The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
U.S. Senator
1200 Washington Ave. South
Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415

The Honorable Al Franken
U.S. Senator
60 East Plato Blvd
Saint Paul, MN 55107

Dear U.S. Sens. Klobuchar and Franken:

We are writing to express our collective opposition to the cap-and-trade energy bills being
debated in the U.S. House and Senate. We share the common belief that this legislation will
have a devastating impact on our families, businesses and especially agriculture.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of a similar proposal, cap-andtrade
will cause energy prices to increase by about 40 percent. A U.S. Department of Treasury
study revealed in September that the estimated cost per household could be as much as $1,761
per year. Placing this kind of financial burden on the American family will not help our state
return to a period of sustained economic growth as the prices for energy, gasoline, diesel and
home heating oil rise.

Passing cap-and trade will also hurt the ability for small businesses to grow jobs and reduce the
national GDP. According to a National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey of its
members, a small manufacturer that currently has $1.5 million in electricity, natural gas and
diesel costs will see those costs rise to more than $2 million annually. When asked how they
would absorb the increase in costs, businesses said because they are already operating with
minimum staff, most would be forced to raise prices.

Our agriculture industry would be especially hard hit if the U.S. Senate adopts cap-and-trade
legislation similar to that passed by the U.S. House. According to a report released by Missouri
Sen. Kit Bond and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson on October 21, America’s farmers and
ranchers would be hit with $550 million in higher fuel costs by 2020 and $1.65 billion in 2050 as
a direct result of climate change legislation. Minnesota’s rural economy—particularly the dairy
industry—cannot sustain this kind of hit. The USDA already rates dairy as one of the most
highly-leveraged agriculture industries. Forcing the burden of massive energy increases on their
operations would be crippling.

The U.S. Senate needs to seriously review the intentional and unintentional consequences of
passing a trade program similar to the one the U.S. House passed. Proponents claim this bill
won’t pinch wallets but they are ignoring the hard facts that this program could cost our country
2 million jobs by 2030 and reduce the national GDP by roughly $350 billon below the baseline
level. The reality is that Minnesotans will be forced to tighten their wallets.
Our country is suffering from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. It is
financially irresponsible to consider legislation that would impose the largest tax hike in
American history when so many people and businesses are already struggling to make ends
meet. Our country simply cannot afford to take this gamble.

We hope you take our concerns into consideration as you represent all of Minnesota in the U.S.
Senate. We strongly urge you to oppose cap-and-trade legislation.

Regards,

Rep. Kurt Zellers Rep. Michael Beard Rep. Randy Demmer
House District 32B House District 35A House District 29A
Rep. Bob Dettmer Rep. Steve Drazkowski Rep. Rob Eastlund
House District 52A House District 28B House District 17A
Rep. Tom Emmer Rep. Pat Garofalo Rep. Steve Gottwalt
House District 19B House District 36B House District 15A
Rep. Bob Gunther Rep. Rod Hamilton Rep. Joe Hoppe
House District 24A House District 22B House District 34B
Rep. Tim Kelly Rep. Tara Mack Rep. Mark Murdock
House District 28A House District 37A House District 10B
Rep. Tim Sanders Rep. Peggy Scott Rep. Marty Seifert
House District 51A House District 49A House District 21A
Rep. Ron Shimanski Rep. Steve Smith Rep. Dean Urdahl
House District 18A House District 33A House District 18B

We start by discussing the growing number of state legislators that have announced that they will not return to their seats in 2011. Some legislators are seeking higher office, some are just not coming back. Senator Marty feels that some of those announcements are insincere. “Just because they say that now, doesn’t mean they won’t be back after nominations are handed out or the general election is over”. I ask him if he thinks that some leaders are not returning because of the seemingly insurmountable issues to face including the budget deficit, unallotments and redistricting following the 2010 census. Marty thinks that would be a silly reason to cite for not coming back. “By taking office in the first place they basically said they wanted to work on those problems”.

Despite Marty’s excellent slogan, most Minnesotan’s who know him, view him as fairly far to the left. I ask if nominations on either side of the isle get too extreme, will we see another strong independent step in. He jumps in immediately, before I even finish the question, “Everybody wants to look at politics as left, right, center.  I don’ think the majority of the public does that and I don’t think it’s helpful. When Jessie Ventura announced he was running, the Blue Dog Democrats embraced him as being such a centrist. Why is someone a centrist just because they say they are? Someone decided somewhere that a pro-life Democrat is a moderate or a pro-choice Republican is a moderate, regardless of how a particular candidate holds up on the majority of other issues”. This may certainly be true. We all know people who choose their party affiliation based on one issue, but the fact is that public perception has a way of becoming reality and if a campaign refuses to address this they are potentially losing the support they need to push through to the next stages of the debate. “I think voters respond to honesty and common sense”. In the end that may have been why Ventura was successful. The “common man attacks politicians” approach worked to get in the door, even though many Minnesotans doubt it would have worked to keep him in office.

I ask about his high profile opponents for DFL attention. He admits that he’s “frustrated” by Mark Dayton’s AFSME endorsement and how some groups make their endorsements. He wonders “who is making the call?” He’s looking for endorsements currently and hopes to be able to really talk to groups that are underrepresented. I ask how he can compete financially with Dayton and Entenza and he plainly lays out that he can’t compete dollar for dollar, “but I can compete idea for idea”. He adds that all this campaign money this early can spell problems down the road because of implied promises made in exchange for money.  He makes no allegations about his big dollar colleagues, but simply states that “I’m the one to take on corruption in big businesses like insurance, because I didn’t take any of their money. All this money corrupts the system”. He also adds that he will abide by the parties endorsement unlike the big dollar candidates. “This is supposed to be an election, not an auction”.

His biggest criticism for Governor Pawlenty is the lack of vision in the state coupled with a failure to act on everything from the cost of education on through healthcare and transportation. He is increasingly frustrated with allegations that single payer health care is socialism. He firmly believes that spending a dollar now will save 3 or 4 dollars later. As Governor, he says he will spell out a vision for Minnesota and ask first “what should we do”, then “what can we do”. Summing it up nicely by saying, “Minnesota needs to figure out where we’re going before we can figure out how we’re going to get there”.

Last month, the president signed a law mandating that states give military voters a window of at least 45 days before an election in which to submit their absentee ballots.  As such, it looks as if this measure will force the Minnesota Legislature finally to move the state primary to an earlier date.

People from across the political spectrum have been advocating for this change for many years.

Whereas a short absentee voting window is obviously detrimental to voter participation in general, the voters most notably ill served are Minnesotans serving in the military.  According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there were about 23,000 overseas military members and dependents eligible to vote in Minnesota in 2008.  According to statistics from the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office, only about 14.4 percent were able to cast votes that counted in the presidential election.

To make matters worse, Minnesota state data indicate that local election officials were 16 times more likely to reject military absentee ballots than they were to reject other absentee ballots, and most of these ballots were rejected because they were returned after Election Day.  Many potential military absentee voters actually received their absentee ballots after Election Day.  This is shameful.

As long as they’re at it, legislators should do more than the minimum to comply with the new mandate.  They should consider extending the absentee voting window as long as 90 days, from the current mere 30 days.

Also as long as they’re at it, legislators should enact other measures to improve our state’s absentee voting system—measures whose need for all absentee voters became glaringly apparent during the recount that took place after the 2008 U.S. Senate election and which a recent investigative report by Twin Cities TV news station KSTP uncovered.  Needed reforms include the following:

•    Institute a centralized process for administering military absentee ballots.  Military absentee ballots are an anomaly for many local election officials and present challenges that regular absentee ballots do not.  Administering them requires some specialized knowledge.  The process of administering them should be streamlined to serve military voters better.  The secretary of state’s office is already equipped to do this.

•    Institute systems of barcoding and central processing of absentee ballots.  This would allow election administrators to track the timing of sending and receiving absentee ballots, to track acceptance and rejection of absentee ballots (including specific reasons for rejection, where applicable), to report absentee ballot statistics after each election, and to identify more readily where problems exist in the absentee ballot process.  Having county-level absentee ballot boards process absentee ballots would reduce variances and deviations that currently occur in the acceptance and rejection standards when administered by polling place workers who often have already worked long hours by the time, on election night, when they are looking at and processing absentee ballots for the first time.

•    Institute “no-excuse” absentee voting.  Currently, Minnesota law allows absentee voting supposedly only for people who claim one of the following reasons for needing an absentee ballot: absence from their precinct on Election Day, illness or disability, service as a polling place worker in another precinct, religious observance, or eligible emergency declared by the governor or quarantine declared by the government.  This law is unenforced and unenforceable.  Nevertheless, citizens do not necessarily recognize this fact and may be deterred from voting.  The law should be changed to allow absentee voting without an excuse.  Moreover, a no-excuse absentee voting system would be superior to the various “early voting” schemes that some people have suggested, mainly because early voting schemes do not allow voters to change their minds and re-vote like absentee voting does.  (Voters change their minds far more often than many people recognize, and not just in extreme instances like the death of a candidate in a plane crash.)

These are just four recommendations from a report on election reform entitled “No Longer a National Model: 15 Recommendations for Fixing Minnesota Election Law and Practice,” recently issued by the Minneapolis-based think tank Center of the American Experiment.  The full report, which includes election reform recommendations in the broad categories of general election operations, absentee voting, and recounts, is available at www.americanexperiment.org or by calling 612-338-3605.

Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner laughs when I ask her who her favorite Gubernatorial candidate is other than herself. She ponders for second before laughing, “Has anyone else answered that question?” I explain that I had to at least try and for a second I thought I might get an answer. She had plenty of other straightforward answers though. Like when I ask why a County Attorney is a good candidate for Governor, “I’m the only candidate with executive experience. When I make difficult and unpopular choices I am held accountable, there’s no passing the buck. Regardless of the implications for my political career, I have to make decisions that are best for my entire community.”

I’ve asked all the candidates that have checked in with DiscoverPolitics.org this question: If Minnesota Democrats and Republicans nominate candidates from the far extremes of their party, does that set the stage for another Independent to step and sweep up votes? So far they have all said or implied no, that voters will resonate with a candidate regardless of where they fall on the liberal/conservative scale. When I ask Gaertner, she says “Absolutely.  This is a race that will decided by swing voters and the DFL needs to nominate someone that appeals to those voters.” I ask about where she falls on the scale and she says that she thinks she has “progressive politics”, but is grounded in pragmatism. “I work in a non-partisan environment and it has to be that way to get anything done. That’s what Minnesotan’s want at the capitol”.

Gaertner is also different in that she doesn’t have the same knee jerk reaction to Governor Pawlenty’s approach to the budget at the end of the last session. “It shouldn’t have come to that”, she says, “As a Democrat I am very critical of the choices the Governor made, but it shouldn’t have come to that. Everyone in the legislature has to take responsibility for the budget and revenue mess,  but in the end the Governor made decisions that primarily impact the Minnesotan’s who are most vulnerable”. She is more critical of Pawlenty’s policies in general. “His ‘no new taxes’ pledge was irresponsible. All that did was push taxation down to local government”. When I ask what she would do differently, “You have to effectively communicate with the public about what their government needs to do. Then you need to assure them that their tax dollars will be spent wisely. Then you responsibly trim the budget and raise revenues”. I’m unsure if she means being clear with the public about what their Government needs to do vs. wants to do or if she means just better explaining what Government is responsible for, but she seems to be implying that Governor Pawlenty did a poor job of communicating.

We talk about Democrats holding solid majorities but still constantly in-fighting instead of getting a cohesive message out. She says that the Governor’s role to utilize the Democratic majorities in both houses is to build an agenda that the public can get behind and then “dampen the partisan fighting”. “Governor Pawlenty created a culture where everyone is focused on fending for themselves instead of thinking like a community”.

We talk about her campaign and the other nominees. She will abide by the party endorsement. That seems to keep her focused on April instead of concerning herself with the funding advantages of a Dayton or Entenza. She says that once she gets the nomination she’ll raise enough money to compete with the fundraising frontrunners.
Her confidence comes in her strong record. She says her campaign has similarities with Sen. Klobuchar in that it’s hard to run against an experienced and successful prosecutor. “I can’t imagine what the negative campaign ads will be. Will they say I was too hard on crime?” We wrap up with me asking what one thing she’d like voters to know about her. “I can win in the general election. I can beat any Republican nominee”.

Former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton has been on the campaign trail and raising money since January of 2009 trying to convince Minnesotans that he has what it takes to occupy the Governor’s office and fix the mess left behind by Governor Pawlenty. In early November, Dayton finds himself fundraising his way down the west coast and during a few moments of downtime in Los Angeles he was so kind as to check in with DiscoverPolitics.org.

Before I can even get to my first question, asking about his recent AFSCME endorsement, I ask him how things are going and he launches right into his excitement over the accomplishment. “It was a fair, head to head contest for that endorsement and I’m proud to have the support of their 43,000 members.” I ask him about the speculation that such a high profile endorsement this early in the race could be tied to his declaration to keep his campaign going through to the general election regardless of whether or not he gets the party’s endorsement. “I can tell you from speaking to [AFSCME] members that the issue on their minds when choosing a candidate wasn’t the primaries, it was electability. I’m the only candidate who has won a statewide election.” Dayton also points out several times during our interview that you probably can only get the party endorsement if you publically agree to abide by it, and since he has vowed to continue on to the general election regardless of endorsement, he may be unlikely to get it. After all, a general election is democracy in its purest form and Dayton plans on “letting all the voters decide”.

Since he is currently fundraising out of state, I ask him to share some details on how his campaign will be financed. He declines to answer, stating that in a race like this, how you fund your campaign could end up being key. “You wouldn’t get to see Brad Childress’ play book earlier in the week either,“ he shoots back as the topic snaps shut.

Every Democrat running in the race for the Governor’s chair is harshly criticizing Governor Pawlenty. I ask about Pawlenty’s use of unallotments and line item vetoes at the end of the last session to address the budget deficit. I’m trying to find a sense of understanding or empathy, perhaps an acknowledgement that in a tough spot, there are gray areas surrounding any option. No empathy here. “It was illegal and violated the constitution. It even violated the spirit of the constitution and our traditional notions of the roles of the branches of government. There’s a law suit happening now and I hope a court finds the violation.”

How would Dayton fix the budget? “We don’t have a budget problem in Minnesota, we have a revenue problem. I would raise taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans. Governor Pawlenty’s own administration shows data that the wealthiest in Minnesota pay a lower percentage in taxes than everyone else.” He also suggests that Republicans will misrepresent that message into: I will raise taxes. “If the Republicans would run an add with me saying that I would raise taxes on only the wealthiest Minnesotans, I would help pay to run that ad!”

I ask about what his big weaknesses are in a campaign and what the Republicans will point out as his main flaw. “They’ll manufacture something.” He tells me that the state Republican party has a staffer or a volunteer at his campaign stops videotaping each event, which he thinks is good. “You would hope that at least the attacks will be true since they’re taping everything.”

I try to ask him about the public’s view of far left and far right candidates, which seems appropriate in a state that recently saw an Independent win the race for Governor by selling himself as the middle. Dayton refuses to talk in hypotheticals, but casually mentions that in recent elections that Independent candidates have tended to take more Democratic votes than Republican. When I ask him where he falls on the liberal to moderate scale and where he thinks the public sees him on that scale, he says that he doesn’t care about labels, he’s a Democrat. As far as the public’s perception, “I think I have a good sense of the pulse of what Minnesotan’s want because I’m out there talking to them, not because I fit a label.”

I’m hesitant to breach the subject of bad press from the end of his term in the Senate and how it still haunts him. But he is very conversationally approachable and forthright. He says he disregards the title of “Blunderer” from TIME magazine. He writes it off as a “non-substantive” article and offers that the statement and article say more about TIME than about his public service.  I also ask about his own grading of his Senate term as an F. Dayton points out that the comment was taken out of context because he stated that he would give the entire Senate an F, including himself. What does this say about his role in the governing body and the work he did during his one term? “I have very high expectations for myself and I hope Minnesotan’s see that as me refusing to duck responsibility.” Honest self criticism from a politician is a bit absurd. Just typing it now, Microsoft Word underlined the phrase and suggested I consider revising. I can certainly see how some Minnesotans would find this appealing,, refreshing and honest, but Republicans will throw this at him for at least another year.

Mark Dayton has the name recognition early in the game. He has the funds to push a campaign forward. He is connected to greater Minnesota in a way that the ever expanding pool of inner-city candidates is not. If history is any guide, the Democratic candidate will struggle connecting to greater Minnesota next fall. When I ask him what he wants Minnesotan’s to know about him he fires off a quick list: “I have 34 years of public service on my record. I have served in local, state and federal government. I was 1 of 23 senators who voted against the Iraq war.” And my personal favorite, which makes him the front runner for my vote, “I was the only Minnesotan on Richard Nixon’s enemies list.” Nice.

Courtesy South Carolina Governor's Office

You don’t have to delve too deep to uncover news of the most recent infidelity in American life. You’d have to be stuck on an inner-tube in the boundary waters for the past couple months to miss David Letterman’s on-air admission of affairs with his staff-members.

Our culture is rife with scandals of infidelity, but as Letterman’s story fades from the headlines, his place as television’s elder statesman of late-night is still secure. In fact, news of Letterman’s affair sparked an outcry of support from his friends and colleagues. His admission even drew immediate on-air applause. It is difficult not to contrast this treatment with the cloud of controversy that surrounds similar scandals when they are centered on a politician or public official. Unlike Letterman’s case, entire political careers and professional reputations have been left in the wake of various Zippergates throughout the years.

So what makes politicians so much more vulnerable to the occupational consequences of their carnal misdeeds? There are really two factors that distinguish politicians from the rest of us sinners.
First, the nature of their actions usually warrants a stronger response; politicians’ affairs have often been more daring, if not less discreet than the average affair. Mark Sanford lied to an entire state when he flew to Argentina for an international booty call. So much for lip stick on the collar; Sanford’s wife got suspicious when his affair showed up on CNN. By the time it made Fox News she was convinced.

But at least Sanford had the discretion to choose a private residence; former President Clinton didn’t have that luxury.  Even Slick Willie couldn’t pull off a South American escapade like Sanford’s with Air Force One and a secret service detail. So instead, he had to settle for the oval office. Clinton’s affair drew a lot of extra heat because he cheated while he was in the seat of power… literally. Eliot Spitzer avoided government property when he was busted, but he could not avoid public ridicule. The Governor of New York, once dubbed “The Enforcer” by Fortune Magazine for his hard-nosed crime-fighting as district attorney, was known to his pay-girl mistresses simply as “Client Number Nine.” He was forced to resign.

These outlandish examples aren’t really that outlandish when it comes to the political elite. There is a long laundry list of politicians whose adulterous escapades defy belief. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was revealed to have used a D.C. brothel several times as a Congressman. He won his seat in a special election after his predecessor, Bob Livingston, resigned in the midst of his own adultery scandal. From Ensign and Condit, to Gingrich and JFK, politicians have been fighting sex scandals with regularity for centuries.

The strategy these days, in an age of digital documents and lie detector tests, has been trending towards full and immediate disclosure. Tabloid magazines and television shows can offer too much incentive to keep a mistress quiet, and the tools for producing evidence are much more ubiquitous than they have been in the past. Can you imagine if Paula Jones had a cell phone camera? What would Marilyn Monroe have tweeted after a beltway-rendezvous if the technology had been available? With such a lucrative and reliable market for muck, airing out one’s dirty laundry has become a simple calculation: if there is an accusation and any paper trail to back it up, then disclose everything and get it over with.

Consider the case of John Edwards. The former Senator and candidate for Vice President is the incorruptible leading man in the Frank Capra feature film that plays on constant a loop in his mind. This state of psychosis was shattered when Edwards was cornered by tabloid reporters in the lobby bathroom of his mistress’s hotel in the summer of 2008. Edward’s affair was rather mundane: boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy vows to marry girl after his cancer-suffering wife is dead.

Once Edward’s story broke, he had little choice but to come clean. Edwards hit the airwaves like Ryan Seacrest with a sugar rush. The culmination of Edward’s attempted redemption came with one hell of an awkward exchange between John’s wife, Elizabeth, and Oprah Winfrey, as the two try to mimic her husband’s mistress’s pick-up line. As they jokingly discussed the eloquence of the phrase “you’re so hot,” and the intentions of its speaker, Elizabeth Edwards ignored the fact that her husband had made extensive post-mortem romantic plans. After the commercial break, viewers got a tour of their home as John feigned humanity.
It is no wonder that politicians are torched for such scandals, these actions convey an attitude of arrogance. If Edwards is saddened, it’s because he is not as impervious as he thought. Aside from passing judgment on his character, politicians like Edwards can be objectively criticized for their lack of judgment and foresight. They know very well the consequences of their actions. When Bill Clinton became embroiled in his sex scandal, he called on a well-known Democratic attorney to depose the two most crucial witnesses, Monica Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan. That attorney was John Edwards.

Still, it cannot be said that politicians are the only Americans with bizarre or arrogant infidelities. To err is human, and people from every walk of life can stray from the faithful path. So why the outrage for public officials? Why don’t they get the free pass that has already been given to David Letterman? The answer to that is at the very heart of our democracy, at the core of our political culture. Every American, from the stuffiest, most conservative septuagenarian (Scalia), down to the punkiest anarchy symbol-sporting anti-socialite in your high school class, has a vested interest in our nation. If you have bought a pack of gum, or collected a paycheck, or defrauded your best friend for a million dollars profit, you have bought a little chunk of this country.

As a shareholder of USA Inc., you have the ability to elect leaders, and you have the right to judge their actions. If their actions aren’t aligned with your values or beliefs, you can and should be upset. That is the trade-off. You have to pay your taxes, but once that check is cashed, you have every right to expect professional and ethical satisfaction. If you are invested in a company, and the CEO of that company philanders to your disliking, you can sell your stocks and simply cash out. There is no cashing out on your commitment to the U.S. Government, and this obligation to the representatives of that Government is what separates David Letterman from Mark Sanford.

Rumor has it that President Barak Obama, a well-known and admitted tobacco addict in recovery, still sneaks two packs of cigarettes a day. My source for this little tidbit of information is unassailable. He is a Hollywood gossip-monger that has daily time on a morning FM radio show in Minneapolis.

Good enough for me.

And quite frankly, I know smokers. They never truly quit. They only pretend to quit.

I know smokers because I grew up in a haze of blue smoke. Both parents smoked like, well, 1960s smokers. That was when everybody had ash trays all over the house and people bragged about how much they smoked: “Four packs a day.” Really, some people smoked four packs a day in the groovy 60s and turbulent 70s. My old man was considered a light smoker for the time. He lit up only one pack of Camels a day.

I wonder what brand the President favors? He has to be a Marlborough Man. Laura Bush, another famous political party puffer (most people are surprised when they find out she smokes), was a Newport Lady. I know this because of all the photographs posted on the internet of her relaxing with a heater, and because I stood right behind her during a speech once for 30 minutes so close that I could reach out and flip the pages of her well-written text for her. You could verily see the nicotine on her nice green suit; smelling the menthol was no problem. It was bonded molecularly into her Aquanet hairspray producing a rather unpleasant odor, but the menthol was there. She tried like crazy to quit; came close once but after back surgery she started up again. Good excuse as far as I’m concerned, and heck being married to G2 was no picnic so she deserves this little pleasure.

Obama smoking is no problem for me. This imperfect part of him is a nice contrast. He is too perfect. His perfect suit. The perfect way he tilts his head as he gives another perfect speech. The perfect way he cleaned McCain’s political clock in the election. Too much perfect. Smoking humanizes him. I like this human side of him. That and I like smokers. They are great people to be around. What I like most about them is the fact that they have no illusions about living forever. It’s clear, because the well-founded consequences of their bad habit that they aren’t even going to try. They’re going to live life to the end; trailing an oxygen tank right behind them.

Damn the torpedoes!

Let’s stipulate that President Obama is a good man, whether or not you agree with his politics. He clearly loves his wife, is a very good father (even though he has a job that takes him away from the kids now and then), likes dogs (even though he has one that chews up the White House furniture), loves his country, and can smoothly sink a 15 foot jump shot.

He is, however, a good man with a bad habit.

The only thing the president and I have in common is that we both smoke; he cigarettes and I cigars. I started smoking at the relatively advanced age of 35. A corn lobbyist in Washington DC took me out for dinner one night. After the superb meal and incredible bottle of wine he called for the cigar menu (They have menus for cigars)? Since I had no idea what to do I ordered the most expensive one on the list. It was fabulous! Why hadn’t I been smoking for all these years? I had a good deal of making up to do.

I haven’t looked back since.

It is my fondest goal in life to expire from this world sitting in an overstuffed wing-back chair with a still-lit stogie between my lifeless fingers.

Winston Churchill is a famous cigar smoker; so famous that a cigar is now named in his honor. It’s called, you guessed it: “The Churchill.” Seven inches long and fortyeight ring around of pure smoking pleasure. It’s so big it takes about two hours to finish, and the Prime Minister smoked an average of ten per day. You do the math, he puffed down an estimated 250,000 in his iconic life (he lived to the ripe old age of ninety). Back then people still smoked in bed, especially Sir Winston. He smoked so much that his wife sewed a smoking bib for him as a protection against burning holes in his silk pajamas. Now that’s a wife. She didn’t make him stop the bad habit, she found a way for him to continue. She enabled his bad habit!

I love that woman.

One time I was in an outside restaurant bar overlooking a wonderful river. Having finished my meal, I legally lit up a Partagas Esplendido. As I gazed into the eyes of my loving wife while I puffed, she developed a concerned look on her face. She kept looking behind me with genuine fear. I was perplexed but continued my enjoyment. A minute later the table server rushed over to ask me to put out the stogie. I finally looked behind me and saw a rabid customer being held back by his dinner guests. Honest, they were holding him back. If he could have broken free from their grip, I can guarantee you that I wouldn’t be here writing. I would be dust in an urn on the mantle piece over the fire place. He would certainly have killed me.

I put the cigar out.

The thought comes to mind; would this man have attacked the Winston who saved England and probably Europe from Nazi domination? Would this man have attacked President Obama (assuming the Secret Service took the day off)? Would this man have attacked FDR who smoked with the use of a fancy cigarette holder?

I think he would have!

He would have been wrong.

Good people have bad habits. That’s no reason to attack them or even to really think less of them.

It is probably better to just live and let live.

Mr. President, I light this Churchill in your honor.

Until later.

Winston Smith.

Winston Smith observes life, or as he puts it “The Slow Parade of Lemmings, ” with a 12-year old single malt scotch in hand, and a Fuente Fuente Opus X in the ash tray.  He scratches out his thoughts on parchment with a well-dipped fountain pen.

In his spare time, Winston enjoys swimming the English Channel, and tinkering in his basement medical device and pharmaceutical shop.  He is currently working on a cure to help the millions suffering from the scourge of political indifference.

Pat Anderson launched her campaign for governor on Monday, November 2nd, 2009, the day before Election Day. The backdrop for her campaign was undoubtedly defined by several close elections around the country, and the results were mixed. On the bright side of the red tent, Republican victories in the Virginia and New Jersey governor’s races had to be a boost for GOP morale; they were a sign that the past four years of DFL dominance may be running dry. On the cloudy side was a race that in many ways should have no bearing on the battle to be Minnesota’s next Governor.

After all, the congressional competition in question, between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens was not a state-wide race. Beyond that, it was in New York, a state that is demographically and politically unlike Minnesota. That race, however, which pitted a moderate Republican against an ultra-Conservative against a Democratic candidate will certainly resonate in Anderson’s campaign, and in the campaigns of all Republican candidates. After all, the endorsed Republican for NY-23 backed out of the race when her Conservative opponent received strong support from national Republican leaders, (including Minnesota’s current Governor).

It appears that the question for Minnesota’s Republican candidates may be: how conservative is conservative enough? Anderson does not think the traditional labels fit anymore. She supports Hoffman, the Conservative Party Candidate, but does not agree that he is on the “far right.” This difference is part of the rift she sees growing in the Republican party:

“I think you are seeing a new alignment of politics in this country. In the past we thought of far-right candidates as candidates who were very maybe socially and religiously conservative, but also believed in using Government to dictate values to people. And I don’t believe that the constitution candidate or the tea party movement comes from that philosophy at all. I think it comes from the philosophy of limiting the scope of government in our lives, period.”

This is a theme that you can expect to hear often in coming months. Amid threats of stimulus bills, rising taxes and public options, Republicans are pining for fresh air. The cries for limiting the government’s reach are coming not only from the tea-partying mobs, but from the candidates as well. Democrats opine that Republicans are quick to forget the years of Bush 43’s domestic surveillance programs and Medicare part D program when they talk about “limited government.”

Anderson, however, should prove to be immune to such criticism. She boasts a record of limiting government to the extreme, even laying herself off as State Commissioner of Employee Relations in 2007. It was a feat that should certainly help her if she is ever questioned on her ability to lead by example. She also takes pride in not having ever been a legislator. It is a fact, along with her gender, that separates her from the GOP crowd. Unlike her closest competitors, she has held an executive office, as Mayor of Eagan, and has won a state-wide race for State Auditor in 2002. She argues that these distinctions will help her govern.

When asked about vetoes and unallotment, Anderson is confident that we will not see unallotment used to resolve budget disputes ever again:

“(F)irst of all the Democrats are not gonna screw up again like they did last session. So the Governor is not going to be able to simply unallot if we don’t pass a budget, which is what happened last time. That is the last time that will occur, unless you’re mid-budget-cycle obviously. The veto pen is a tool, but it is not the end game, because the Governor can and should veto bad legislations, whether tax or other things, but in the end we have to come up with a budget. And so it’s simply a tool to say “no,” but it is not coming up with an end game solution.”

She also expressed hope that the veto will not be necessary as she intends to form consensus on tax reform – even if the legislature remains in DFL control. Anderson is not the only Republican candidate who hopes to bridge the partisan divide by creating a conservative consensus on issues, David Hann said something similar to DP earlier this month. However, there are some insiders who have derided this plan, saying that given the state’s recent electoral history, planning on anything but a DFL dominated legislature is dangerously wishful thinking. It is not hard to believe that this thinking aligns with that of Republican delegates, who may not want to be confronted with the possibility of their candidate compromising after election day.

If Anderson, or a similarly staunch conservative candidate emerges victorious in 12 months, insiders think that it is highly unlikely a majority consensus will be easily formed. Anderson’s ideas run perpendicular with many solutions proposed by her Democratic counterparts. When confronted with the proposition of raising taxes on the wealthiest ten percent, she did not hesitate, and was quick to oppose increased income taxes:

“Absolutely not, in fact, I am not a supporter of income taxes or any sort of taxes on productivity. I believe that we should be focused more on taxing consumption, which generally means a broader sales tax, rather than taxing productivity. Now someone like Mark Dayton has never been productive in his life, so he doesn’t, you know, get it, he inherited all of his money. But the states that are successful right now are states that […] don’t have high income taxes, or in some case don’t have income taxes at all, don’t have corporate taxes. They are states that focus more on consumption-based taxes. And I think we need to make that shift and we need to make it immediately so we are positioned well as this country comes out of the recession to be able to grow jobs and grow the private sector.”

This response, even in terms of vitriol, is almost verbatim the answer given by David Hann on the subject of increased income taxes. It is a difference in opinion so stark, that forming consensus on the government’s role in life seems like recklessly wishful thinking. As for healthcare, Anderson rejects the notion that Minnesota needs to work on expanding healthcare coverage:

“Well we have the lowest rate of uninsured in the country, so we do not have an uninsured problem in Minnesota. The few people who go without insurance go without it because they don’t want or they aren’t bothering to do it, even though they would qualify for the public program. Or they are illegal immigrants and they can’t qualify for the public program. So Minnesota does not have an uninsured problem.”

She does, however, see areas for common ground in the reduction of healthcare costs, specifically in allowing competition among healthcare insurance providers:

“Your issues here are the significant number of mandates that the state government from a bipartisan standpoint, both Republicans and Democrats, have placed upon insurance companies. Insurance companies can only exist here if they are non-profit. They have 65 mandates on coverage issues, so you essentially have only three or four companies in the state that even sell healthcare insurance anymore. And it’s because of the regulatory environment that the state has created.

Minnesota has almost moved toward a single payer market. It’s been a gradual move, and it’s been bipartisan.”

This is a concern spoken like a true free-market conservative. It makes sense, then, that Anderson has chaired the Minnesota Free Market Institute. The MFMI is a non-profit organization that advocates limited government and free-market solutions. On its website, the MFMI claims to be non-partisan, but it is no wonder that it is a favorite of conservatives. Anderson has been courting free-market conservatives in her campaign for governor, and she says she expects to see a resurgence of limited-government Republicans. After all, she says, this is the philosophy of Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Both Goldwater and Reagan are no less than patriarchal heroes in the Republican Party, and for any candidate vying for the endorsement, evoking their memory is standard practice. Lines start to blur when it comes to supporting modern-day small government advocates, most notably, Ron Paul. Paul, who was shunned by the state party in 2008 for his refusal to endorse John McCain, represents a force to be reckoned with when it comes to Republican delegates and activists. His supporters are famously ardent, and they can be a boon or hindrance, depending on how they receive a candidate.

She thinks the Republican Party is growing, and she respects Paul for his philosophy of limited government. In his supporters, she sees opportunity. Paul supporters, as she sees it have been drawn from a myriad of parties, including the DFL, in support of limited government. She thinks that this wave of activists are signaling the future of the Republican Party:

“(I) think that this has moved way beyond Ron Paul, and it’s becoming as I see it the dominant philosophy in the Republican Party. […] I have support from both sides. I have support from the Campaign for Liberty, and I have support from very traditional Republicans.”

When asked about her endorsement opponents, Anderson asserts that current frontrunner Marty Seifert has no appeal for limited government supporters, but she acknowledges that David Hann and Tom Emmer do share her passion for limiting government. It is conceivable that the three trailing candidates may be sharing the same base of support right now, and Anderson’s battle is a battle of attrition. However, if no one blinks in this three-way contest for the reddest Republicans, they could in fact, split this vote perfectly. That appears to be what happened at the Republican straw poll in October.
In the meantime, Anderson refuses to be out-Republicaned; when asked what she disagrees with in her party’s platform, she could not think of any issue, although she assumes there are some. Regardless of the Republican endorsement, Anderson believes that her passion for limited government will come through in the next election. There is no doubt which side she thinks will emerge victorious:

“(F)rankly, this next year, we in Minnesota are going to have a very public debate about the future of this state. It’s gonna be a very serious debate because people are looking for answers. They are not looking for one-liners, they aren’t looking for, you know, candidates who say “we’re gonna do this,” but never say what they’re going to cut.”

BRIAN SULLIVAN WILL NOT RECONSIDER DECISION ON GUBERNATORIAL BID

Brian Sullivan, Minnesota’s Republican National Committeeman, issued the following statement today:

“In June, I announced that I would not run for governor in 2010. However, in the following months, I received many requests from Republican activists to reconsider that decision.  As a result, two weeks ago I asked some friends to sound out the opinions of party leaders about the possibility of my candidacy and to understand the challenges of a late entry into the race.  Though I received much gratifying encouragement to run, I concluded that my business obligations would prevent me from dedicating the time needed to run an effective campaign.  Accordingly, I will not reconsider my previous decision, and I will not be a candidate for governor next year.

I am optimistic about Republican prospects to keep the governorship, and I look forward to supporting the party’s endorsed candidate.”

Sullivan’s decision leaves a field of candidates led by State Rep Marty Seifert, followed by Tom Emmer,  Pat Anderson, and David Hann. As the election cycle nears, it is looking more certain that this will be the final field of candidates from which Republican delegates will choose.  Stay tuned to Discover Politics for more updates on the Governor’s race.

Press Release: Close, But No Cigar

Governor Pawlenty remains in the Midwest for a weekend, but can’t bring himself to stay in Minnesota.

St. Paul (November 6, 2009) — The DFL Party released this statement from Chair Brian Melendez on Governor Pawlenty’s trip to Iowa tomorrow:

“After taking a beating in nearly every presidential poll for 2012, Governor Pawlenty is headed to the Ronald Reagan Dinner tomorrow so that he can pander to conservatives in Iowa — after stopping in briefly to tell us Minnesotans what we’re doing wrong before he heads off to his latest campaign stop. While it’s nice that the Governor will be closer to home than usual, let’s not kid ourselves — whether he’s just south of the Minnesota border or halfway across the world, the Governor gave up working for Minnesotans long ago.”