Polinaut: March 15, 2006 Archive

Briefing - Wednesday March 15, 2006

Posted at 7:23 AM on March 15, 2006 by Bob Collins (1 Comments)

Minvolved has some more on the end (?) of the Center of the American Experiment, including some pretty darned good questions, I think, about why it's gotten almost no coverage. Was this some sort of ideological civil war? Was it mere finances? What?

* * *

I find myself not chuckling during the Daily Show with Jon Stewart as much anymore; it tries too hard sometimes and some of the better folks have left the show. But presumably later on today they'll post the video of Ed Helm's piece with Paul Hackett, who was forced out of the race by his own party. It's funny, yes, and a sad, sad commentary on the state of politics.

* * *

"It's a busy, unhappy budget week on Capitol Hill. At a time when Republicans are eager to prove their mettle on spending restraint, their deeds are falling far short of their election-year promises," says AP today.

* * *

Oh, and Norm Coleman doesn't like the White House team anymore. And I guess this was all before the Justice Department ralphed on the 9/11 terror trial.

Comment on this post

Three Greens announce

Posted at 1:13 PM on March 15, 2006 by Bob Collins

Jay Pond, for 5th District U.S House of Representatives, Dave Berger for Minnesota State Auditor and Julie Risser for State Senate District 41.

You can vote? Prove it!

Posted at 3:55 PM on March 15, 2006 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)

There's a bill at the Capitol that made some headway today that's bound to gin up some controversy during this election season. HF2600 will require proof of citizenship and also require photo identification when you go to vote. It'll probably stir things up because it's shaping up as a classic DFL vs. GOP issue.

The measure advanced, barely, at the Civil Law and Elections Committee today on 6-5 vote. Committee Chair Jeff Johnson, a sure "yes" vote, was busy testifying elsewhere on identity theft and Rep. Torrey Westrom wasn't in the room. So the committee recessed until they could round him up and get the bill approved.

Comment on this post

Johnson vs. Johnson

Posted at 8:05 PM on March 15, 2006 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)

The free world is buzzing today about a column in the Pioneer Press (OK, I admit it, I've been getting the Pioneer Press free for two weeks, I love their Washington County coverage, and I didn't open today's Press...or yesterday's) from Craig Westover.

As near as I can figure from the audio posted on the Minnesota For Marriage Web site (and may I say for the record that I've been for my marriage for 23 years, 25 if you count the first date), Johnson says former Chief Justice Blatz told him the court isn't going to touch the issue because "we have to stand for election too."

His office released a statement saying...

"First and foremost, I have at no time ever received any promises or commitments regarding any potential judicial cases from any member of the state Supreme Court."

OK, well, that's clear as mud.

According to the Star Tribune, Blatz said:
"It would have been highly unethical for me as the chief justice to ... give assurances to anyone on how the court was likely to decide an issue that might come before it. It just never happened."

A spokesman for the Court is quoted as saying judges discussing cases that may come before them would be inappropriate. but would it under the new vision for running for judicial office in Minnesota? Political parties in the state seem anxious to be allowed to endorse judicial candidates. So... what do you suppose they might ask them in that process?

This particular issue, of course, has been described as putting the issue to a Senate floor vote. Actually, that's wrong. That's not the issue at all. The issue is getting the bill a hearing in the first place. Sen. Michele Bachmann tried -- and failed -- to get it out of a committee, where it had been sent to die. And during that debate, Sen. Don Betzold promised it would get a hearing. It didn't.

One of the things I find fascinating about this latest dust-up is the court justice's allegedly contending they wouldn't touch a challenge to the existing state law. Whether they would or not, of course, is what keeps bloggers in business because I don't believe there's presently a challenge in process. Why doesn't someone challenge it? Anyone? On either side. Just to see?

For all the quoting -- proper, I might add -- of Westover today, this last graph of his apparently went unnoticed.

Sooner or later, social issues devolve from noble intent to political food fights, and feeding the frenzy becomes more important than nourishing the debate. The marriage amendment is at that point. It's time to expose the exaggerated rhetoric on both sides of the issue in open debate on the Senate floor and bring the marriage amendment to a legislative vote.

Up until the last point, bingo! But if you believe the people should get a chance to have a say, then you really have to be for it first getting a legislative Senate hearing, where they could actually, you know, say something.

Comment on this post

What would you do if you inherited $10 million from your father?

Posted at 10:51 PM on March 15, 2006 by Bob Collins

Maybe she's already been to Disneyworld.

Harris to Stay in Race for Senate Seat.

Meanwhile, back at the House, House Leaders Propose New Ethics Rules.