash N. Carey:
Do you mean Red states like Kansas and Nebraska?
“Kansas, like many other states in the Great Plains has seen an out-migration of people from rural areas to urban areas. This has been going on for almost 100 years in some counties. In fact, Kansas has quite a few ghost towns from a distant past when larger numbers of people lived in small towns instead of left them. Another problem is that large numbers of younger people have been leaving the rural areas in search of employment in larger urban areas. Many younger people have been leaving this state when they receive their College degree in search of high paying jobs.
Many counties in Kansas have lost close to 10% of their population in the last 5 years alone mainly due to out-migration. A lot of these counties are now qualified as “frontier counties” because their are fewer than 6 people per square mile. I suggest that if individual counties want to get stronger than more consolidation has to take place. A possibility would be to combine counties and form several larger counties, similar to what Nebraska has. Consolidation will be the key word in the coming years for Kansas and other Great Plains states as the rural populations lose ever larger numbers of people and the total populations become more centralized in the larger and smaller metro areas.
What have been your experiences with rural decline, and how can consolidation and possibly increased rural economic development help these rural areas?”
from:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/kansas/75622-rural-kansas-decline.html
Obviously, these people are missing amazing opportunities. You’re funnin’ us aren’t you?
In answer to Mr. Tice’s Big Question, assuming Minnesota loses a Congressional seat, is to allocate the remaining votes according to the one person/one vote principle of Reynolds v. Sims. That would mean more, not fewer votes, for Minneapolis/St. Paul. That would, as a matter of fact, not ideology, result in more “liberals”/Democrats, under historic trends, as most of us know.
But nothing is fixed in stone. The Republican Party/conservatives have an equal right to obyain voyes there as any other party. Except for ideology. Republican/coinservative ideology holds that you have to tilt the rules so that they can win. That’s why they are opposed to Reynolds v. Sims and any outcome that would “dilute” rural voting districts because it would mean their constituency would be unable to exercise more power than merely one person/vote allows.
Minnesotans don’t get high quality representation in Congress anyway, so big deal.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
parthian: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people (like me) don’t live in 3rd ring suburbs simply because they can afford the drive. We live there because we like the idea of our kids playing in the yard and not getting shot. I’m all for higher gas prices because it makes our communiites even less affordable for metro commuters. High gas prices will make 3rd ring suburbs home to the people who either a) have always lived there and/or grew up there and are empoloyed there, and b) people who could afford $30/gallon gas for their SUV……either way, my kids are more safe, relative to north Minneapolis. If my house falls to half its current value, I’m okay with that because I don’t plan on leaving for at least 20 more years. By then, I’m told we’ll be out of oil, so there won’t be any gas for sale, and you’ll need to conjure up a new reason to dislike the suburbs. Truth be told, many people in 3rd ring suburbs hate the fact that there are so many metro commuters “living” in our communities.
Jay, sounds like you’d be happier in a colony on the moon. Then you’d really be away from the riffraff.
Jay, I’m delighted to hear that there is bitterness, dislike and rancor among the “natives” and the “commuters” in the (once) nice small rural communities that have been turned into ugly asteroid belt exurbs by wealthy capitalist “developers”. A shame that so many government-hating, Repub-supporting, environment-despising “conservatives” lived out there to begin with, as their dumb-a** politics enabled the foolish construction of the asteroid belt.
But your observations support my theory that these “communities” are fake, artificial constructs which will break apart fairly quickly as the energy crisis deepens. And that their current political power, which is benefitting only Repubs, is transient.
Cash, I’m very glad to provide you with the belly-laughs. When the economic tsunami that is bearing down on you obliterates your placid, ugly little exurb, at least you can’t say you weren’t warned, ha-ha!
Maybe we should do like the liberals suggest and allow the illegal aliens here to vote. We already have ballots in Spanish. I also like the Florida voter fraud suggestion which democrats have there have mastered.
I have to join Jay in this discussion, but for different reasons:
I HATE to be crammed so close to my neighbors on 50 foot lots with no yards to speak of. And I would sooner live in a tent than in an apartment or condo complex. (I have lived in both situations, and hated it then as well.)
I HATE having no place to park my car even on good days, and especially when snow or some public event makes me find a place or pay, pay, pay.
I HATE having to use my brakes every ten seconds as the jumble of cars I am tied up in moves slowly from stop light to stop light.
I HATE having to pay to park to go anywhere — I just won’t “Pay to Play” so I don’t go where parking is not provided.
I HATE having to walk blocks and blocks from a parking spot to where I am going when I know just a few miles out I can probably park fifty feet from my destination.
I HATE old, delapidated buildings and dirty streets filled with litter from uncaring neighbors.
I HATE being affronted with wierd gang signs everywhere I look (though a few have sometimes appeared in our town of late).
I HATE the smell of corruption that seems to float around big city government offices.
I am not RICH enough to afford those huge, sheltered mansions around the lakes, but I LOVE living near water.
I HATE paying the inflated prices city vendors have to charge because of inflated rents, taxes, inspection orders, and “bakshish,” and high rates of pilferage and returns abuse by those who live nearby.
I HATE the stench of city buses, their pushy ways on the street, their grungy interiors complete with obnoxious passengers, and their total inability to make and maintain reasonable schedules in spite of millions in subsidies. And they don’t go where I’m going most of the time. If they do, it will take five times as long as just driving or biking there.
I LOVE to have room in my yard for gardening and recreation without worrying about hitting the house next door.
I LOVE being able to park off the street, and having a garage when it’s cold (even though I seldom use it).
I LOVE living among people who mostly (like me) are either working or retired.
I LOVE seeing people able to take walks with their pets and their kids without having to fear being accosted or shot.
I LOVE being able to get from place to place (though it is often farther) with relative ease — crowds only at Christmastime, wide streets, fewer stop signs, pleasant views.
I can’t speak to the schools, but our suburb is not consistently failing in that regard.
I was hoping Dare would show up.
Nope. We would lose more seats here in Minnesota if migrants were permitted to vote, since southern states have more migrants in them.
I’m not familiar with the Democratically mastered Florida voter fraud suggestion – could you refresh my memory?
Anti-Spanish Language sentiment confuses me.
Christopher Columbus sailed under the Spanish flag. The first permanant settlement in the United States was St. Augustine Florida, settled by Spaniards. Spain has a leading role in our heritage.
I understand the arguement from SouthPark – “they took r jobz!” and I understand the need for a closed border and proper accounting of who is in the nation at any given time, but the idea that legal citizens who speak another language should have to be literate in english before being given sufferage seems just meanspirited for no good reason.
Native English speakers who are illterate in English have the right to vote – they have the right to have someone help them interpret the ballot. It would cost more to print only English ballots and hire a bunch of Spanish interpreters – why on earth would you suggest we should not have spanish language ballots, unless you wanted Spanish speaking Americans to be barred from voting?
Are you saying that the democrats have been making a bunch of duplicate entries in the census rolls (ala Grace Kelly’s remark above) to increase the electoral votes controlled by Florida?
Because that just doesn’t make any sense. I’m pretty sure Democrats everwhere wish that Florda had 3 electoral college votes.
Yeah, okay, you guys can’t stretch this “are we going to lose a congressional seat/I love/hate the suburbs†thing much longer. That last comment is seven hours old, and you’re already down to dare2sayit’s terror of immigrants. So parenthetically, here are some of the stories that didn’t make it as Big Questions this weekend:
Two about Fred Thompson, both bad news for Fred.
1) It turns out he was a “pro-choice†lobbyist before he was a Senator. That’s right, he’s left a trail all over the place that he lobbied for a woman’s right to choose abortion. He left that off his conservative resume. (Google “Fred Thompson†“Judith DeSarno†in Google News.)
2) It also turns out that while he was supposed be investigating the Nixon White House, Fred was leaking the investigating committee’s information to Nixon and meeting secretly to talk with Nixon’s lawyer to discuss what questions the investigating committee would ask the White House. Also, Nixon thought Fred was “dumb†and a “5h1t.†(Google “Fred Thompson†“Fred Buzhardt†in Google News.)
More leading Republicans are bailing out of the Bush Iraq War boat. The Senate’s the leakiest. A couple of weeks ago it was Lugar, the former Senate foreign policy chief. This week he was joined by Domenici, R-AZ, who’s been in the Senate 35 years. It’s turning into a GOP pile-on to get our troops out of Iraq. The reason? No, it’s not a concern with more lost lives of American troops, the proliferation of terror and the ineffectuality of the war, and it’s certainly not because of all the Iraq civilians that have died. It’s because they’re worried about the election chances of the GOP in 2008. I kid you not!
(Google this headline in Google news: “A GOP discord on Bush’s Iraq strategyâ€Â)
Finally, here’s Bugsy with an update on the Libby commutation:
(Commutin’ Libby’s sentence an’ springin’ him outta jail so’s he wouldn’t put da finger on Big Dick didn’t get da Chimp off the hook with da big boys in da consoivative movement. Dey wanted Libby ta get a full pardon, see? Dey tink that Big Dick and da Chimp dat it was a mistake not ta take the pardon issue off da media table an’ out of da newsâ€â€da Chimp shoulda just got it over wit and granted da pardon instead a leavin’ it hangin’ in da air, get me? Da consoivative boys use ta be Big Dick’s biggest fans, but apparently dose days are gone. (Google dis headline in da Google News section: “Cheney fatigue settles over some in GOPâ€Â)
John, that post was beautiful and I agree with just about every love/hate statement. Heres one more -
I lOVE living in a neighborhood that is filled with other people who have to work to be able to afford it. No welfare recipients or crack house here.
Just one question for you, Bill:
Why do you consistantly consider facts that make a candidate more electable (ie more moderate) to be “bad news” for them? If Fred Thompson has some pro-choice views, not only would he not be alone in that regard among Rep front-runners, I would think it might make him a much tougher candidate in the general……unless your point is that it might prevent him from making it out of the primary. I forget, in your world conservatives are not allowed to change their mind on issues like abortion (see: Norm Coleman).
For the record, I’ve come to embrace a different view on abortion than the one I had when I was younger. What does that make me?
Also, this allegedly took place in 1991. I see that Bill is already treating this accusation as fact which is what the driveby liberal media likes to do, throw it out there, true or not and hope it sticks.
heres something funny, kind of sad too:
“The Live Earth concerts could end up generating more carbon dioxide than was produced by all of Afghanistan in 2006.”
O.T.: “No welfare recipients or crack house here.”
Unfortunately, we just have meth houses…..but expensive gas should remedy that as those folks need to move closer to the cities to save money. I also have a question of parthian….if congressional districts are established (at least in large part) based on population, then it is reasonable to assume that the districts are evenly populated. If all of the conservatives from Klein and Bachman country lose their homes due to gas prices as you contend, that means they move to Mpls/StP to cut back on the commute. Doesn’t this “conservative migration” theory put your precious Dem safe-haven districts at risk? You think all the ignorant, wealthy, rednecks from the suburbs will vote for Ellison if they change addresses?
Jay asked:
Why do you consistantly consider facts that make a candidate more electable (ie more moderate) to be “bad news†for them?
Actually, the “bad news” is that Thompson “kept back” the fact that he once lobbied for a pro-choice group. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a politician changing his position on a controversial issue. But what’s “bad news” for Thompson is that he “sat on” that information while courting the support of the evangelical political movement.
He spoke to Council for National Policy in May. They’re kind of like “the millionaire media Vatican” of the religious right. Addressing them is key to obtaining the votes of evangelicals because those guys run most of the evangelical media. I thought it strange at the time that Thompson devoted most of speech to arguing for a pardon for Scooter Libby, instead of talking about issues that are dear to the hearts of the evangelical right–like overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating the right to obtain an abortion during the first trimester. Now we know why Thompson didn’t address that subject.
OT wrote of Thompson’s career as an abortion lobbyist:
“Also, this allegedly took place in 1991. I see that Bill is already treating this accusation as fact which is what the driveby liberal media likes to do, throw it out there, true or not and hope it sticks.”
It doesn’t really matter how I treat it–I was relying on the New York Times and the LA newspapers for the story. As for Thompson, they called him for comment before running it and he declined to say positively either way. The only quote they got out of him was that he had no recollection of it. (That’s funny that Fred said that; it was a favorite phrase of Watergate criminals, remember?)
Unfortunately for Fred, other people do have a recollection of his pro-life lobbying–the story named names and cited documents filled out by Thompson and his campaign staff, including one where Thompson asserts that an American woman has the right to obtain an abortion for the first three months of the pregnancy.
And the stuff about Fred secretly feeding intelligence to Nixon while he was supposed to be investigating him–you guys are wise not to challenge that; that’s on the Watergate tapes.
But now, back to the glories of the suburbs and the inevitable violent death that ensues if you choose to live in the big city–sorry, you guys, I thought you’d talked that all out when I wrote in with the Thompson, Cheney, and Libby updates.
I don’t see why Rebub. candidates need to hide the fact that they think a woman might have the right to choose whether or not to have a child.
As for the label “dumb5h1t,” that is quite troubling and should disqualify Thompson: this country has seen the last 6-and-a-half years how catastrophic it is to have morons in charge.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Now hold on, Michael–Nixon didn’t call Thompson a “dumb5h1t”, all he said was that Thompson was a 5h1t and that he was dumb.
And I don’t go by Nixon’s views of character, anyway. I just put it in there as background, to show what Nixon thought of his secret stoolie on the investigating committee.
Now hold on, Michael–Nixon didn’t call Thompson a “dumb5h1t”, all he said was that Thompson was a 5h1t and that he was dumb.
And I don’t go by Nixon’s views of character, anyway. I just put it in there as background, to show what Nixon thought of his secret stoolie on the investigating committee.
bill, do you think a defense attorney that represents a murderer is pro-murder? or a teacher that instructs on evolution may not neccesarily believe it to be true? otherwise, you really cannot hold a lobbyist to neccessarily believe in what they are pushing. everyone keeps pushing this lobbyist thing, who cares, no one seemed to care klobutcher was one. lobbying was barely a part-time job for him, and if you average out what he made during his career of it- it comes out to be like 30,000 grand a year. michael may even make more than that.
OK, then vote for Thompson. He’d make a great president. Even the rest of the world would be impressed by our nation’s choice, and the terrorists would know they’ve lost.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
D2SI:
Por que te dan tanto miedo los inmigrantes latinoamericanos? Que te han hecho a ti? Acaso tus antepasados no vinieron de otros paises?
Lo que yo veo es que esta gente trabja mas duro que nadie, y que es sumamente emprendedora. Ademas, son catolicos de corazon, y dan suma importancia a la familia, mas que los estadounidenses nacidos aca. Abre tus ojos: los inmigrantes fortalecen nuestro pais, y son clave para el porvenir de nuestro pais! No seas mezquino con ellos.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Uggh! I was just imagining tired old fat a** Thompson in the WH. Just what we need: another vain middle-aged white male who thinks he knows how/is entitled to run Washington. Yuck.
MB
But, seriously, go ahead: vote for Thompson. You won’t regret it.
MB
Actually, MYCHAL Thompson might be OK at the helm of government.
MB
“Just what we need: another vain middle-aged white male who thinks he knows how/is entitled to run Washington.”
He’d be the 44th consecutive one to fit your description.
Civics 101 everyone,
The census is different than voting election registration.
Note the amusing assumption in all of the remarks that my friend could not be REPUBLICAN.
Back to the point, that I believe that other states are using duplicate entries to maximize counts. Unlike the Republicans on this list, I was not suggesting that we also break the law. I am suggesting that we do something to ensure that the census is fairly counted in ALL states.
Enforcing and following the law,
gosh what a concept!
I see OT read Powerline, the lobbyist angle is exactly the one he’s pushing.
But it’s not about him being a lobbyist, it’s about him denying he lobbied for an abortion rights group. Thompsons’s spokesman was quite emphatic about it even if he declined to answer. The spokesman even said there was nothing to prove he did. Oops. Except for those pesky board minutes.
Grace says: “Note the amusing assumption in all of the remarks that my friend could not be REPUBLICAN.”
Grace, no one gives a damn about your friend. The assumption in the remarks, as I read them, is that the fraudulant multiple entries are likely liberals. I’d suggest it is obvious your friend might lean Republican…..otherwise they probably wouldn’t have made an issue of the multiple entries in the first place.
Dora, sorry but I do not read Powerline- I am down to short list of 4-5 sites I even bother to look at anymore- time and sanity constraints. I came up with that all by myself and it rings close to a conversation we all had a while back. The one about being one thing and not letting it affect your work or job performance. If I had the time or patience for you, I would run back and see what you all had to say then, but I do not.
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail.
In a telephone interview, he added: “There’s no documents to prove it, there’s no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn’t happen.” In a separate interview, John E. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.
Sununu said in a telephone interview: “I don’t recall him ever lobbying me on that at all. I don’t think that ever happened. In fact, I know that never happened.”
Thompson was “of counsel” at Arent Fox, not an active partner. According to Corallo, Thompson “may have been consulted by one of the firm’s partners who represented this group in 1991.”
Corallo said it was “not unusual for one lawyer on one side of an issue to be asked to give advice to colleagues for clients who engage in conduct or activities with which they personally disagree.” I suspect that Thompson
had some peripheral discussions with peole at Arent Fox but never took any active role in the lobbying. The sources are some pretty hard left-wing people. They most likely have taken this and made it sound more than it was. Technically, they wouldn’t be lying, “just inflating the truth.”
Posted by: SCSoxFan | Saturday, July 07, 2007 at 02:57 PM
As The Atlantic’s political blogger, Marc Ambinder, points out just today, ” The NYT and the LAT have the same story on the same day….. which means that, yes, one of Thompson’s opponents peddled the story.”
Of course one of Thompson’s opponents peddled the story, that doesn’t mean the story isn’t true. One way we find out the truth about politicians is by the opp research that politicians of the same party do to discredit each other. Nothing wrong with that–so long as the story’s true.
Is it true? OT, it’s funny how Dora charges you with getting your info off a blog instead of a reputable news source, you deny it, and then send in a cut and paste argument from a blog to defend your viewpoint.
But anyway: who cares what Thompson or Sununu says they recall or don’t recall? Since when are those men bywords for credibility? It’s a proven fact that Thompson fed the Nixon White House inside info about the Wategate investigation while he was supposed to be investigating it–why anyone take his word for anything?
And then there’s the documentary evidence: the board minutes from 1991 in which the pro-choice group notes that Thompson had been hired, and stuff like this:
“the questionnaire that he answered during his successful 1994 Senate campaign in Tennessee, Mr. Thompson or his campaign staff checked a box stating that he believed abortion should be legal under any circumstance during the first three months of a pregnancy. In a televised debate the same year, Mr. Thompson appeared to tell the moderator that he personally disagreed with outlawing abortion.”
It’s on tape, like the Nixon stuff! You know that evidence like that doesn’t just disappear simply because it discredits Thompson with the pro-lifers. If he’s denying the evidence and it can be proven by the records–he’s making a BIG political mistake. The pro-lifers might forgive him for being pro-choice in 1991 and then “seeing the light”–but the electorate won’t forgive him for lying about having worked for the pro-choice movement in 2007. Telling another lie is a big mistake, when the records are there to contradict you. You’d think he would have learned that from Watergate, the big stoop.
Sorry, it should have read:
The pro-lifers might forgive him for being pro-choice in 1991 and then “seeing the lightâ€Â–but the electorate won’t forgive him for lying (in 2007) about having worked for the pro-choice movement.
OT, you’re reduced to quoting some anonymous blogger from who knows what site who cherrypicks from the LATImes article portions that support his view and then decides what Thompson did? That’s sad.
Also in the article, “But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.” … “Minutes from the board’s meeting of Sept. 14, 1991  a copy of which DeSarno gave to The Times  say: “Judy [DeSarno] reported that the association had hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration” on the abortion counseling rule.
Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said that DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work and that he had suggested Thompson. He said it was “absolutely bizarre” for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.
“I talked to him while he was doing it, and I talked to [DeSarno] about the fact that she was very pleased with the work that he was doing for her organization,” said Barnes. “I have strong, total recollection of that. This is not something I dreamed up or she dreamed up. This is fact.”
DeSarno said that Thompson, after being hired, reported to her that he had held multiple conversations about the abortion rule with Sununu, who was then the White House chief of staff and the president’s point man on the rule.”
One of Thompson’s opponents. Who could that be? Maybe Guiliani since I read another story saying Thompson hurts Guiliani’s campaign.
Once again OT, you (and the other anonymous blogger) ignore the point. It’s not about whether he lobbied for them, it’s that he has a spokesman adamantly denying it (even though there’s documentation) while he refuses to answer. In the word of his former colleague, that’s “absolutely bizarre”.
And I have no idea what conversation you’re referring to. I doubt I’d ever say it’s a smart thing to lie about something that can be verified.
Who cares about Fred Thompson? The liberals are always telling us how evil the Repubs are and then act outraged by this? C’mon, next thing you know you will be telling us he has a trophy wife, who has appeared in form fitting gowns! Is America ready for a trophy wife as first lady?
Back to the original big question – combine Minneapolis and St. Paul districts. The liberals would be happy to be down to one failed district that they can lead. Lead in crime rate, lead in low school test scores, lead in poverty rate, lead in requests for more funding,……
“Combine the Mpsl and St Paul districts…”
That’ll be the last thing that ever happens, Cash, for the energy crisis reasons given above, which you have no comment on, other than the usual “conservative” bury-your-head-in-the-sand blanket laughter-denial.
The tsunami is comin’, Cash…..
According to IRNA, the official Islamic Republic news agency, the national Police chief has implicitly verified the news about the confiscation of a number of squirrels, equipped with eavesdropping devices, on the Iranian borders. He has declined to give any more details, but, reportedly, when asked about the confiscation of 14 spy squirrels, he stated, “I have heard about it, but I do not have precise informationâ€Â. IRNA adds, “These squirrels were equipped by foreign intelligence services, but were captured two weeks ago by the Policeâ€Â.
I would wager these squirrels have more balls and intelligence than the liberals in the house and senate.
OT–
Laughing out loud. I didn’t know where you were going with that “secret squirrels” thing.
But if what you say is true, you should bring a bunch of them over here and run them as GOP candidates. They could win in the 6th district, if they’re pro-life.
The clever, highly trained spy squirrels no doubt would have done a spectacular job, far better than the obvious lies we received from “Curveball” and the Iraqi National Congress con-men, which the Bushco neo-con geniuses supposedly “believed.”
And the demonic Iranian evil-doers can’t understand the American squirrel dialect, so whatever “our squirrels” may reveal under torture will be useless! More neo-con brilliance!
Unfortunately, our Dear Leader would of course be forced to ignore the squirrels’ solid intelligence if it didn’t support his pre-conceived policy of attacking Iran before the end of his term, so their heroic squirrelly valor and bravery likely would have been wasted by Bushco anyway.
Um, why exectly was this posted by OT? It’s not remotely amusing, and so far out in left field that it’s remarkable even for the good inspector….
It’s not remotely amusing, Parthian? You see no humor of being accused of having spy squirrels? You can’t even make up stuff this good.
So where is the new big question? My suggestion is a discussion on the Star Tribune heading “Iraqi foreign minister warns of civil war if U.S. leaves, says Turkish troops massed at border”.
Hello, we ARE in the middle of an Iraq civil war? There is no “warns of” or any future tense.
The “surge” is just encouraging the civil war, getting our troops killed and wasting huge amounts of federal money and destroying our military capacity.
Gosh if we pull out, maybe there will be a crisis where people either compromise or fight. Our troops are spending their lives to just get the middle of an Iraq/Iraq disagreement. If we truly believe in national sovereignty and democracy, we should let the Iraq people work it out.
Unlike what the Star Tribune says in “warns of”, the IS civil war and we should get out of the way.
Grace probably knows more of what is going then a person who is actually there.
Parthian, sorry if the “humor” wasn’t up to your standards- i am sure you only laugh at Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. How about poetry?
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a##
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid.
Put these words
upon his tomb,
‘Taxes drove me
to my doom…’
When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
I’ll tell you what happened. We started taking care of everyone else, and forgot our own.
Quite a heartfelt (if slightly insane) ode to Tax Hatred, OT.
Yes, back to the paradise of the 1890s! Ladies, stay home and raise those kids, it’ll reduce taxes!
OT
Oh, that is so sad that you think this:
What happened?
I’ll tell you what happened. We started taking care of everyone else, and forgot our own.
Nah, that’s not what happened. What happened is, we ran out of “free land giveaways” by the federal government, because there was no more land on the continent to take away from the Indians.
And we started having serious economic depressions in the 1890s, because there was competition from the world market. The rich guys got tariffs (a tax on foreign goods) to keep out the competition, but the farmers didn’t so they went bust or became progressive (in your words, “started taking care of everyone else.”)
And the local governments were shooting American strikers who were protesting pay cuts and the cheap immigrant labor that the businessmen were bringing in to take their jobs.
I think what you are remembering is some Judy Garland musical, OT. The reality is that yeah, there were no taxes, but people died younger and weren’t “middle class.” America may have had the largest middle class in the world at the time–but it wasn’t the largest middle class ever–it didn’t become the largest middle class ever until after the liberals took over and all those taxes you bitch about went into effect.
OT, the last (and only) time the US didn’t have any national debt was when Andrew Jackson was president. Exactly how old is that poem?
It wasn’t that long ago that a couple did not both have to work at least one job each and live fairly well.
Does anyone else think that as soon as e85 is a majority of the cars that there will suddenly be a need for a huge tax increse on it, therefore negating any financial advantage. there is already rumblings of carbon taxes to offset global warming.
Speaking of the middle class and all the glories of it/because of it, i have a question for you data-types out there. I might struggle to convert my thoughts to words here, but bear with me.
Is there a greater or lesser difference between the median income/worth and the richest income/wroth today versus decades ago? I’m wondering if the difference in dollars between Rockefellar/Morgan and your average working stiff back then was greater or lesser than the spread between Gates/Buffett and your average working stiff of today, adjusted for infaltion to arrive at an “apples-to-apples” ratio of some sort.
I’m not even sure what, if any value there is to looking at that piece of data, it was just a question that passed through my head this morning; and rather than spend my time looking it up, I figured I would put some of you to work on it, if you don’t have anything better to do.
O.T. asks: “Does anyone else think that as soon as e85 is a majority of the cars that there will suddenly be a need for a huge tax increse on it, therefore negating any financial advantage.”
First of all, there is no financial advantage to negate of E85 versus unleaded 10% blend that we have today. E85 actually costs more (adjusted for mileage efficiency) than unleaded due to inadequate supply of ethanol. Assuming that changes eventually, I don’t think there will be a *need* to increase tax on it, but there certainly will be the *opportunity* to do so. This is all politicians really need to impliment taxes. So to answer your question, yes. We should all expect tax increases on anything that enough people use in volume.
Jay writes
“Is there a greater or lesser difference between the median income/worth and the richest income/wroth today versus decades ago? I’m wondering if the difference in dollars between Rockefellar/Morgan and your average working stiff back then was greater or lesser than the spread between Gates/Buffett and your average working stiff of today, adjusted for infaltion to arrive at an “apples-to-apples†ratio of some sort.”
I don’t know the answer. I recall reading that the last time the disparity was as high as it is now was in the 30′s. I believe that means we’ve not yet reached the same level of disparity that existed then.
A cynic might say that the ruling class has become better at giving the non-ruling class just enough that they’ve not yet overthrown the ruling class. I’ve not yet read the book, but understand that “What’s the matter with Kansas?” investigates the subject, by studying why the people of Kansas vote against their economic self-interests (i.e. a bunch of working-class people voting for the GOP).
Parthian said, several days ago
“And of course we have no idea where the rain patterns will go as our 11,000 year old stable climate (which has been a great blessing to Murica) is destroyed.”
So, the Big Question we should really be asking is: where is the rain going to be falling in 10 years?
OT wrote:
It wasn’t that long ago that a couple did not both have to work at least one job each and live fairly well.
That’s right, it wasn’t that long ago. The last time it was really like that was the late 1960s. The Dems had been running the Congress for thirty years. Through liberal economic policies they had turned what had been an American working class into an American middle class–the rise in the standard of living, the biggest middle class in the world, health care for the elderly, a guaranteed retirement income.
Things started to go bad on Nixon’s watch. Inflation, failure to grow the economy. The malaise continued under Ford and Carter; that’s when being a stay-at-home mom became less of an option, if a family ever wanted to get free of debt.
The electorate reacted to the malaise by electing a conservative, for a change. Ronald Reagan. And he helped to get the economy going: by engaging in liberal economics. He reneged on his pre-election promise to operate on a balanced budget and engaged in a deficit spending to create prosperity on a scale not seen since the New Deal. He redistributed the tax burden to future taxpayers and to his successors in office who were forced to raise taxes to pay for what Reagan had borrowed to create the 80s prosperity.
Ya see, OT–conservative or liberal, if you want to prosper, it’s all about that regulating, taxing and spending. If you don’t understand that, you’re going to disappointed by the guys you vote for, over and over and over again, for the rest of your life.
This is way off-topic but does anyone know how to figure the square footage of a circle? Lets say it is approx 425 square feet total- what is the radius? any math whizzes out there?
isn’t that pi-r-squared? My keyboard doesn’t have a “pi” symbol.
Don’t take my word for it, but I think your radius would be about 11.6ft. I went to public school, so doublecheck that.
after a brief search, I think I’m right about that. Call it apx 11’7 1/2″ radius (23ft 3in across).
thanks jay- had a bit of a jam finding the equation.
No problem. I guess a public school education in out-state MN pays off after all. I assume the reason more people didn’t respond to you was that we need more tax dollars directed at our education system. More taxes makes everything better.
More people didn’t respond because you correctly answered OT’s question.
Duh.
Your’re right…..”Duh,” indeed. We need more tax dollars directed at schools so peole don’t turn out to be idiots like me.
My take on taxes:
Taxes are needed to fund government.
Discussion about taxes is really a discussion about the proper role of government.
In the 1930′s it was clear to most people that the government had to take a more active role to avoid the risk of total economic collapse, and laws were passed, and taxes increased to fund the new roles.
However, as with most good initiatives, there was a down side. Politicians discovered they could win a VOTE by taking from one person to give to another, and we were on our way to funding research into mosquito bites.
I sense that most people find acceptable most taxes where they end up on the receiving end, and unacceptable those where they end up on the short end. Writers even keep score by state.
What should happen, instead, is a discussion on what the proper role of a limited government is, and funding should be adjusted to the redefined need.
Because politicians now know they can buy a VOTE with a program and a tax, there is little hope this will truly happen, in my opinion.
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.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1184)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)