Category: Tom Emmer

by Dave Mindeman

I am always intrigued by the press usage of the term populism. It implies a grass roots groundswell....a people powered battle with the status quo.

The Star Tribune look at the candidacy of Tom Emmer uses that word in its description....

Riding A New Populist Wave

So apparently we are supposed to be assuming by association that Emmer's "populism", the Tea Party, and his anti-government rhetoric are all the same thing.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Emmer's policies seem to be leaving bits and pieces of the "people" out of the equation. I doubt that food service workers are excited about having tips included in the minimum wage, as Emmer has suggested.

He doesn't offer any support for unions...evidenced by his siding with the hospitals in the nurses strike. He doesn't like government jobs, which means he probably isn't thrilled with government employees -- and probably vice versa. His talk of cuts to government spending almost assuredly will fall on the backs of the poor -- we already know where he stands on Medicaid proposals.

So how can a populist movement leave out so many people? Well, its because the media labels the Tea Party as that groundswell from the "masses".

But if you examine the numbers you find problems.

In April, Fox News (yes, that Fox) did an approval poll and found that the IRS got a 49% approval rating compared to 36% or the Tea Party.

And while Congress and Obama have had falling approval numbers, the Tea Party has fallen as well. An early June, Washington Post poll indicates that 50% of Americans now disapprove of the Tea Party. Kind of populism in reverse.

The other thing is the Emmer message....

Although a Republican has governed the state for eight years, Emmer says the state's freedoms have withered. "We are losing our liberty, we are losing our freedom, and I don't think people want to say it quite that way, but they feel it," Emmer said. "So when you talk to them, if you're addressing that, they wake up and go, 'You are right,' and they want to hear more."

When you question Emmer about Pawlenty's stewardship he will come back with a quip about Pawlenty doing a fine job...that he was a goalie that prevented it from getting worse.

The problem with that argument is that Pawlenty has always had the final say on any bill passed. It has to have his signature with only one exception....the Transportation Bill override.

In addition, the 2009 budget pretty much was ALL Pawlenty. He "balanced" the budget on his own and with questionable legality. How was that protecting our "freedoms"? How does one person usurping power from the elected legislature of the people constitute anything other than what Emmer seems to be concerned about -- a danger to our liberty and freedom?

The Star Tribune article indicates optimism for Emmer's "wave".... yet, the polls never give him more than numbers in the low 40's and he is trending down, not up. The wave is rapidly becoming a ripple.

The article did point out some truths....

Some Republicans worry that Emmer has never run for anything outside his district and that his anti-government and anti-illegal immigrant beliefs could tie him to sentiments many Minnesotans find distasteful.

Part of the wave?

And not even all Republicans are on board...

Former U.S. Sen. David Durenberger, a moderate Republican, said Emmer is so divisive that he may not be able to broaden his base enough to win. Durenberger, who supports Independence Party candidate Tom Horner, said he used to be fan of Emmer's political musings, but is put off by what he says is a new, stronger edge. "It doesn't feel inclusive," Durenberger said. "You can't reach right of center from this far out."

Emmer's concern is not about the "little guys", its about corporations. He is concerned that our poor corporate giants can't make enough money and its those pesky workers who are asking for too much pay. And government wants too much in taxes.

That's populism? No, its not.

Category: Al Franken

by Dave Mindeman

Over the weekend, an interesting thing showed up in my mailbox. It was an advanced copy of a book being written by Minnpost columnist, Jay Weiner, entitled "This Is NOT Florida"....subtitled "How Al Franken Won the Minnesota Senate Recount".

It is a detailed accounting of the Coleman-Franken recount from start to finish....and it is a very good read.

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that, despite repeated attempts, Norm Coleman wouldn't allow an interview; but Weiner was able to talk to all the relevant Coleman players as well as all players on the Franken side of the drama..... making the actions and reactions come to life.

Weiner is not a political reporter...he is a former sportswriter that was asked by Minnpost to cover the Senate race. Outside of some particularly groaning sports metaphors (my favorite was.."in this Court of Dreams, if you prove it, we will count it...), Weiner gives us the facts in a chronologically orderly and easy to digest narrative.

Sometimes the detail can be a little much. The opening portion of the book that sets the stage tends to read a bit dry. I kind of hoped for a little more personal anecdotes about the cast of characters, but when he moves into the post election comings and goings, it becomes a good page turner.

Most of us who were paying attention in excruciating detail during this period won't be disappointed with Weiner's accounting. He examines every relevant piece of the puzzle. We learn a number of things.

For instance, despite the Republican criticism of Mark Ritchie's involvement, the Secretary of State made every attempt to handle things in a bi-partisan way and he followed the law. The Canvassing panel was not hand picked by Ritchie. He went to the lead players in the judiciary to come up with the names. Two from the Supreme Court - decided by Magnuson, and Ritchie called Judge Gearin to fill the other two slots. Gearin was approached because she was a head judge with experience in this area and she recruited Judge Cleary. Ritchie did not go out and look for "favorable" judges.

Also, Attorney General Swanson was not engaged early on. When her office was requested to give an opinion on absentee ballots for the canvassing board, she dumped it on a lower level staffer who wrote a terrible opinion that even the judges could not be comfortable with...and largely ignored. (She later came forward with a more detailed and presentable analysis herself --probably because she was feeling some heat to get in the game.)

We also learn that Chief Justice Eric Magnuson (and former Pawlenty law partner) had an epiphany while on the canvassing board about the absentee ballot question and ended up siding with the Franken side of the agrument. It was a very surprising change of heart and one has to wonder if this was maybe the beginning of the Magnuson thoughts of retirment which would follow about a year later.

The book gives most of the credit for the Franken win to the Franken lawyers and their incredible attention to detail. Conversely, Weiner points out the Coleman lawyers were caught playing defense in an offensive game -- and never put together a cohesive strategy. They were constantlly changing tactics and at times contradicted themselves.

But one of the main themes that flows throughout the book is how the process worked as it was intended to work. The recount found errors it needed to find. The Canvassing Board heard the arguments and made decisions in a unanimous manner. The Supreme Court followed the law -- denying Franken an election certificate prior to the court contest, but reaffirming the Three Judge Panel's ruling unanimously.

And the court contest was decided on the evidence (or in Coleman's case, the lack thereof). The judges deciding the case were also unanimous in all of their rulings as well.

The title of the book is actually a quote from Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson, when he interupted Coleman Attorney Roger Magnuson as he was about to embark on a comparison of Minnesota's recount with the Florida 2000 fiasco.

Everybody involved from election workers to Minnesota's Supreme Court were adamant about that comparison and echoed Justice Anderson's emphatic verbal rebuke:

"THIS IS NOT FLORIDA!"

When this book is released, get it for its historic insight and for the story it has to tell. Minnesota is certainly not the haven of election fraud that some would have you believe.