DFL Blog

And we're back! (briefly) -- Mark Kennedy claims to have taken contributions from at least 20,000 people in the first quarter

2006-05-02T12:54:00.000-07:00

As a "Mark Kennedy Supporter", I receive his usually lousy periodic e-mails. Today I saw something that I just had to blog about, and it brought me out of hibernation (I started a new job out in DC and I have very little free time).

Mark Kennedy claims that 60 percent of his first quarter contributions were under $25. Well, let me quote it exactly: "Did you know that nearly 60% of contributions in the 1st Quarter were under $25?" This I did not know! What I did know about Kennedy was that he raised $1,478,433 in the first quarter of 2006. Now, 60% of that would be $887,059.80, meaning that that he raised a maximum of $25 from at least 35,482 people! That's a lot of people; Mark must be a pretty popular guy! But then I started thinking, he raised $304,256 in PAC money in the quarter, meaning he had literally thousands of PACs and contributors writing him tiny checks! Or so we would think…

Now I'm not stupid nor do I think that Mark Kennedy is the world's worst CPA; he's just using misleading statements, like that 60% of his contributions were under $25. What he really means is that he could have potentially taken the maximum contribution from 195 people (@ $4,200 a pop) and 290 people gave under $25 (this is an extreme example, I'm sure he had at least 300 contributions under $25...).

I don't think Kennedy will ever be mistaken for being a populist, so why try to stretch the truth to convince them otherwise?

Now I go back into my hole.

This just in: Ciresi not running again for U.S. Senate

2006-02-08T06:10:00.000-08:00

The Strib is saying that Ciresi is not running! Huzzah for Amy!

Hopefully I'll have some more time soon to start posting again. Just had to take a second to do this though.

Brodkorb's firm represents UN Foundation and Norm Coleman

2006-01-10T08:35:00.000-08:00

Michael "MDE" Brodkorb listed his e-mail address at Weber Johnson Public Affairs as his media contact address. This has nothing to do with Brodkorb, but I thought it was interesting that their client list includes both the United Nations Foundation and the GOP's anti-UN cheerleader, Norm Coleman. I just don't understand why the UNF would hire a firm that represents the politicians from the party that despises everything they do.

MDE coming out of the closet

2006-01-04T13:10:00.000-08:00

No, no, no, I don't mean that MDE is gay. You should know by now, all Republicans are straight: every single one.

No, MDE confirmed his identity today. Faithful DFL Blog readers would know that MDE was Michael Brodkorb back in October of 2005. I was reluctant back them to expose him because I have no problem with anonymous blogging, as long as it is an individual working by him or herself, and not taking pot shots for another group. Brodkorb was under the employ of the Republican Party of Minnesota while he was blogging. After he left/lost the job, he came out with a vague disclaimer which I believe was what I like to call a "Clintonesq Truth." He then worked for the Republican backed pro-Randy Kelly group with some stupid name, then posted his own press releases. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that most of the tips that he got came from his old colleagues at the MN GOP research department, putting out the stuff they didn't want to release themselves. He sure reprinted all of their press releases.

I also disagree with all of the spinning going on by Brodkorb and his supporters that he was sued because the DFL wanted his identity exposed. MDE never said in his melodramatic unmasking why this Democratic consultant had filed suit against him. While I will for the time presume Brodkorb's innocence, there plenty of legitimate reasons to file lawsuits. Until MDE or the litigator says what the case is about, I will doubt that their motives are what MDE claims them to be.

A fun Mark Kennedy game to play with the kids

2005-12-29T15:49:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing that I admire about Mark Kennedy, it is his consistency. He consistently votes in line with President Bush and he consistently wears plaid. The former has been clearly documented (well, we know that Mark Kennedy's mother would vote in lock-step with President Bush). So I decided to set up a little game to play. The point of the game is to see where Kennedy is more consistent, in his love of plaid or his allegiance to the Bush agenda. I've given you a head start on the plaid portion of the game below, you can view all of the photos on his campaign site here. As for Kennedy's voting record, you'll have to do some digging. He doesn't have a that information (or even a link to it on his House site). Even Norm Coleman has his voting record up on his Senate site (and I never compliment Normy). There is CQ.com if you have a subscription, or the Thomas roll call votes to sort through for free.

So to be clear, the rules of the game are simple. See which number is greater: the number of times Mark Kennedy is photographed not wearing plaid or the number of times that Mark Kennedy voted against George W. Bush's wishes. Young kids can play this game too because it will teach them to count to numbers as high as 12 or even 13!

Please leave your totals in the comments for this post.

One nice thing about 2006

2005-12-29T13:42:00.000-08:00

One wonderful thing about 2006 is that Dean Zimmermann will no longer be on the Minneapolis City Council (He was narrowly defeated in November).

If you don't know about Dean "Zimmerpersonn" Zimmermann, he's a crazy Green party member. Not like your every day semi-crazy Minnesota Greens, but way out there. This is the guy who thinks the way to end hostility between the Minneapolis police and city residents is for the police to go out on hug patrols. He also wanted his name to have Zimmerperson as his nickname on the ballot, but the city elections office wouldn't let him. He also supports Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) along with that sexy fox Michele Bachmann. That and he was investigated by the FBI for allegedly taking bribes (Remember: "Money, Money, Money"). What I don't understand is how stupid someone would have to be to bribe Zimmermann to get something done in the council. The man had no power, was on the fringe, and from what I hear, was not liked by the other council members.

Looks like two DFL victories in the special election

2005-12-27T20:01:00.000-08:00

DFL Blog is going to call the state House and Senate race for the DFL Candidates. With 34 percent of State Rep. district 15b reporting, we are going to call the election for Larry Haws. In State Senate district 15, with 50 percent of precincts reporting, we are going to call the election for Tarryl Clark.

Way to go! The DFL has great momentum, look out TimPa and Screech Kennedy come November 2006!

Get the final results here for the Senate and here for the House election.

I can't say that I'm shocked

2005-12-27T10:08:00.000-08:00

E.J. Dionne -- a wonderful columnist for the Washington Post -- has a column today that sheds quite a bit of light about our Junior Senator, Smilin' Norm Coleman.

This is an exceprt from Dionne's column, The Washington Post, December 27, 2005:

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) opposed the original, milder Senate budget bill but turned around and voted for the final, harsher bill. According to Congress Daily, Coleman backed the final budget "after negotiators took out cuts affecting his state's sugar beet growers." Coleman told the paper: "Karl Rove called me and asked what I wanted. A few hours later it was out of the bill."

I guess Normy's motto is to cut anything you like, just don't hurt him politically.

A seasonal message...

2005-12-24T18:08:00.000-08:00

Nuance: A Foreign Language for Republicans

2005-12-19T16:25:00.000-08:00

I am getting so tired of these Kennedy apologists and shills toeing the campaign and party line to the ends of the earth. KvM is by far the worst offender.

Let's take the ridiculous line that Bush, Kennedy and their toadies are taking on the USA PATRIOT Act. The idea that Democrats are blocking its renewal for partisan reasons is -- pardon my French -- bullshit. First of all, Democrats don't want to kill the whole act, they want to eliminate some of the offending parts (otherwise they wouldn't be making a big deal out of it). I want to know if Mark Kennedy supports every single word and provision in it. What, if anything would he change about it, if he could? The idea that come January 1st, 2006, the terrorists will come crawling out of their holes, killing every man, woman and child in the country, and the government is powerless to act because the Democrats are being partisan, is, again, bullshit. Let's have a read debate about the PATRIOT Act; extend it for 90 days, stop the terrorists for the next three months, while we work it out. Do the Republicans want actual compromise? I'm guessing no, but while the filibuster goes on, the ball is in their court.

Screech must also now stop saying that he opposes drilling in ANWR, I think that he's voted for it three times already. It's one thing to claim that he's an independent guy from Bush, but when it comes down to it, he's just a rubber stamp. He and other ANWR foes could have voted against the defense bill, it isn't the end of the world. If it failed another one would come up, and I'm guessing it wouldn't have the ANWR language in it if they want it to pass. Republicans like to do this sort of thing, like Pawlenty and tacking the pro-life thing to his tax hike to get it passed. The Republican party leadership is shameless to do something like this, to exploit the troops and the war effort to open ANWR for their oil buddies to drill. Kennedy has no spine, he won't stand up to the President or his party leadership. That's exactly what we want in a senator from Minnesota.

Hmm, how did I know this was coming?

2005-12-19T07:26:00.000-08:00

Kennedy said he'd vote against ANWR drilling before he voted for it

As you can (hopefully) see above, I've placed a count-up clock not unlike the one on Kennedy's page. I admit that I borrowed the JavaScript code from his site. As long has he has his stupid vague timer running, so will we.

New Holiday blog theme

2005-12-18T13:06:00.000-08:00

Thought that I'd change up the site design for the next couple weeks. You have no idea how hard it is to draw snow in photoshop (I have yet to master it).

Needless to say, this blog is a Happy Holidays blog just to spite the bitching Conservative Christians.

So Happy Holidays from both of us at DFL Blog!

A look at www.MarkKennedy.com

2005-12-17T03:07:00.000-08:00

I was wondering a little bit about the history of http://www.markkennedy.com and how it is now a generic forward to http://www.markkennedy06.com (one can tell this by going to markkennedy.com and clicking any link on the site, it doesn't show individual pages). So I started with the WhoIs information. The domain is registered to Gary Peterson of Willmar, MN. Then I decided to take a trip back in time on the internet, with the "wayback machine" at archive.org. There are three hits for the site, all of them holding pages. The interesting one is below. [You can see the archived page here]

So my question is about the money that Kennedy's campaign should have paid to have this domain forwarded. The price in June of 2000 -- when Kennedy first ran for Congress -- was $1,000. More than five years later, as he runs for even a higher office, we must wonder what the current market rate is for the domain. $2,000? $5,000? More? So I see two possibilities: 1) Kennedy forked over a nice chunk of change to Mr. Peterson to rent the domain via forwarding (since the campaign doesn't own the domain) or 2) Mr. Peterson paid more than $1,000 for the domain and has subsequently donated the use the domain as an in-kind contribution to the campaign. Peterson did make a $1,000 contribution to to Kennedy's Senate primary campaign already as well as $1,000 for his congressional re-election campaign in 2002. You can read more aboout Peterson's printing company here.

This all seems a little fishy, and while I don't want to make blind accusations without some backup, I think Kennedy's campaign should explain exactly what the relationship is with Mr. Peterson in regards to the campaign. Has Peterson owned it since 2000, or did he recently buy it for the campaign? Did Maracom -- a corporation -- foot the bill for acquiring the domain? Is this somehow related to the legislation that Kennedy supported that would completely open internet campaigns to soft money and corporate expenditures?

In all fairness I should note that Kennedy's campaign doesn't advertise markkennedy.com as their website, but these questions should still be answered since they definitely benefit from having it.

Finally!

2005-12-16T13:25:00.000-08:00

I don't enjoy being overly superficial, but I want to say, "Thank God Mark Kennedy changed his campaign site picture!" This is a U.S. Senate campaign, and I must say that the old picture they had up was HORRIBLE.

I don't detest Screech Kennedy any less now that he changed it, but I no longer have to cringe every time I load his site.

He also gets points because it has the American flag behind him (reminding us that he supports suppressing free political speech). He still seems to think that wearing plaid makes him look senatorial. One step at a time.

The old one:

The new one:

That's quite a bit of makeup

2005-12-09T13:42:00.000-08:00

Since I don't have an extra thousand dollars to throw away, I was unfortunately unable to attend the Screech Kennedy fundraiser with el Presidente. I did, however, see photos of the event from Minnesota Public Radio, and I must ask, "is Mark Kennedy wearing a ton of makeup in this picture?" I would post a copy of the photo on this site, but that would be a violation of MPR's terms of service.

What do you guys think? Too much makeup, or not enough?

I'll try to find some more pics from the AP to get the makeup verdict.

Tell me what's wrong with his thinking

2005-12-09T09:07:00.000-08:00

Congressman Screech Kennedy today introduced a constitutional amendment that would give the President the power of a line item veto and reduction power (His press release is below). This means that the President could strike out (or reduce) specific appropriations without vetoing the whole bill.

While I personally agree with giving the President this power, I want Kennedy to explain to me why there is a problem in the first place. He is a Republican, and his party controls the U.S. House, Senate and the Presidency. What I don't understand is why his party doesn't fix this problem instead of the drastic measure of amending the Constitution.

Republicans control everything, they set the agenda, so why can't they stop wasteful spending in-house? I could understand if Kennedy was an actual budget hawk and it was the Democrats that were in the majority and out of control with pet projects and pork spending. Guess what, they aren't. It's his own colleagues and party leadership that is the reason why the "rise in the number of appropriation earmarks from 958 in FY1996 to nearly 14,000 in FY2005." Wasn't Fiscal Year 1996 the first budget that the new Republican House majority oversaw? Haven't they been the majority since then? (Those were rhetorical questions, but if you are wondering, the answer is 'yes')

Also, how can Screech bitch about "passing along burdensome government debts to future generations" while cutting revenue (tax cuts for the ultra-rich) every chance he gets.

If Screech was actually serious about curbing wasteful spending, we'd be able to look back at his voting record and see a "nay" vote for every appropriations bill that had wasteful spending, pet projects and pork in them. Is that the case? Nope, Kennedy votes for them all the time.

The real problem is the Republican leadership in the House and Senate that allows this problem to fester. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

12/09/2005
Press Release- Kennedy Urges Support to Eliminate Wasteful Spending

Support the Line Item and Reduction Veto Amendment

Washington, D.C. Congressman Mark Kennedy sent a Dear Colleague to Members of the House of Representatives today, to urge support for the Line Item and Reduction Veto Amendment that he introduced. Kennedy released the following statement:

"Increased spending has been a theme all too familiar with Congress in recent years. Take for instance, the rise in the number of appropriation earmarks from 958 in FY1996 to nearly 14,000 in FY2005. These earmarks have become a vehicle for wasteful spending and unnecessary federal pork projects.

"Particularly egregious examples of waste are easy to see: $2,000,000 to relocate a kitchen in Fairbanks, Alaska; $950,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia; and $150,000 for the Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program at the Lady B Ranch in California. With earmarks such as these becoming commonplace, it should not be surprising that projections for FY2006 spending will reach an all-time high of $23,638 per U.S. household, of which $3,800 will be borrowed.

"While there are priority programs and projects that should receive strong consideration, clearly this excessive rate of increased spending cannot be sustained. That's why I have introduced H.J. Res. 63, the Line Item and Reduction Veto Amendment. This Constitutional Amendment would provide the president with a proven mechanism to eliminate egregious spending in appropriations bills.

"In addition, H.J. Res. 63, unlike the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, allows the president to reduce objectionable spending items contained in the non-legislative text of conference reports. This mechanism, currently used by 11 states, reduces the lump-sum accounts that contain hundreds of individual items that are often hidden in legislation and committee reports.

"Americans shouldn't tolerate passing along burdensome government debts to future generations, just so that Congressmen can claim credit for their individual pet projects."

Source: http://markkennedy.house.gov/cgi-data/press/files/532.shtml

Who is more out of touch?

2005-12-08T21:11:00.000-08:00

I was wondering today about who is more out of touch, Mark Kennedy or his blogger lackeys. There are good arguments for both cases, so let's examine them.

Screech Kennedy

Screech seems to be out of touch with Minnesotans. In the most recent state-wide poll, Minnesotans rated him at a dismal average of 47 degrees. The only person in the poll with a lower rating is of course our beloved President.

Screech is Bush's toady, that is very apparent. Bush is repaying him by holding a million dollar fundraiser Friday afternoon. Not bad, but not exactly in touch with your average Minnesotan that may be reluctant to drop $10 grand to get a lousy photo and mediocre meal with the President.

Screech cast the tie-breaking vote on a controversial budget bill last month, leading the way in "fiscal restraint." This included restraining spending for college loans, family farm assistance, veterans assistance and Medicaid. This restraint totaled about $50 billion. It's hard to say that students, the poor and sick, farmers and veterans applauded Kennedy's courage and restraint.

Screech just today enthusiastically voted for the recent $56 billion in tax cuts for people who buy and sell a lot of stocks (like your average millionaire Minnesotan). Are there even three or four percent of Minnesotans that would greatly benefit from this tax cut?

Kennedy's Lackeys

They all seemed to miss this pretty big story today about the public opinion that put their two heroes at the very bottom and my hero, Amy Klobuchar at the top. Maybe they all took the day off... Oh, wait, just checked, Screech v. Machine had 7 posts, RM had 9 posts, MDE had 3 posts, John Jordan had 2 posts, and The Wind Beneath the Right Wing had 2 posts. NONE of of those posts mention this story. Come on, there has to be a way to spin this. You could argue that the average Kennedy support can't count higher than 50. I don't know.

Bloggers like KvM, RM and MDE seem to take the diarrhea approach to blogging. They spray their posts around everywhere and hope to hit something. This isn't really about them being out of touch, I just thought it's an amusing observation.

Talk about a Kennedy echo chamber. Everything put out by the campaign usually ends up on 2 or even all 3 of these blogs, and then they link to each other and congratulate each other for recycling each other's stuff. That and MNGOP press releases and talking points. Republican bloggers are quite incestuous.

Almost no coverage on these blogs for the biggest Kennedy fundraiser ever, and it's happening tomorrow. What's the hold-up fellas? Be honest, are you guys going?

Correction: I just found a post by KvM that dismissed the poll before it was released from December 5th. To be fair, their judgement was based on the public opinion experts at the Powerline blog. What I want to know is why they didn't follow-up today about it. Surely their gut feelings about how polls are off carries a lot of weight.

Sue, Sue, Sue, Where are you (living)?

2005-12-08T20:16:00.000-08:00

Looks like GOP candidate for Minnesota House of Representatives Sue Ek for 15B (St Cloud) is actually living in St Paul (similar names I know, but not exactly the same). First I thought: Isn't it enough that the GOP had Timmy call the election for December 27th when all the St Cloud State kids are away? Does the GOP feel the need to cheat so much that it must also run a candidate who lives three counties away from the district? Then I realized that the Republican Party of Minnesota must have a special indult from the requirements of Article IV, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution. It all makes sense now.

Klobuchar Rally Today At Noon

2005-12-07T22:21:00.000-08:00

Got this e-mail while I was doing my reformatting marathon today. It's a rally for students led by Amy Klobuchar. I'm guessing that Bush didn't have to pay off any student loans, and I'm pretty sure that Screech Kennedy only cares about the people that are going to cut $10,000 checks for him on Friday. Hell, for $10 grand I'd sell out students and the needy in Minnesota! For $5,000 more I'll cut all taxes for the wealthiest one percent of income earners! See, this is why I shouldn't get into politics, I'd probably end up just like Mark Kennedy.

I'm posting this because the person who sent it asked nicely. I just want to say that in the future I won't post everything that is sent to me, but I did put up the Ford Bell Veteran BBQ public invite, and Amy is by far my favorite candidate, so here it is. I really wish I could go to this, but I can't. The event information is at the bottom.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information contact:

Monday, December 5, 2005 Franny Starkey or Jessica Vanden Berg, 651-714-2006

Klobuchar to offer reality check for Republicans in Washington

Klobuchar to organize students against student aid cuts THURSDAY

Amy Klobuchar, a candidate for United States Senate, announced today that she will organize students at the University of Minnesota on Thursday to sign a reality check against the large student loan cuts that the House of Representatives passed last month.

“Mark Kennedy and his Republican friends will be getting a lot of big checks on Friday, so I’ve decided to present them with one of my own: a Reality Check,” Klobuchar said.

On Friday President George W. Bush will be in Minnesota to collect campaign checks for Mark Kennedy. On Thursday, Klobuchar will stand with students and ask why Republicans in Washington chose to cut student loans instead of rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy.

“In the past five years, we've gone from surplus to deficit, from priorities for people to giveaways to big corporations and special interests,” Klobuchar said. “It’s time to work for solutions for people, for a change.”

Kennedy cast the decisive vote for the budget bill on Nov. 17 that cut $14.3 billion from student loan programs -- the single largest cut in American history. In Minnesota alone, more than 137,000 students depend on federal student loans, costing each of them as much as $5,800.

Klobuchar will be in the common area in front of Coffman Union on the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus on Thursday at Noon, where she will urge students to sign a reality check to help stop student loan cuts and support higher education.

WHAT: Organizing Students against Student Loan Cuts

WHEN: Thursday, Dec. 8 – 12:00 p.m.

WHERE: University of Minnesota

Coffman Memorial Union, outdoor common area

Minneapolis Campus

New Blog Layout and Formatting

2005-12-07T21:48:00.000-08:00

Well, I decided today that I would do away with the old default Blogger template that we've been using with this blog, and created a brand new one. My HTML is a little rusty, but I think it looks pretty good. I'm not sure about the color scheme, George will have to add some input on that.

I also finally sat down and worked on an idea I had for months: a virtual yard with virtual political yard signs. My grass stays green year-round! It took me quite a while to make the first two signs because Klobuchar and Doran don't have those graphics up. Since George and I don't always agree on our picks for the DFL endorsement, I'll make a lawn for him as well soon. If there are any DFLers out there that want their own for their blog or website, please e-mail me and I'll try to make one to fit your needs if I get the time (but please don't ask for a Mike Ciresi one...).

Please leave any feedback about the new layout in the comments, and if you have any problems with your browser viewing it, please e-mail me and let me know so I can work on a fix. I use a Mac so nearly everything works perfectly, I sometimes forget there are people out there that use Windows and Internet Explorer. I also sometimes forget that there are people out there that have voted for Norm Coleman. That's kind of depressing to think that there are functioning adult human beings in this state that actually felt compelled to vote for that man. C'est la vie!

Come to the Ford Bell BBQ This Friday

2005-12-07T10:23:00.000-08:00

While I personally am supporting Amy Klobuchar for the DFL U.S. Senate endorsement and nomination, I really like and respect Ford Bell, and I'm glad that he's in the race. I got this e-mail about a Bar-B-Que that Ford is hosting for vets while Screech Kennedy and President Bush are having their million dollar affair. I'm really not sure how many Iraq war vets can cough up the $10,000 to get their picture taken with their commander-in-chief. I guess they'll have to settle for a free lunch with Ford Bell. You know what, I'd take some free ribs with Ford over a picture with Bush any day of the week. (I don't want to promise that they'll have ribs there, I don't know what's on the menu)

Here's the e-mail I got:

I wanted to ask you to mention Ford Bell's event on Friday countering Bush's fundraiser for Kennedy. Ford is buying lunch for vets at Market Bar-B-Que, 1414 Nicollet Avenue, right around the corner from the hotel where the Kennedy event is being held. Public is most definitely invited, this is not a fundraiser (though we wouldn't burn any checks, of course).

RSVP at clare@fordbell.com.

Of course, to be friendly, we've asked Bush and Kennedy to drop by as well, and chat with the vets about the war and Republican cuts to veterans benefits.

At the Kennedy event, people who donate $10,000 can get a picture taken with Bush. We've asked the President to waive that for the vets if he comes by Ford's lunch. The vets can't afford it.

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People

2005-12-01T21:57:00.000-08:00

Warning, the following post is long and is critical of the president. If you can deal with that please read on. If you are Bush voter that doesn't care for 'nuance,' do something better with your time.

I usually don't blog about national issues since this is a DFL blog, but this really strikes me as important. I also am a firm believer in not saying anything when your opponents are self-destructing (and the Republicans have been doing one hell of a job recently), but I'm going to make an exception this time. George Bush has shown that he doesn't care about a lot of people, especially the poor and - black people to an extent (Let's just recall that he cut his vacation short to try to save the life of one brain-dead white woman, but took nearly a week to act when it came to thousands of black people in New Orleans). There's nothing wrong with hating the poor, Bush is a Christian and that's clearly consistent with his faith (I believe that Jesus said, "fuck the poor" many times. Actually, I think Christ only hated gay marriage more than he hated the poor. At least that's what I hear from the Religious Right). But this isn't about Bush hating the poor, this is about civil rights.

So, back to why Bush doesn't care about black people. He probably doesn't hate all Black people, just the ones that don't serve in his administration (sans Colin Powell). Bush doesn't care about black people because of the attitude his political appointees in the Justice Department and their job to enforce the Voting Rights Act (or, rather, their refusal to enforce it). This act was written to essentially curb the common practice of white people in the South stopping people of color from voting or changing political districts to dilute the vote of minority groups, among other things. Basically what this means is that states which have a history of blatant discrimination and racism in voting laws and drawing racially disproportionate districts need to get "pre-clearance" from the Justice Department before they can redistrict or change their voting laws. I'm pretty sure all of these states on the list all happen to be in the South. Shocking, I know. Anyway, in order to get pre-clearance, the state government needs to prove that there will be no reductions in minority voting strength as a result of redistricting. A good, just law.

The point is that the people that Bush appointed to head the DOJ's Civil Rights Division (which enforces the VRA) seem to have a different interpretation of what "the law" is then people whose job it is to understand what the law is. They seem to think that there are always exceptions to be made when it comes to helping their boss and their party. Case in point: Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting coup in 2003 to redraw federal congressional districts to get more of his GOP minions from Texas elected to the U.S. House. This post is not about Tom DeLay though, he also has his own problems understanding what the law is.

According to the Washington Post, Delay's guys knew that their redistricting plan probably wouldn't hold up. Specifically, "Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options." Guess what, every single career lawyer that was on the panel that reviewed it agreed that it was a clear violation of the VRA. They unanimously agreed that the DeLay "redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections." Then why did Bush's appointees in the DOJ give the plan an OK anyway, above the objection of everyone that wasn't a political appointee? Same thing happened with the ~~poll tax~~ picture ID voting law in Georgia. Career civil rights attorneys at the DOJ said it was illegal; Bush's guys said they don't care, and signed off on it anyway because it helps Republicans. Good thing we have a somewhat independent judiciary to stop this kind of shit. Also, thank God the Washington Post reports this stuff and that someone on the inside leaked this information. Don't you think it is a little strange that the unanimously dissenting panel of experts were "subjected to an unusual gag rule" about this matter?

Now I ain't saying he hates black people, but he ain't messin' with no white districts. Props to Kanye West: keep up the excellent music and don't let the suits keep you down.

18 years! 18 years! ... If you ain't no punk, holla, "We Want Pre-nup!" WE WANT PRE-NUP! YEAH!

Mark Kennedy Blog Spews Anti-Semitic Remarks

2005-12-01T08:34:00.000-08:00

I was reading blog posts earlier, and the blog "The Kool Aid® Report" - which champions the Mark Kennedy for Senate campaign - has posted blatantly anti-semitic remarks. I call now for Mark Kennedy to condemn this! Or does Mark Kennedy agree with the following sentiment: "Besides, everybody knows it’s the Jews who control the banks." I first want to ask, what do Jewish Americans have to do with this letter at all? Did the Kennedy bloggers add that just as a slur, and why? Or is Mark Kennedy's representative in the blogosphere going to come out and say that this was an attempt at some humorous meta-bigotry? Let me ask you this Mark Kennedy's blogger: are stereotypes funny? Are Holocaust jokes funny? Are you going to claim you were just making a statement about society, or did you just want to throw a few hateful punches at an oppressed people?

There has been a lot of huffing and puffing by right wing bloggers about racist remarks made against Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland. This racism was coming from upset black Democrats, and that's why conservatives got all over it. But now that racism is coming from supporters of a Republican U.S. Senate candidate, where's the outrage? I demand that these bloggers come out now condemning this blatant racism. If you remain silent, then it simply means that you agree with them. Every right wing blogger that links to Kool Aid Report should 1) come out and condemn anti-semetic remarks and 2) demand from the Mark Kennedy-supporting anti-semites that they apologize, remove the statement, and make a contribution to the Holocaust Memorial Center or visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

I also call for Mark Kennedy to condemn and renounce all anti-semetic comments made in his name! Silence is acceptance, and this is a serious matter.

A backhanded defense of MDE and the whole lawsuit issue

2005-11-23T12:07:00.000-08:00

I first want to say that I generally disagree with the lawsuit against M.D.E. because he seemed to be largely ignorant of intellectual property and copyright laws, and has since rectified it (and there may be a case to be made about 'fair use' since he was using the graphic as proof for one of his many unfounded accusations). I also disagree with the notion that MDE should be exposed through the courts, since I believe in protected anonymous political speech (if MDE exposes himself through carelessness, that's another story) and he hasn't broken any serious laws.

I also disagree with the notion that Inside Minnesota Politics is doing this just to spite MDE because he is a threat to DFLers. That's just silly, MDE is, if anything, a poor man's Drudge Report (except MDE never had his Lewinsky moment). A lot of blowing things out of proportion, recycling other people's stuff (i.e. reprinting MN GOP press releases and calling it news), and a bunch of "exclusives" which are either petty, rumors, or never pan out. I think that while we don't feel threatened by MDE, it would feel good to give him a taste of his own medicine.

The last thing we should do is make a martyr out of this man, frankly he's no Nelson Mandela nor should he be thought of that way. I also believe in consistency when it comes to these sorts of things. I don't want to see a good anonymous blog to go through this in the future, so why should I support it when it comes to MDE?

I would suggest that MDE should talk to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sort of the ACLU of the internet, and they might be a big help in this case. Any sort of lawyer you can hire with the money gathered from bloggers will probably not go very far, talk to the EFF. If they won't offer help, then talk to the ACLU, they might be interested.

The final question is, will MDE eventually stop deleting/blocking my comments on his blog?

Kennedy proud of spending cuts

2005-11-18T14:11:00.000-08:00

Now that I have subscribed to Screech Kennedy's e-mail alerts, I was alerted that Congressman Kennedy is actually the champion of fiscal discipline.

He sent this out to his supporters (and me):

In an effort to curb out of control spending in Washington, Mark Kennedy cast the deciding vote for fiscal responsibility early Friday morning, helping pass the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. He issued the following statement:

“Washington shouldn’t have a blank check, and as a CPA and businessman I’m happy to see us act to reduce our federal deficit. This bill reduces spending in a way that reflects our Minnesota values and sets priorities. We owe it to our children to lower the deficit.

“Only in Washington would you hear slowing the rate of spending increases called a ‘cut.’ This bill preserves important student financial aid, Medicaid and safety net programs while providing low income heating aid.”

“It’s [sic] never easy to restrain the growth of spending, even modestly. There are so many special interest groups advocating for more spending. But my job is to stand up for hard working, taxpaying families in Minnesota (Editor's note: This does not include the moochers who use food stamps and Medicaid). That’s what this bill does. It protects important programs while getting spending under control. The answer is not higher taxes and even more government spending

So, Screech (can I call you that?), Minnesota's priorities are to cut funding to Pell grants? Or to not assist the state of Minnesota in collecting child support? Are you now courting the deadbeat dad vote? Are Minnesota's priorities represented in the trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest of its citizens? Why is fiscal responsibility a priority over programs for the poor but you insist on cutting revenue sources as well? I want a pledge right now that you will oppose any and all new tax cuts until there is a balanced budget then. If fiscal responsibility is your new battle cry, you better damn well stick to it. As a CPA, you do know that you can't exactly balance the books if you cut revenue every since chance you get.