Occasional MN Governor Tim Pawlenty is about to sign an absentee ballot reform bill into law. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie pushed the effort through the state legislature. The bill will set uniform standards statewide for evaluating absentee ballots ... this was a major Republican complaint during the recount.
Here's Republican party chair Tony Sutton back in November 2009 commenting on the new absentee ballots which are easier to understand:
"Today's window dressing from Mark Ritchie can't change the fact that Minnesota's absentee ballot system remains broken. ... As a result of Ritchie's unacceptable failure to properly train local election officials, Minnesotans have been subject to appalling disparities in how absentee ballots are counted across the state."
[emphasis added]
(Star Tribune)
Republican MN-GOV candidate Tom Emmer was paradoxically outraged by this bill's passage.
Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, voted against the election bill. Emmer, a GOP candidate for governor, said the measure lets the state take away too much local control.
"Our local officials are supposed to be in charge of their elections. Let's stop taking away that authority," Emmer said. "There's going to be one day when they wake up and say how did this happen? How did we turn all of this over to somebody else, and why are we operating under these not only ludicrous but onerous burdens that we've let somebody else create for us?"
(MPR)
Why is Emmer contradicting his own party line? That's because Emmer is running for higher office and is trying to separate himself from his opponent, Marty Seifert. Actually, Emmer used to support statewide absentee ballot procedures.
Republican lawmakers also question the process. Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, says putting Supreme Court justices on the Canvassing Board forces them to bow out of the later, and binding, legal process that follows a recount.
He adds the board's deference to local elections officials made for troubling disparities from one place to another.
"How can you say you've done your job if it's true that there are counties where rejected absentee ballots were counted, and there are other counties where rejected absentee ballots weren't counted? Wouldn't you do it the same in every county? There's just too much grey," said Emmer.
[emphasis added]
(MPR)
Apparently, flip flops are standard practice for Republicans running for higher office.
Despite having only two real contenders, the Republican Party's endorsement fight figures to be just as (if not more) interesting than its DFL counterpart.
Brian Sullivan and Vin Weber announced today that they're backing Tom Emmer's bid for governor. The two said Emmer is best suited to bring together all factions of the GOP. Both Weber and Sullivan may not be known too well to the general public but they're well known in GOP circles.
In terms of their voting records, State Representatives Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer really haven't been that dissimilar: in the past four sessions, they've been in the same small minority, supporting the same vetoes from Tim Pawlenty and not doing much else.
So it's interesting that the movers and shakers in the GOP's conservative wing are flocking to Emmer, while Seifert -- who theoretically should be pulling plenty of conservatives to his side for leading the way in blocking the DFL's legislative agenda -- hasn't gotten a whole lot of their support.
In the end, if Seifert wins the endorsement, does all this make Seifert look more moderate, and better geared for a general election? Do conservatives stay home because Emmer isn't the endorsee? The answer to both questions is probably "no," but it's still interesting to watch. In a race that should have been a cakewalk for someone running from Seifert's position, news like this makes things a lot less sure.
Now that the biggest question for the General Assistance Medical Care extension bill is whether or not Tim Pawlenty's veto can be overridden, which GOP State Reps might vote to override?
Keep an eye on Marty Seifert.
His right flank is under assault from Tom Emmer in the GOP gubernatorial endorsement race -- despite the fact that the vast majority of the GOP caucus voted for the bill, I don't think Emmer will be an override vote. His base is the conservative wing of the conservative party, and he's a fairly strong ideological figure in that area.
But Seifert? If he
Thinks he's fairly safe in the endorsement race
Is looking to establish moderate cred for the long haul of the gubernatorial race
Thinks he needs a way to differentiate himself from outgoing Gov. Pawlenty
then I think there's a reasonable bet that he and two or three of his Republican colleagues can be enticed into voting to override Pawlenty's veto.
There have been lots of fundraising numbers flying around in the past couple of weeks as gubernatorial candidates look to spin their prowess on the donor circuit into positive press and grassroots support. But can we compare their numbers on an apples-to-apples basis?
Sure. Here's how (and a big thanks goes to Robin Marty for helping me assemble these numbers).
This might be a little difficult to read, so let's break it down: the columns you'll want to watch closely are all the way to the right, in Dollars Per Month and Dollars Per Donor.
The idea here is that candidates started raising money at different times from different people, so we want to get an idea of how quickly they're raising it and from whom -- a higher Dollars Per Donor figure means the candidate is hitting up fewer donors for higher amounts, and a lower figure means the campaign can go back to those same donors repeatedly for more donations.
Dollars Per Month can tell us how quickly a candidate taps out their fundraising "base" -- if the candidate has only been in the race for a few months but has raised a bunch of money, there's a decent chance this rate will fall off quickly as they get into tougher-to-get dollars. The same thing happened to Paul Thissen after he pulled in "low-hanging fruit" in 2008.
So with Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Matt Entenza, and Paul Thissen all bunched up around $182-$184 per donor, we don't know a whole lot about their takes other than that MAK has raised money faster than the other two (by virtue of being an official candidate for less time than the others. Steve Kelley -- whose totals here are accurate, as confirmed by his campaign this week, btw -- has a lower dollars-per-donor figure, so on average he can hit those same donors up for more money this year than the others can. Ditto Tom Rukavina.
On the GOP side, it's tough to do any kind of comparison, since at last check we still don't know how many individual donors Tom Emmer had in 2009.
Update: R.T. Rybak just reported a total fundraising take of $278,000 since November of last year -- breaking down the numbers as accurately as possible leaves Rybak with $92,667/month for his gubernatorial committee, and a dollars-per-donor figure of $200. Rybak is in a unique position in that he spent all of last year campaigning for reelection, so he had a custom-build fundraising call list waiting for him last November. Rybak reported having $25,000 cash-on-hand at the end of 2009 -- but a big fundraising push at the beginning of this year as well. His fundraising came from a total of 691 donors.
Metro-vs-Greater Minnesota comparisons would be quite interesting for Rybak.
The Minnesota Governor campaigns are beginning to release their fundraising numbers for 2009. There is one thing that is becoming increasingly clear, we DFLers are kicking butt and the Republicans really should be releasing their numbers late on a Friday afternoon so that nobody notices.
Let's begin with numbers that aren't really all that impressive. Tom Emmer's numbers are not very good. You can read his press release here. He sure does spin it so it sounds better than it is.
Compare that with Matt Entenza reeling in $300,000 in 2009, Paul Thissen raising $370,000 since November '08 ($253K in 2009), and even Tom Rukavina beat Emmer, raking in $135,000. Even Rukavina beat Emmer. Repeat that to yourselves a few times. Wow.
Here's yet another example of a Republican who was for something before he was running for higher office. Tom Emmer, when he was running for state Representative in 19B, agreed to participate in the Public Contribution Refund program.
Campaign Finance reports show that Emmer's supporters earmarked $12,209 in tax refunds for his campaign for State Representative since 2004.
2009 - Info not available
2008 - $2,790
2007 - $2,150
2006 - $1,000
2005 - $883
2004 - $5,386
What makes this interesting is that Emmer had to agree to qualify for the refund. The Department of Revenue said only candidates who "signed an agreement with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (formerly Minnesota Ethical Practices Board) to observe state campaign spending limits qualify for the refund."
(Polinaut)
Polinaut relates how they got their hands on his end of the year gubernatorial fundraising email and he talks about opposing the PCR. Everything has changed now that he's in the 2010 MN-GOV race.
When I filed for the governor's race, I made the decision not to participate in the contribution refund program. While other politicians were scrambling to collect taxpayer money for their campaigns before the program ended, I refused. I will not run a campaign funded by your hard-earned tax dollars. As governor, I will demand that state agencies operate with less of your money, so why not lead by example and start now? Although this position affected our fundraising numbers, I believe it was the right decision. I know it's not about winning the next election or advancing my political career, it's about sticking to my principles. You don't just show up, you have to stand up for what is right.
(Polinaut)
Perhaps it is just the day, but I could not help noting that Tom Emmer's holiday greeting would speak to no person who lacked employment or feared for a job, to no person who believed freedoms for all, and to no one who had even a bit of compassion. It fact it seems like this message just flys in the face of the season of love for everyone.
The bold print is Mr Emmer's message.
Dear Friend:
This season is a good time to reflect on the gifts we have been given as a state and nation - gifts like the freedom to openly wish each of you a Merry Christmas! And does that include Happy Solstice or Happy Ramadan, hmmmm? And does that include the right of anyone to pray at airports? Or is this simply the right of ONE religion to dominate everyone else, no matter what their beliefs are?
Kohls was unlikely to make a significant dent in the race -- a recent straw poll showed him running at least fifth among the candidates, with House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, former State Auditor Pat Anderson, State Rep. Tom Emmer, and State Sen. David Hann garnering bigger support among the activist base. But of those four, who's the most likely to make an overt play for the anti-Obama/Tea Party/Birther/Tenther/Deather wing of their party's base?
It's not just a question for the sake of discussion or to whip up discontent on the other side. That wing of the GOP, while completely insane, also controls the party's endorsement and nomination process. In addition, as we're seeing in NY-23's race between ConservaDem Bill Owens, somewhat-moderate-but-not-a-great-campaigner DeDe Scozzafava, and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, the activist base on the extreme Right is proving itself willing to throw establishment GOP candidates under the bus in favor of candidates who may not win, but hew closer to their ideological bent.
Witness Hoffman's endorsements from GOP figures like Sarah Palin and our very own Tim Pawlenty -- they don't have to answer to their own party establishments for endorsing a third-party candidate, and they recognize where the power currently is on the conservative side of the American political spectrum.
So which of those gubernatorial candidates is going to take the leap: sign one's name in blood in a contract with the Extreme Right, and take the risk that entails with the other 70% of the electorate who thinks they're completely nuts?
It has been an extremely busy week so far, both here on MPP and out in the real only-somewhat-political world. So I'm a few days late to the party, but I've been looking at the results of the Republican Party's gubernatorial straw poll, and I think there are some interesting items of note. And I said to myself "self! You haven't written too much about the GOP field yet." So here are the final numbers from that straw poll:
First, a word about these numbers. Poll participants were asked to rank their first and second choices, so the first two percentage columns mean slightly different things. The First Choice percentage is the raw percentage of participants who picked a given candidate. The Second Choice percentage is the percentage of participants who didn't pick the candidate as their first choice and did pick the candidate as their second choice. The difference is subtle -- David Hann's raw 216 second choice votes translate to a lower 20% than Marty Seifert's 171 (22%) because Seifert got a lot more first place votes. Et cetera.
1st Choice + 2nd Choice is the raw percentage of people who voted for the candidate in either position.
So now that the numbers are explained, what do we see?
1. Marty Seifert is in the driver's seat
The House Minority Leader is well known among the state party's activist base, and his ability to turn press conferences and releases into name recognition has served him well. However, when one is at the top, that means there are plenty of opponents looking to knock one off the pedestal.
2. The party's conservative base is split right now between Tom Emmer and Pat Anderson
State Rep. Emmer and former State Auditor Anderson are both well-known enough to garner significant support, but both are targeting the same intraparty demographics. If at any point one of these two candidates pulls away and unites the 37-39% who are supporting one of them, that could be a pretty effective counterweight to Seifert's superior name recognition.
3. David Hann's stock is priced to sell
Part of me wants a chance to see what my local DFL can do with an open-seat race in SD42. Another part thinks the seat is out of reach of Hann is nominated anyway, and yet another wants to take the guy on directly. In any case, Hann is surprisingly strong on the second choice ballots for a State Senator who's been around for a while but hasn't been a major figurehead for big policy initiatives or base-rallying political moves.
4. The rest look like also-rans
That "No Votes" and "Other" came in around the same point as Paul Kohls in "fifth" place means the rest of these candidates are not likely to have a huge impact on the GOP endorsement race. Too bad, Jungbauer sounds like he's a hoot of an interview.
All in all, there are some interesting results here. And although it's just a straw poll, the population of the poll happens to be the most engaged activists on that side of the aisle -- those most likely to become delegates to their state convention. Given some good organization, a few teabagger parties here and there, and a little luck, a lot of things could happen with those top four candidates. But right now, it looks like those four are the only game in town.
Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano) has officially jumped the shark on healthcare reform. The Republican gubernatorial candidate appeared on Fox News to pump up his Health Care Freedom Act. Emmer wants a constitutional amendment in Minnesota to force our state to opt out of any healthcare reform that gets signed by President Obama.
When probed about the constitutionality of his amendment, Emmer implied to the host that "constitutional experts at the federal level" are wrong to interpret his bill as unconstitutional and spouted the "tenther" line that the Constitution doesn't allow for a federal health care system:
EMMER: It's interesting, because if you talk to constitutional experts at a federal level, they will tell you that the federal constitution will trump anything like this. But then the question has to be asked, why do we even bother to have a state constitution if the federal constitution, the U.S. constitution is gonna trump everything we do at the state level. It'd be meaningless. You might as well get rid of the state constitution.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that provides the federal government with the authority to establish a health care system.
Watch it:
Despite having a law degree from a accredited law school (Can William Mitchell Law School rescind a degree for stupidity?), Emmer doesn't seem to understand much at all about our constitution. There's two relevant sections. Article I, Section 8 says that the government can collect taxes and etc. to provide for the general welfare of the US. Article VI explicitly says that states have to abide by federal laws.
Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Didn't the south lose our Civil War? Didn't those same racist states lose in the battle over civil rights in the 60s?
Here's what is really funny. Emmer wants to be your Governor. If this man is so clueless, upon what grounds can he argue that he deserves to be considered anything other than a lunatic fringe candidate?
Oh yea ... that's right. MN elected Michele Bachmann.
To the 55% of Minnesotans who voted for Barack Obama last November: Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer hates you.
"I don't think you can call yourself a freedom-loving American and be a Democrat," Emmer said. "I don't think that's a grassroots Democrat who says now 'That's not what I voted for, this isn't the America I want.' It's the leaders of the Democrat party."
While Emmer said political pundits said the Republican Party was dead after the last presidential election, the ideals and principles of the party are not dead.
The principles of self-determination, the right to make decisions and the right to achieve will resonate with voters and are what the state needs to return to for growth and prosperity, Emmer said.
"My name is Tom Emmer, and this big 'R' after my name is a God-given license to be a jackass." Of course, that whole self-determination thing stops when we're talking about civil rights or what committed couples do in their bedrooms, but that's neither here nor there.
The question is whether or not Minnesota demands an apology from Tom Emmer for his complete lack of respect for his fellow Americans. Such an apology is certainly richly deserved -- unlike any kind of leadership role for Tom Emmer in the future of Minnesota.
Sorry about the lack of any notice or anything, but I took last week off of pulling the dirt together and getting it all wet last week. I was playin' in the real dirt ... so I stayed dirty. I'm back at it, though. Extra dirty today.
A little dust up at Dusty Trice's twitter account. Seriously, if Dusty's a Republican, I'm short. And Grace Kelly is the actress back from the dead. I'm just sayin ...
I've been pondering for quite some time what goes through the mind of Tom Emmer. Having read his statewide editorial against a proposed smoking ban and now Andy Birkey's piece at the Minnesota Monitor, the thought process is becoming clear.
"I'n not gay. I dislike gays. But my distaste for being gay shall not give cause to the state managing the rights of individuals."
Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano) has 
