Speed Gibson

Just when I think I should hang up my gloves on this series, I catch a great edition of this concept. Today's contestant was Sue Jeffers, owner of the lengedary Stub & Herb's restaurant and U of M hangout. I haven't been there in perhaps 25 years (once), and 35 years before that (several times). I am overdue and feel compelled to put some money in her till for all she's gone through and is doing to end the smoking ban.

Also, somewhat of a twist, Jason the producer played somewhat of a co-host role, and it sounded as if planned as opposed to what happened to Sean McDevitt in week 18. Again, Katherine Lampher could learn something about the concept from Jason.

The first hour was great, talking about the smoking ban and all of the other impositions that restaurant owners are fighting. She listed several, like the minimum wage (without tip credit) increase. She leads a group of owners who are seeking relief as in at least partial repeal from Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. But could she go beyond this issue I wondered.

It turns out she could, drawing on her years as a Republican and her experience as a mother of three teenagers. It wasn't quite as "tight" as the first hour, but it sure beat many an hour I hear elsewhere on talk radio.

Sue, great job, an A minus! Keep'm flying!

As you probably saw on Shot in the Dark, Race to the Right and elsewhere, today was the inaugural broadcast of "Race to the Right" on St. Cloud's KNSI AM 1450. You may remember them from "The Deuce" as Mitch Berg calls The Patriot II (1570) and week 2 of KSTP AM 1500's The Next Big Thing.

KNSI is but 1,000 watts, so you probably have to pack a picnic lunch, a CC Radio, and camp beneath the transmitter up there. But the web stream is of excellent quality.

The hosts, whom MOBsters should be more than familiar with are Marty Andrade and Tony Garcia.

By all means, give them a listen. I certainly plan to next week to hear their guest, the always entertaining and informative guest Dr. Cheri Yecke, candidate for the Sixth Congressional District. (Who isn't?)

For the record, I serve as a city-appointed volunteer representative on the Northwest Suburban Cable Communications Commission, which serves nine northwest suburbs. We handle franchising issues and operate the (award winning) Channel 12 news and public access facilities. We don't set or regulate rates, however.

Having just upgraded from analog cable and dial-up internet, I believe cable is the best way to go. Yes, you can do satellite TV with Tivo of course. You can do DSL through your telephone company, and all in all it's usually less expensive. But unless you have a specific requirement like NFL Sunday Ticket, I think cable gives you more.

Yes, we get all the local channels, we get Channel 12, plus whatever channel package you sign up for. The combination of HBO, Pay Per View, and especially Video On Demand (VOD) beat even NetFlix. I doubt our local video rental location will see much of us from now on, if at all.

We watched "The Day After Tomorrow" on VOD yesterday. It started when we were ready (on demand), and we paused it for a few minutes to handle an interruption. The movie was pretty bad, but the experience was great.

We also got the dual-tuner Digital Video Recorder (DVR, like "Tivo"). We can record one show while watching another, unlike most Satellite Tivo systems. It's integrated into a single set-top box - no separate cable box - and it doesn't need a phone line to get program information.

Cable broadband Internet is blazingly fast as I noted before. My son tells me his X-box goes full throttle even over the wireless home network. And I've noticed that downloads go three times faster than my T-1 LAN office computer.

Finally, let me give Comcast some kudos for a fast, perfect installation, and good assistance with one minor e-Mail software of theirs. I was never even put on hold. The old days of the clueless technicians may be behind us, perhaps at Qwest as well.

Anyway, I am impressed, happy to pay for a better Minnesota TV/Internet solution.

We hold state office elections every two years, the House each cycle, the Senate and Executives every other cycle. The first task a newly elected official meets is our onerous bienneial budget process. The Governor has to scramble to present a baseline budget in a matter of weeks. Those new to the Legislature have to quickly assess the workings of the budget process. That Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature did such a great job in 2003 is by far the exception as 2005 proved with the same folks in charge.

Why not shift the fiscal biennium to end in even years instead of odd years? There would be two benefits:

1. New electees have more time to learn how the budget process works, and spend time preparing for the battles still a year out.
   
2. When the process breaks down, elections are soon at hand while memories are fresh. More to the point, maybe they'll act more responsibly if elections are just a few months out.
   

Even now we heard some calls for elections this year in response to the shutdown. Would Dean Johnson have been so bold as to adjourn at 9:30 pm June 30? Would Tim Pawlenty have been so bold in raising taxes? Would anyone vote for a stadium in a September special session with elections in November? I think not.

The process seems simple enough, though it may require an Amendment to do it. Shorten the next biennium to one year, then resume two year biennums.

I have my home networked broadband connection running. I needed to call Comcast once at the beginning to get the cable modem activated. Everything else was by the book with one small exception.

It works fine, but it's not exactly what I wanted. I'm running 802.11g, but dual-band 802.11a/g technology is pretty available now, maybe $20 a box higher. But whether G or A or even B, the once ubiquitous wirelss ethernet adapter/bridge has disappeared from shelves.

All you can find now are notebook cards, PCI cards, and USB adapters. The standalone device that had a radio antenna and a single ethernet port is gone. The only thing close is what's called a gaming adapter.

Well, I finally found a 802.11g bridge with 5 ports at CompUSA. In fact, they had a couple of off-brand external adapters like I wanted, too, but I decided it best to build a "single vendor solution." So, I settled for a G solution.

But what I want to know is why Linksys and most others have quit making these external boxes. Who wants to tear open a PC to add a PCI card? No doubt you need to install drivers, like the USB adapters. I have a good 10/100 Ethernet card. Why can't I use that directly?

I smell a marketing decision. My bridge cost more than then the router, even the dual-band router.

Oh well, everything works and works fast, even blogging.

We are going whole hog this Friday, when Comcast comes out to convert us from analog to digital cable, including broadband internet service. I have three TV's, one of which will be equipped with a dual tuner DVR (like Tivo). I will be installing some form of home network, too, probably a dual band 802.11 a/b/g system serving two computers and an X-Box.

How long do you think it will take to get everything working? That morning? Later that day? Monday? Later? Place your bets!

Anyway, I will soon be rid of dial-up. It has served me well for years, but the hour has come.

UPDATE 1: Comcast did the three TV's in 45 minutes! I picked up the cable modem yesterday, will descend into Internet hell tonight. But I'm impressed so far.

UPDATE 2: All done. It took a casually paced 4 hours to get it all up and running. It's 1 AM and my son is wailing away on his now on-line X-Box. I downloaded a Dennis Pager mp3 file, runs about 3 times as fast as the LAN at work.

Eric Eskola asked our Governor Pawlenty if he wasn't acting more like a Prime Minister than a Governor. I think he's on to something, but we the people or at least the media seem to expect that while the Legislature is in session. Governor Arne Carlson, and I think also Governor Ventura, drew frequent criticism for not being sufficiently involved in the late hour negotiations.

We didn't hear that this budget session or last. Tim Pawlenty spent considerable time, used some political capital, and took considerable credit for bring the two sides together, however late. But is that the real role of a Governor. I don't think so. Here is my inauguration speech, should you be foolish to draft me as Governor.

"As your new Governor, I now head the Executive Branch of our State's government. While I have some specific powers and duties in interacting with the Legislative and Judicial Branches, my focus will be on my Constitutional duty to administer and enforce our laws. The Legislature passes laws, the Executive implements them, and where necessary, the Judiciary interprets them."

"Many seem to think that the Governor is also a key figure in the Legislative process. I do not, as I told you numerous times during the campaign. True, I have the veto power, but I will not use it simply to express my opinion on the merits or intended purpose of passed legislation."

"Rather than act as an active negotiator, or pursue the goals of my party, I will wear a striped shirt. It's tough enough trying to get the House and Senate to agree without having to also involve the Governor. So I say to the Legislature, do your jobs, send up bills that I can reasonably implement, and that are fully funded. Don't send me bills that clearly won't survive a Court challenge or otherwise violate our Constitution."

"Our Constitution says that bills must be for a single purpose. I will honor that requirement. Bills mixing say, nursing home inspections and a higher education spending will be vetoed. You have nothing to fear sending me separate bills, assuming they're fully funded."

"Now what do I mean by fully funded? Our Constitution requires a balanced budget, and it's my job to determine that. As required, I will send the Legislature a baseline budget, showing what I believe we will be spending and taxing if nothing is changed. On March first, I will publish a revised revenue forecast."

"If my baseline budget and/or the revised forecast indicate a shortfall, I will expect that gap to be closed promptly. If you pass a tax increase, I'll sign it. If you pass budget cuts, I'll sign those, too. If you release funds from our Rainy Day fund, I'll sign that. But until then, I will sign no other bills until we know that the gap is closed."

"If there's a surplus, I will sign spending bills up to the amounts in my baseline budget plus any projected surplus. But I won't otherwise sign a bill that puts us however temporarily in a deficit position. If a given function needs more money, you must cut it from somewhere else or raise taxes. Follow my rules, really just some reasonable controls to be sure we end up with a balanced budget at the end, and I'll sign it."

"We've had too many Special Sessions lately, and a big reason I believe is because waiting until the last minute seems to be rewarded. But passing a flurry of major bills very late in the session imposes on my Constitutional duty to review, then sign or veto them."

"Therefore, after May first, I will veto any bill running more than 100 pages as typed in the standard format. I only have ten days to veto a bill, but if you pass it early, I'll work overtime to review even a 1,000 page bill."

"I'll also promise not to use my line-item veto power on any bill passed at least 10 days before the May deadline. I'm not a fan of the line-item veto, as it equates to making law, not administering it. The Legislature should make the compromises, not the Governor."

"I will also veto a bill my staff considers very difficult to implement. Maybe it's too vague, maybe it's too complex, or maybe it's obviously unconstitutional. I will likely veto these types of bills as well."

"So there are my rules toward a better, more Constitutional approach."

Joel DuBois (I'm guessing on the spelling) was our contestant / host today. He started by giving some of his resume, that of a musician.

We have heard several prior entrants come with show prep out the wazoo on too many topics. Joel does the opposite here, spending the whole two hours on how annoying thumping car stereos are. It was pretty well played out at the thirty minute mark, but it went the distance.

Given so much, Joel did a decent job with the callers and the mechanics of radio. But it just wasn't interesting, not for tow hours. A "D" is the grade.

Being a natural early riser, I heard ABC's weekly news recap / feature program called "Perspective" this past Sunday morning. In their brief recap of the Rove - Wilson - Plame - Miller story I heard dubbed "NadaGate", the reporter stated matter of factly that

• President Bush had promised to fire anyone involved in leaking the name. Andrew Card has carelessly intimated that once and clarified it later. But Bush never said that, using only the "if the committed a crime" criterion.
  
• Joe (and Valerie) Wilson are fine, upstanding citizens hurt by this. A proven, repeated liar, Mr. Wilson has no real reputation to hurt.
  

This program is probably just slapped together in the editing room, but it's still disappointing how any major news organization can allow such obvious false information to go out.

Our Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty is receiving mixed reviews over the 2005 Legislative session. Many in the GOP base are grumbling over a number of policy reversals and the final budget. And I think it's fair to say that almost every Republican is at best disappointed with this "it's a fee, not a tax" rhetoric.

But Pawlenty has his GOP supporters, too, as evidenced by the editorial in todays Minneapolis Star Tribune by former GOP chair Ron Eibensteiner and Powerline's John Hinderaker. This article was a response to last Sunday's editorial by Taxpayer's League honchos David Strom and Michael Wigley. Oddly, the Strib itself seems to be sitting this one out, in effect endorsing the Governor's work this session.

Who's right? Let's start with the Bogus Gold analysis, where you'll find links to the editorials.

Pawlenty’s conservative critics – Strom and Wigley among them - have suggested the governor did poorly due to choosing the wrong legislative priorities and adopting poor negotiating tactics. They also raise questions of basic principle, and ask sensible questions about the governor’s commitment to the same. All of this deserves a response.

This editorial offers a litany of the governor’s good accomplishments, which ought to be remembered. But when it comes to answering Pawlenty’s critics it fails entirely.

This is an excellent summation of the disagreement.

Yes, Pawlenty has done some good things for Minnesota, and his critics, I among them, should be more appreciative. According to Eibensteiner and Hinderaker, Pawlenty can take considerable credit for the strong Minnesota economy, a result of keeping new regulations in check and holding off massive DFL tax increases. He focuses on goals, not tools like the no-new-taxes pledge they say.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is the best thing that has happened to Minnesota and our party in a long time. He is as smart as anyone in politics, and is a likable guy who has connected with Minnesota's voters. In challenging times, he is doing a superb job.

Pawlenty's critics suggest that this success is in spite of himself at times. Several flip-flops, the fee vs. tax embarrassment, and his insistence on the Racino clearly did nothing to further Pawlenty's goals or the Minnesota economy. And how can someone "as smart as anyone in politics" have had such a tin ear on the Racino issue? As Strom and Wigley note:

We could go on and on, but you get the point. Nobody expects a politician to be absolutely rigid and never change his mind, no matter what the circumstances. But how many flip-flops does it take to make you wonder whether the governor is merely flexible, or is perhaps losing touch with his core principles?

Is government too big, or not? Does it tax too much, or not? Is gambling a good way to fund government, or not? Should people be forced out of their cars into government-run transportation, or not? Are baseball and football teams private businesses that don't need government money, or not?

These are not complex questions, and most of us vote at least partly based upon how the candidates answer them.

That's why it is so important that campaign promises mean something. The governor asked us to vote for him based upon what he said and promised during the campaign. Is it too much to ask that his promises mean something?

As Doug noted, Eibensteiner and Hinderaker are not responding to these questions raised by Strom and Wigley. But at the end of the first budget session, I dare say all four were in near-jubilent accord. What happened?

The elections of 2004 happened. Despite President Bush's strong national showing, the GOP lost 13 seats and nearly the majority in the House. The Tim Pawlenty that emerged from this was a changed man. Eibensteiner and Hinderaker are largely praising the 2003 Pawlenty. Strom and Wigley are criticizing the 2005 Pawlenty.

The 2003 Pawlenty said, "Minnesota doesn't have a tax problem, it has a spending problem." The 2005 Pawlenty, seeing a healthy 8% increase in revenues, had no problem spending it. After handling the large deficit of 2003 as a spending problem, he handled the small deficit situation of 2005 as a tax problem, requiring either the Racino or the cigarette tax.

The best evidence of this transformation is Governor Pawlenty's interview with Eric Escola and Cathy Wurzer on KTCA's "Almanac" of July 15, whose unofficial, edited transcript follows. These are not the responses of a Conservative. These are not the responses of the 2003 Pawlenty. Even some of the humility of the 2003 Pawlenty seems to have disappeared.

Wurzer: What do you consider to be one the main accomplishments during the general and special sessions […]?

Pawlenty: If I had to point to just one thing, I’d probably say the improvements we made in school funding and school [reform, providing the] biggest increase in school funding in 10 or 15 years, but as importantly also trying to improve the system through things like performance pay rather than seniority pay. […]

Wurzer: [Do you think teachers are going to go for this “Q-Comp” performance pay system?]

Pawlenty: Yes, I do. In fact, they are. We already have inquiries from a number of school districts, that they’re interested. It could be [an] individual school building or a whole district, and it’s voluntary. The unions and the school district have to volunteer to do it. […] We’re getting calls from around the country on it. We’re going to present on it this weekend at the National Governors Association in Iowa, and they’re interested in it. […]

Education funding was the high point? The biggest increase in K-12 spending in years is a good thing?

Thanks to SCSU Scholars and Craig Westover, we now understand that the Q-Comp system is basically toothless in terms of requiring objective proof for payment. So all we really have here is a big spending increase. We're still waiting for all those previous "investments in education" to make a measurable difference.
What makes Pawlenty think this one will work, such that he can list it as an actual accomplishment?

Eskola: [… You’ve] had two budgets now. [In 2003,] it was conservative Tim Pawlenty holding the tide against spending and [taxes. In 2005,] are you a new, more moderate Tim Pawlenty with 8 percent spending increases […]? What’s the difference in the two years?

Pawlenty: Well, we got a little walking around money […]. When I became Governor, we had a 4.5 billon dollar deficit. And by the way […], we finished that budget cycle on June 30th with a surplus. And we had tough times […]. We had a recession, we’re in a war, we had this huge budget deficit, and an only moderately improving economy […]. And now that has stabilized, and the economy is improving, and we’ve got some change in our pockets. So we’re able to live within our means and still fund those priorities.

This speaks for itself. The mere presence of "change in our pockets" is sufficient reason to spend it.

Pawlenty (cont.): There was a big gap between us and the Democrats. They wanted to spend a lot more. So somebody had to bridge the gap, the difference, and so I proposed to do part of that, took on some heat from my own party, but given the lean times we’ve been through, it’s appropriate to give some more money to our schools [and the safety net but not] so far out of range that it raises taxes to the point of discouraging investment and job growth.

I'm not aware of any reports that our public schools or any other government agency suffered significantly as a direct consequence of the 2003 budget. If you had told someone in 1993 that the biennium budget ten years from then would have grown to $30 billion, would they have believed you? Yet Pawlenty is apologizing for these "lean" times, that resuming the tax and spend course is at least partially justified on that basis.

Wurzer: [You spent a lot of time and personal capital on raising revenue through gambling. Why?]

Pawlenty: Well, the gaming situation in Minnesota needs to be re-aligned. […] We have a very big native American gaming industry in Minnesota but most of the money goes to a small group of tribes in and around the metro area. Most of the native Americans live in the northern tribes and they don’t get much benefit from the current situation. So we’re trying to get some benefit to them, as well as, like most other states, try to get some benefit to the state directly. And most other states with large native American gaming have that kind of arrangement, so we’re trying to move Minnesota in that direction.

Wurzer: Critics say it’s not really a matter of fairness, it’s just easy money.

Pawlenty: Well it is a matter of fairness. When you have an industry that essentially functions as a monopoly, to say, look, in order to keep the monopoly or the franchise, trying to get some money to the northern tribes who are struggling [and to the State] is a fair thing to do. Again, this isn’t something we just cooked up on the back of a napkin. Wisconsin’s done it, Connecticut did it, California did it. Most of the states with this kind of native American gaming have done it. We were hoping to do it voluntarily, rather than force it through the Legislature. But we weren’t able to get the agreement with the tribes.

As the old saying goes, when they say it isn't about the money - it's about the money. Where was this concern for gaming fairness in 2003? And why is it assumed that the State must impose a solution? If the tribes are willing to deal with the state, they can settle this among themselves and for less. No, this is all about getting money to the state treasury - "directly" as Pawlenty put it.

Eskola: Governor, is the cigarette fee is OK from your perspective, why isn’t [a gas tax increase] OK, which is almost like a pure user fee? […]

Pawlenty: […] There are accepted criteria for what’s a tax and what’s a user fee, but people don’t get too caught up in the details of that. I thought it was important to make sure that we tell people, yes, we want a compromise. The only thing I could get the Republicans and the Democrats to agree on in terms of a revenue source which would help bridge the gap is this cigarette fee or as some call it, a tax. At this point I don’t care what you call it. I called it a compromise and a solution.

Pawlenty (cont.): As to the gas tax, the hangup that I have in part with that is it’s the law as a tax […]. One of the things I said early on is we don’t have a perfect definition between a user fee and a tax, but [one way] is how has it been represented in law. And the gasoline tax in law is pretty clearly a tax. […] If the people want a gasoline tax [increase] or the Legislature does, let’s put it on the ballot. I thought that was a reasonable compromise.

It's a fee, he kept insisting, to the point of demanding the law be written that way. But now that it passed, Pawlenty doesn't care what we call it, a fee or a tax. And here again, Pawlenty is portraying himself as the Solomon of budget negotiations, triangulating against his own party.

Eskola: [… I] think the water’s a little muddy on your stance on these revenue issues. Going forward, […] through what prism […] are you going to look at revenue raisers? [Are you changing on this?] Are you still with the Taxpayers League pledge? Where are you?

Pawlenty: I think the Taxpayers League has said I’ve broken their pledge. It was never about the piece of paper or the pledge. It was simply about the value of saying in a really high taxed state, with our revenue growing about 8 percent, we should be able to live within our means and fund our key priorities without having to raise taxes further. It’s a simple as that.

So as we go forward, I think I’ve proven my mettle on taxes, that’s pretty clear. So whether it’s the Taxpayers League or any other interest group, I’m probably not going to be signing anyone’s pledges, because I have a record I can stand on. But what I would say is this: the economy is improving. Under the November forecast, our revenue is going to grow 8 percent. I’ll predict […] that will be increased to 9 or 10 percent. And that should be enough to live between our means in the state of Minnesota without having to raise taxes. And so, I think we can do that.

Now if Democrats want to raise a whole bunch more money and they’ve got another impasse, we can’t have another shutdown. We have to find some compromise. And it’s one of the lessons learned in this terrible partial government shutdown we just had. Everyone’s got strong principles but in the end we’ve got to find some common ground and close up the deal.

This is troubling on a personal level. You sign an agreement, break the agreement (tax), and claim you didn't (fee). When the holder of that agreement says you did break it, you hedge with a "I think" they said I broke it line, then procede to redefine the agreement on the fly. He's not going to sign any more such agreements, but he's sure trying hard to pretend that he honored this one.

Here again, we see Pawlenty, The Great Compromiser. Compromise isn't always good or required. Ronald Reagan's Soviet strategy of "we win, you lose" proved very successful.

Wurzer: What did you learn about governing through all of this?

Pawlenty: I learned a lot about it, not so much about governing, but about people and politics. […] What I’ve learned is that there are certain people in the Legislature who are very powerful, who have very important positions that if left in charge, we will have impasse. They [won’t] compromise. […] You can’t have certain committee chairs who’ll say I’ll never compromise and then have the leader say I won’t force you to make any changes.

He didn't learn much about governing? I can't disagree with him there. But he learned a lot about how the Legislature works, things that he apparently missed while in the Legislature himself, and in a leadership position.

This is breathtaking in its hubris. Pawlenty, whose own leadership skills are demonstrably weak, is accusing demonstrably strong leaders (of both parties we are left to infer) of not simply giving in to his wise compromises.

Eskola: How much of a special interest influence is at work here?

Pawlenty: It’s enormous. I think the citizens generally know there’s interest group power at the Legislature and in Congress, but I don’t think they have any real clue as [to] how penetrating it really is. […] I think the public needs to pay attention to those leaders who are willing to take on some of those interest groups, because in the end if the public doesn’t come in and reward that kind of behavior, then the interest groups will come in and punish it.

Pawlenty makes an excellent point here. That's a big part of what happened to Lynne Osterman and the other GOP House incumbents turned out in 2004. But who are the leaders Pawlenty is referring to? Himself, perhaps?

Eskola: I know you’re at least open to a special session in the Fall. […] I get the impression you and the Legislative leaders are sort of scrambling to find three or four ornaments to put on the tree for what is really going to be a stadium special session.

Pawlenty: I don’t want to raise false hopes about a fall session. I’m open to it. I’d be willing to do it if people can agree on the scope, the issues, and the timetable. Come in, come out, and get it done. Just take the vote and go home, up or down. Given the personalities involved […] that may be too tall an order. […]

Wurzer: [Special sessions usually address big issues, like Northwest Airlines a few years ago. Are amenities like stadiums enough to merit a special session?]

Pawlenty: [Normally yes, but] for example, if you’re going to do a Gophers football stadium and I think we are eventually, many people support that, does it make sense to come in and get that done this year and avoid a 10 percent increase in construction costs and interest that would accrue over the next year if we did it a year from now? Is it a crisis? No. But would it be smart […] to do it this year vs. next year? Probably.

Eskola: [What are the odds?]

Pawlenty: [I’d say 60-40 against.] Not because I don’t want to do it or I’m not open to it. It’s going to be really difficult [... because] these issues are controversial.

It's hard to miss that Pawlenty wants these three or four ornaments now. If agreement comes, he'll call the Special Session and take his share of the credit for adding "fun" to the state. If the Legislators can't agree (and where is Solomon this time?), then the Legislature takes whatever blame there is, Pawlenty none.

But it's also hard to miss that the public simply doesn't want any of these stadium proposals to date, not even the Twins proposal. It would be more hubris to, as a "governor of all the people of Minnesota" impose by force of law his view of what's fun to do in Minnesota.

Eskola: Have a good weekend at the National Governors Association in Des Moines. And report back!

Policy Guy is an excellent source of information on a number of topics. Tuesday, he passed along a study of how poorly rail-based public transitis working across the country.

Dozens of cities around the country, including Pennsylvania cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, are building, planning, or considering new or expanded rail systems. But is rail really the best solution for regions looking to provide commuters with an attractive mix of transportation alternatives?

In a word, no. It turns out that transit agencies that rely on buses are more likely to see transit ridership grow as fast or faster than automobile driving than those agencies that build expensive rail lines—and rail’s lack of success should be a lesson for rail aficionados both inside and outside government.

After reviewing the high cost and inflexibility of commuter rail, the author notes:

Rail transit fattens the wallets of rail contractors who can make campaign contributions to powerful elected officials. But if transit agencies truly want to improve mass transit in their regions, they should rely on fast, flexible, and low-cost buses.

Given so much, why did Governor Tim Pawlenty change his mind, or at least his public position on light rail, specifically the Northstar Corridor? He knows light rail doesn't work. He said as much just two years ago. And he knows much of his GOP base doesn't approve of light rail, either. The Hiawatha Line is undoubtably the biggest boondoggle project in Minnesota history.

Did those construction firms woo Mr. Pawlenty with campaign contributions and support? Did it get him invited to better parties? Whatever brownie points he thought he might receive in the 2005 budget session clearly never arrived.

No, given what's happened this session, and in interviews afterward, I think our Governor is simply being a clever politician. The "success" (and we can't afford much more!) of the Hiawatha line gave him political cover to get in on the next pork project in this series.

More in my next post.

This was the sub-heading of an interesting article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Business Section on an obvious problem: most of our devices are getting harder to operate. I don't disagree, but I'd add this additional facet of the problem.

Product developers are also obsessed with miniaturization. My new cell phone is half the size of the old one, and is about half as good. The buttons are too close together now for one-handed dialing, the acoustic feedback from having the speaker and microphone closer together is significant and annoying, and without the larger, extendable antenna, service is more problematic in remote areas.

My old trusty walkman that ran for months on a single AA battery is now a tiny unit that eats AAA batteries like candy.

I'm looking at MP3 players, and they're soon going to be the size of a quarter. Enough already!

I'm feeling rather bad that I couldn't get to a radio as planned today to hear the start of today's installment of KSTP AM 1500's "The Next Big Thing" from 2-4 pm on Sundays. When I know I'll be away, I use my "Replay Radio" software to record it, but I didn't anticipate a problem. So I am starting at 2:40 pm this afternoon.

I had a tip that David Strom would be on today, so I'm feeling doubly bad. Well, I joined the Phil Krinke interview in progress, and can judge what might have been said before that based on the Taxpayers League Live program yesterday. What I heard was very good, but how could it sound bad to me, hearing two of my personal heroes together?

Yes, David is a professional, going into my pass/fail column instead of the usual A-F grading. But his wife and aide-de-camp Margaret Martin will get full letter grading.

My faithful readers know that I am not generally a fan of "team coverage" in talk radio. But I will make an exception today for two reasons. One, I think David is at his best with someone else in the booth. I say this largely based on TPL on 1280, of course. And two, who wouldn't be better if that someone else else is the lovely and talented Margaret Martin. Those of us who have met her know that David married well above his station! I'm reminded of Ian & Marjorie on FM 107.1, who also work well together.

The second hour was spent on the uptick in Minneapolis crime, something that David and Margaret know only too well as North Minneapolis residents. They and their guest Mark Stenglein, also a Minneapolis resident and candidate for Mayor discussed the situation quite well.

David gets a solid P (pass), Margaret an A. Katherine Lampher would do well to study Margaret's example.

Today I begin my second year here at the International Secret Police's one and only official blog. Some random thoughts and events of the past year:

• I got started like most I suppose, watching the big players like our own NARN. But I also liked what I saw at what was then Jo's Attic. Jo had carved out her own niche and I decided to do the same.
  
• I started off with Blogspot. Many used it, the price was right, and it was quite intuitive. But after a number of outages and lost posts, it was time to upgrade, following Doug at Bogus Gold's lead over to PowerBlogs.
  
• Another inspiration from the start has been the multi-talented Mitch Berg. He writes well, he knows computers, he does radio, and as I've told him, he's "the glue that stirs the drink" at the MOB events. His always interesting blog is my first read every day.
  
• The pressure was too much for me just before the election. I watched incredulously as the MSM fawned for yet another empty suit, that nuanced sophisticate that served in Vietman. "I fear the worst" I wrote. I was wrong, thank goodness.
  
• Late in 2004, Nick Coleman was stepping in it at least once a month. Bloggers large and small, including me at times, "fisked" his columns. But it was getting old, and really too easy. So after contributing my "Little St. Nick" Christmas Carol parody, I resolved not to fisk Mr. Colemman in 2005.
  
• I also resolved to lose some serious weight in 2005. I should have been down about 35 pounds by now, but after losing 20, I fell off the wagon when work got real busy. But I am still down 12, and have got back in the saddle. Results will appear Jan 1, 2006.
  
• Rathergate was, I believe, a truly watershed event. Were it not for alternative media, the blogs in particular, The Dan clearly would have gotten away with it.
  
• I find myself listening to our local Air America station in the car more and more, since I get my regulars on the Internet (Rush, Dennis, Laura). The things I've learned! Maybe 60% of those currently on death row are innocent (Morning Sedition). Michelle Bachman and Steve Sviggum are obsessed with other people's sex lives (a guest on Wendy Wilde). The state shutdown was all Pawlenty's fault. (Nick Coleman) And among those 40,000 able-bodied adults without children that Pawlenty wanted to remove from the Minnesota Care rolls, many of them are single mothers (a DFL Legislator).
  
• I somehow created a small job for myself, reviewing KSTP's "The Next Big Thing" on Sunday afternoons. Week 20 is this weekend, probably time for a recap scorecard.
  
• The Minneapolis Star Tribune tested my patience like never before this year. But I continue to refuse the calls to stop reading it or cancel my subscription. And there may be hope. The DFL didn't get anywhere near the pass one would have expected over the budget shutdown.
  
• The Kool-Aid Report is my Falstaff. They always seem to have just the right post to cheer me up when the news is dull or bleak. How can you stay mad when you read a letter starting off with "Dear Lint Suckers,"?
  
• I may have to try the Keegan's trivia for real next time.
• 
  

As I begin year two, many thanks to everyone I've had the pleasure to have met live or in the Blogosphere.

Have you ever made a presentation, a sales pitch, or a bet where an early clue let's you know that your cleverness will soon be running down your leg? Poor Wendy Wilde earned her pay this segment trying to reign in DFL "enthusiast" Marty Ariones (sic?) who agreed with Mark Kennedy, that Patty Wetterling didn't know the issues.

Wendy: I am really pleased to welcome to The Wendy Wilde Show somebody who’s doing some moving and shaking in central Minnesota, trying to take back the State, and trying to take back America. […] Marty Ariones […,] you live in central Minnesota and you have been working diligently to invigorate the Democratic Party in central Minnesota. That is the area, folks, if you’re not familiar with it, where Mark Kennedy blasted the heck of our amazing Patty Wetterling. He just went for the throat. It was merciless. [Do] you think that that might have been, Marty, a turning point for people in central Minnesota, seeing what they did to Patty Wetterling?

Marty: No, I don’t that in itself was.

Whoops! You were supposed to agree with me.

Marty (con’t): What I think is that people here have become sickened to death of this vicious, malicious, mud-slinging, muck-raking, Republican Party, and all of it in the name of God. They’re all Christians.

Oh, oh. Where did my producer find this one?

Marty (con’t): […] We’re in the middle of a state shutdown. They’re trying to say it’s oh, it was the Democrats, the Democrats, it was gridlock and they just wouldn’t compromise. They brought several compromises to the table, and the Governor each and every time, as soon as it looked like it was going to reach compromise, added things to that budget that had nothing to do with the budget, and made it very clear he would not sign the budget unless those things were included. And of course, Democrats said this doesn’t include that, and this isn’t what this is about. It’s really quite a war. Everything that’s been cut here has been cut, affecting middle class and working people. I notice that none of the Senators or Representatives are going to be going without pay. Neither is the governor.

Wendy: It’s funny, the Governor is still getting a paycheck and for what – for scheduling hunting trips?

Marty: Yeah, that’s about it, too. As far as Mark Kennedy goes, this guy is such a weasel, it’s just not even funny.

Wendy: Bit Marty, I have to interject. There was just an election there in November. He won again. And I noticed because I actually lived in St. Cloud […] for a couple of years. It was an area that surprised me, because it talked a lot about family values, but then it puts people like that in office who would deal in such an atrocious manner as he did Patty Wetterling. And you’re talking about smearing mud, but he won re-election.

Marty: He did. He didn’t win it by that much. It was very close. It was very close.

Kennedy won 56% to 44%, by over 30,000 votes. That's not close. And it's far better than Bill Luther ever did.

Marty (cont’d): I think that the problem that Patty had was that she had not educated herself on the issues. She was not able to get up and speak publicly. When she was questioned about health, education, health care for the poor, and so on, she knew nothing. She simply kept repeating the mantra, “I’m for the kids, I’m for the kids.” I’m sorry, that’s not enough. We’re all for the kids.

Yes, that's the atrocious behavior Mark Kennedy exhibited, challenging Wetterling on the issues, most of which she didn't know. Remember how she kept dodging debates?

Marty (con’t) I think his attacks on her would have worked to her benefit [if she’d had] a stronger message, and if she had bothered to educate herself, bring herself up to speed on issues. I think she could have just whipped him seven ways from Sunday.

Pretty strong stuff, not what Wendy wants to hear. Especially since it's true.

Wendy: I don’t want to sit around and bash Democrats and the Democatic Party or any progressive, but shouldn’t the party have been there educating here before she ever ran?

It can't have been Patty's fault! She's amazing, remember? Only a weasel could have beaten her.

Marty: I think this was a hastily thrown-together campaign for one thing. […] We’ve got the 2006 elections coming up and we need a fireball candidate. We need somebody that’s going to get out there and speak their mind, and not be afraid to stand up for what they truly believe or believe to be factual or true without worrying about what these other people are going to say. We have so much in-fighting in the party itself.

This guest is just not drinking the Kool-Aid. Let's change the subject.

Wendy: Oh, so do the Republicans. I don’t want to keep bashing Democrats because the Republican Party even in Minnesota is sharply divided. We bring Republicans on the show who asked to be on because they want to speak against what’s going on in St. Paul. Repeatedly, we’ve had numerous Republicans on the show who say “I can’t go along with this, I have to stand up for what’s right for my district.” So there is in-fighting within the Republican Party. […] Phil Krinke actually brought forward agreements trying to negotiate agreements behind Steve Sviggum’s back, Marty.

I'd sure like to see that long list of masochistic Republicans begging to be on Wendy's show.

Marty: Oh God, doesn’t he make you sick? I tell you, we’re just sunk here. We are just absolutely sunk here.

Careful, Wendy...

Marty (con’t): We’ve got Michelle Bachman, a Representative, we’ve got Steve Sviggum, both of them so obsessed about other people’s sex lives, they can’t attend to business. These people are absolutely immersed in this stuff, visualizing scenarios of people wanting having sex with animals, and beastiality being the next thing down the line…

Wow! Sure didn't see this one coming. This could be actionable; better cut her off before she removes all doubt.

Wendy: Marty. Marty. Marty! Hello, Marty! This is my show and I told you in e-Mail we don’t go over the line and you’re going over the line.

Hmmm. Apparently this has happened before. I think we're learning more about the guest's sexual fantasies than those of Rep. Sviggum or Senator Bachman.

After some inside baseball, the interview continued:

Marty: [We] are now reaching we hope somewhere around six to seven hundred people. And every day this number seems to be growing. [With the] dissatisfaction with what is going on in this country as a whole, people who were formerly just hard-core conservatives are moving to the left. They’re frightened. People are scared of what’s happening to us.

Wendy: It’s interesting [that what you just brought up is] what these Republicans who call and want to be on our show are saying the same thing. The people who’ve taken control both in Washington and in St. Paul are not conservatives. Look at the enormous deficit spending they have going. And the cronyism, they funnel money to their friends. They give giant contracts to their friends. That’s cronyism, that is not conservatism, that is not conservative financial values.

Marty: These people are like parasites. They have simply attached themselves to the path of least resistance. You have to look at The Federalist Society who’s behind all of this, behind what they call “the movement.” Of course they could not go to the left with the Democrats, because the couldn’t sell the […] immorality […]

Wendy: […] The interesting thing about what you’re saying, is the left actually isn’t left. Because compared with these people, everybody’s left. We’re all stuck in the middle together.

Now that's real projection. The Democratic Party hasn't been this far left since 1972, while GOP base complains daily over RINO's wandering all over the political spectrum. But, no, it's the Republicans who went hard right. Explain that phenomenon to Phil Krinke.

Marty: Exactly, exactly. And people are going to have to stand up, Wendy. They’re going to have to quit sitting back.and going, “oh, I just don’t know what to do.” You’ve got to get up, you’ve got to get up, you’ve got to start talking, you’ve got to start pushing back. This is our country. It is not their country. They don’t own it. They don’t our flag. They don’t own God. This is our country.

Wendy: Good work, Marty. […] Central Minnesota, a growing movement, a growing number of people dissatisfied with the right wing agenda and how it has harmed our cities. How it is harming families by pushing families over the brink. [Remember,] our median family incomes are down almost $1,000 a family in Minnesota. That is the right wing policy result.

There you have it. Vote for Democrats because Republicans are creepy.

Jason Lewis, Minnesota's Mr. Right for ten years, now in North Carolina, has apparently been keeping tabs on our budget situation. He wrote an article appearing in tomorrow's Minneapolis Star Tribune.

For no one in the real world thinks that a $30 billion budget in a state of only 5 million residents (North Carolina has a $32 billion biennial budget serving well over 8 million) represents anything other than a "spending problem."

Let's see, that's $4,000 per capital in North Carolina, $5,000 per capita here. What are they missing?

Higher education? No, they have 50 to our 38, among them the University of North Carolina, NC State, Duke, and Wake Forest.

K-12 education? Roads? Health care? I bet they have all of these, too.

Makes you wonder.

Arlen Specter is back with another dumb idea: Sandra Day O'Connor for Chief Justice. But who is dumber? The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Republican leadership who left him there?

If I had the time and resources of more promiinent bloggers, I would go back to that last alleged trip to the woodshed when Specter last babbled his way off the GOP reservation. He promised to behave we were told.

But now with O'Connor, Rehnquist (counts as two), and maybe Stevens stepping down this year, the old Specter is back, with a worthless, insulting proposal. His stated reasoning is that a speedy, uncontested confirmation is more valuable than the competent rule of law.

No doubt Specter knows how bad it would look if the GOP leadership moved against him now. But that is just what should now happen, before Specter can play another card off the bottom of the deck.

Majority Leader Frist could make it work, saying that we need a chairman fully committed to thorough, fair, and timely hearings for the critcal appointments ahead.

My larger point is that this all would have been so much easier last year, when Specter had no political cover. In any organization, you can't afford unpredicatable liabilities like this. Once you find them, you get rid of them now - on principle.

We heard a familiar voice today, Kelly Gunderson aka NASCAR Kelly when she calls Joe & Pat. She's a frequent caller and recently filled in for Krok a couple of nights. That's not enough to take away her amateur standing, however.

Let's start with Kelly's voice. Like Barry ZeVan, Gunderson's voice isn't exactly made for radio, which has always preferred the baritone to the soprano. She's 31, but sounds half of that, and it simply doesn't compare well with the other women of talk radio, like the Poli-Chicks. After half an hour, though, I got used to it.

In fact, it was easy to get used to, because of her bubbly personality. More so than anyone in this series to date, I heard someone who lives and breathes talk radio and wants this gig. She was a delightful blend of energy and personal excitement at the opportunity, even if sprinkled with a few Norm Crosby-style word substitutions.

The first hour was a segment about Kelly herself, then about the Next Big Thing series to date. At first, I didn't see this as much of a topic until she asked: why so few women? This helped but still didn't justify the time allocated. But all in all, a good hour.

The second hour was on how many medical procedures can now be done in places like India for pennies on the dollar. This was partly personal for her as she explained, and I found it quite informative. I love it when I learn something, be it talk radio, books, church sermons, even TV. Then she moved on to the budget shutdown/solution, seemed a little down as many of both parties are right now. Finally, we heard about how she's having twins, and I couldn't help but be interested and happy for her.

Kelly really shined when she took a vicious lefty call. You could picture the little horns rising out of producer Jason's head. Kelly was polite, listened, then disagreed, then found both passion and courage to win the point as later callers agreed.

I'm happy to give Kelly Gunderson a solid A, only my second I believe, the first going to Brad & Greg last month.

Really well done, Kelly!

Robert Bork, on The Laura Ingraham Show this past week said that the word "moderate" is not applicable to Constitutional law. "Moderate" is strictly a political term he said.

So, since Democrats are demanding that only "moderates" be nomiinated to the judiciary, they can only mean they want politicians, not jurists or legal scholars.

The rest of this hour of The Wendy Wilde Show was a telephone interview with Colleen Rowley, who is seeking the DFL endorsement for the Second District U.S. House seat currently held by Rep. John Kline. Here are three representative exchanges.

Wendy Wilde: [John Kline, the] guy you would be running against, I’ve taken a look. His voting record is like 98% along the Bush lines. Whatever they ask for this guy votes for. That’s not very Second District. That’s not very Minnesotan.

Colleen Rowley: Yeah, […] to represent all of the constituency of a district is the goal, and if you vote lock step on highly partisan issues, I think [you’re] really going to have a tough time explaining to the people how you were voting to represent them.

You don't need me to fisk this. But where was the concern for the late Senator Paul Wellstone's voting record, either in lock-step with the Democrats or the short end of a 96-3 vote? He had no trouble explaining his votes, for Wellstone was at least honest about it. And I'd be willing to bet that Martin Olav Sabo hasn't strayed too far from his party's leadership, either. But let's move on.

Wilde: You’re really well known, best known maybe for the letter you wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller at that time. You wrote there that the issue is fundamentally one of integrity. And I think it’s really interesting that you would point that out because we’ve been seeing throughout the Bush Administration a repeated raising of the eyebrows over integrity. Do you feel that the issue of integrity has been resolved?

Rowley: Integrity, or what I also call ethical decision-making is the issue. So much of the double-speak on these issues, certainly the false intelligence of the Weapons of Mass Destruction. And so much of this really can be summed up as an issue of ethics and ethical decision-making. And of course we also know now with the various other scandals, the Tom DeLay issues in the House Ethics Committee, that we need more strengthening of ethics in House Ethics Committees […] right now to address these problems and raise the standards. It’s an issue of National Security of course, because if you don’t understand what initially caused the problem, how are you able to able to effectively remedy the problem. In ethics, there’s something called cover-up of course, and it’s just a common human nature thing to not want to admit a mistake, to basically not admit criticism. But if you act in that vein, you don’t fix the problem. I think the Iraq war is going in that direction right now. There’s no real momentum to looking at the problem, and talking the hard issues and then dealing with them, because we’re simply going down the same path and trying to dismiss that there’s even a problem to begin with.

In public speaking, there's something called babbling of course, and it's just a common human nature thing to not want to stop talking, to basically not admit vacuousness. Finally, consider:

Wilde: Tell us, why would you be a better person for [the Second District]?

Rowley: […] There’s something called the silent majority, and I’m hoping they can become the little more active and vocal majority, because those people’s interests are simply not represented by either partisan extreme. When I speak to groups, [I sensed] a large, growing unease in the country that they are not really being leveled with. You see [people] understanding now that this double-speak is going on. […] It’s been asserted many times that we have to be tough on the war on terrorism, but we also have smart and we can’t make mistakes and do things that compound the problem. And I think people out there are understanding that.

Rowley used the "double-speak" metaphor at least twice in this interview. But who is doing the double speaking? The Democrats? The Republicans? Or Colleen Rowley? This entire response is generic, could apply as easily to the DFL as the GOP. Translation: "I'm not with them! I'm a moderate! Right down the middle. Of course, that would mean you'd have no idea which way I'd lean on any given issue, but at least I'm not an extremist partisan like, say, the signers of The Declaration of Independence. For I am an ethical decision-maker."

As I wrote a few weeks ago, I will be cutting my annual pledge to the United Way after decades of steady increases. The recent ties of some of their member agencies to junk science politics was the proverbial last straw. If nothing changes, I will be done with the United Way in three years, which is two years later than my wife would like to see for her own reasons.

The fundraiser at Keegan's last night was my first action along those lines. The money I contributed there will be deducted from my United Way pledge this fall, and I think I'll have written a couple more such checks by then. The Salvation Army will be one, not sure yet who the third will be.

The United Way can get out of politics or get out of our wallets. It's their choice.

I decided to leave my car home so my teenage son could drive himself to weight training and wherever else. I took the bus to work yesterday and today, and it was quite the experience, especially yesterday.

Brooklyn Center has a new Transit Hub, and I misread the web site. So I missed the first bus that loaded on the other side. But more accurate signage would have saved me. Gate C says:

721, 724
761
TO MPLS

Gate A, where I should have been, said the same except "FROM MPLS" at the bottom.

You English majors out there know that strictly speaking, the adjective phrase "TO MPLS" only applies to the last itme in the list. A better sign would have been:

TO MPLS:
721 724 761

But of course, this bus loaded at the unassigned Gate B!

Well, we're off - just over two minutes early. And its a tiny 16 seater, so we wound up with 6 people standing at one point. We were certainly doing 40 mph, I think 45 mph down Bass Lake Road, speed limit 30 mph. Still, the bus wound up being 4 minutes late at the other end.

Coming home, I get a giant accordian bus. Other than two who got on later to travel just two miles, I was the only rider.

Light rail was starting to look pretty good.

I had a rare Thursday night free and didn't want to watch the start of Big Brothen Six. So I went to Keegans to see what this trivia business is all about. I thought it was supposed to be tough but it was a five way tie of perfect scores. I am told that this week was especially easy. I missed the first three, then ran the table to get a 22.

Here are the questions, scoll down to see the answers.



1. What Irish musician shares his name with an Irish County?
2. Why are the Marines called leathernecks?
3. Why was the USS Constitution called "Old Ironsides"?
4. Who married Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr?
5. What war included the Battle of Gettysburg?

6. What war included the Battle of Manila Bay?
7. What nationality was Christopher Columbus?
8. Name Columbus's three ships.
9. What do the stars on the US flag represent?
10. A change to the Constitution is called what?

11. What is the term of a US Senator?
12. Who wrote "The Star Spangled Banner"?
13. What to the stripes on the US flag represent?
14. The term "Bill of Rights" refers to what?
15. What's the minimum age to vote in a Presidential election?

16. What shape is the Dept of Defense headquarters?
17. Who is the current Secretary of Defense?
18. What military organization is often deployed during natural disasters?
19. What is the nickname of the City of New Orleans?
20. What has been the national emblem of the US since 1782?

21. Flag ettiquette requires what to fly a US flag at night?
22. In what year was the Declaration of Independence signed?
23. What are the first seven words of the Declaration of Intependence?
24. Who played Captain James Kirk on "Star Trek"?
25. Who founded the first mutual fire insurance company in America?


ANSWERS:


1. James Galway (and the Chieftains)
2. Refers to the stiff leather collars that used to be part of the uniform.
3. Because cannonballs would bounce off its thick wooden sides, as if it had iron sides.
4. Coretta Scott
5. The Civil War (aka The War Between the States, the more correct term per Michael Medved)

6. The Spanish American War
7. Italian
8. Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria
9. The (50) states
10. An Amendment

11. Six years
12. Francis Scott Keyes (the melody was an old British drinking song)
13. The original 13 states of the Union
14. First ten Amendments to the US Constitution
15. 18 years

16. The Pentagon
17. Donald Rumsfeld
18. The National Guard
19. The Big Easy
20. Bald eagle (not just eagle)

21. Illumination
22. 1776
23. "When in the course of human events..."
24. William Shatner
25. Benjamin Franklin

Those who know me know that few things rile me more than knowingly making false statements about another for personal gain. So I am careful and convinced when I say that in my opinion, Minnesota Senator Dean Johnson is lying about the events of Thursday night that ended in our so-called State government shutdown.

First, we know that Mr. Johnson's word isn't always good. Last year, he admitted that he had lied to Cheri Pierson Yecci, then sacked her in a surprise middle of the night vote. He could hardly have denied it, given there were witnesses, but his explanation was basically that Yecci should have known better.

So now, let us again consider his own testimony in appearances on KSTP's "At Issue with Tom Hauser" (taped late Friday afternoon) and KTCA's "Almanac" (live Friday night).

Tom Hauser: Why did you do that [, adjourn early]?

Johnson: Well, number one, the Senate had passed the continuing resolution which should have kept State government open and workers in place and they would have received a paycheck starting today. And second of all, that was all the business we had at our desk. Thirdly, I had met with the Governor about 7 o’clock and we were talking about the two major issues in the budget: Health and Human Services as it relates to Minnesota Care, and Education.

And as the Governor and I were literally sitting at his desk talking, he said, “We need X amount of money for the Health and Human Services.” And I asked him what we have been discussing all week, “Does this mean there will be less than [a] four percent per year increase for public education?” and his response was, “Yes, we need the money over here for welfare.”

And I had kind of a sinking feeling that now the Governor would say we’re somehow going to raise cigarette taxes to pay for welfare but our Education budget isn’t going to be where we think it should be at 4.5 and 4.5 [percent each year].

And I just thought something’s going on here and finally we just said I need to go back and talk to our two respective chairs, which I did, and they just said this is not going in the right direction.

Hauser: Who were those chairs?

Johnson: Senator Pogemiller [Tax chair], Senator Leroy Stumpf [Finance: K-12 chair], and Senator Berglin [Finance: HHS chair].

Those of you familiar with negotiations know that such exchanges can be borne of a commonly used technique. By asking your opponents opinion of a "straw man" such as this, you learn more about their priorites, sometimes even get the opportunity to box them in to your advantage. In negotiations, all that counts is the final deal.

Hauser: Senator, you had said after you came out of the meeting with the Governor a little after 9 o’clock that you thought you were getting close. When you think you might be getting close and it’s two and a half hours to go before that midnight deadline, it seems to me that’s when the pressure really starts to build. When you’re staring each other down, you see the clock ticking and that’s when people maybe tend to move more toward the middle. Why didn’t you take that opportunity?

Johnson: Well, we had received some reports coming out of the House of Representatives that they waiting for our continuing resolution which we had passed earlier and that they were going to start to put amendments on that were quite onerous.

And I thought, I made the decision, I could be criticized for it, I can be praised for it, I understand that, but rather than put the Minnesota Senate through an embarrassing time the last two hours of the session, we simply take a step back. We had passed a resolution to keep State government operational and therefore we should adjourn and come back Friday morning, which we have.

Johnson had a sinking feeling at 7pm but was "close" at 9pm. He was going to pull the plug over education at 7pm, but pull the plug to avoid - embarrassment? - at 9pm? The story changed within a single interview.

Minnesotans deserve better than this last vague response about unspecified "embarrassing" amendments. It seems unlikely at this point that this was true, as Speaker of the House Steve Sviggum contended later in this interview. But even if it was true, the embarrassment over the early adjounment is far worse. Even the unions cried foul.

Here, as Majority Leader, we can hold Senator Johnson to a higher standard of political inference, that he certainly knew how bad this was going to look, especially with such a weak excuse.

Now having said that, we again attempted on Friday to pass a [continuing] resolution which would have kept State government open. All the Democrats voted for it, Republicans voted against it. So on Saturday, we’re going to try again.

Hauser: Are some of the issues that you were talking about, was gay marriage one of them? Was it those types of things you think would have been embarrassing to the Senate to have to bring up at the eleventh hour?

Johnson: I think there were a whole host of issues that folks were talking about and communicating to me.

Hauser: Is that one of them?

Johnson: That could be one of them, right.

Put yourself in Senator Johnson's position. You have two choices: adjourn early as he did, or stay to the end. In the latter case, the Republicans may or may not bring up same-sex marriage. If they don't, there is a chance of getting a deal done as we'll see below. What do you do?

If the Republicans bring up same-sex marriage (or vouchers or some other non-budgetary matter), sit back and watch them self-destruct, on the national news no less. If they don't, and you strike a deal, hey isn't that what we all want? Even if you don't strike a deal, you're still no worse off than today. The only thing worse is going home early. That was clearly the worst possilble decision, as someone at the top of the leadership can be expected to know.

But wait, the Republicans could have agreed to the continuing resolution you say. They said they wouldn't without a deadline and you can hardly fault them for that. Suppose they had added just a single amendment or two, shortening the deadline and fixing the K-12 education shortfall. You aren't there to hear it or respond to it or get it done. The union heads clearly didn't buy this going home early strategy, either.

Hauser: Why were you reluctant to go with, like a ten day continuing resolution?

Johnson: We had that debate on the Senate floor, Tom. We had 30 days, we had 5 days, 8 days, and quite honestly, I had the amendment drafted for 15 days.

And as I visited with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it’s kind of a two-edged sword. And that is, you put a certain number of days then that kind of takes you to that point, and then you have to make a decision. Where, if you leave it open-ended, which is what the Senate passed, the pressure is still on.

But I think we’ve spent enough time talking about yesterday. And as we said to media this morning, today is today. We made a good sound offer back to the Governor, back to the Speaker today, in writing, and that’s where we go from here.

Ridiculous. An open-ended resolution keeps the pressure on? Setting a firm date takes the pressure off? I thought we were at war with Oceania ...

I think Tom Hauser did a good job pressing Senator Johnson. And don't worry, Pawlenty got the same type of grilling on "Almanac" by Erik Eskola and Cathy Wurzer. Eskola landed a solid punch by noted that "some" were characterizing Pawlenty as acting like a Prime Minister, not a Governor. Amen to that.

But back to Dean Johnson, this time on the "Almanac" couch with Senate Minority Leader Dick Day, Speaker of the House Steve Sviggum and House Minority Leader Matt Entenza.

Wurzer: Senator Johnson, how can you explain this shutdown to the people of Minnesota?

Johnson: Well, the people of Minnesota have sent to us an election process of divided government. The House controlled by Republicans, a Republican Governor we just heard from, and a DFL controlled Senate and 201 members who are very passionate about what they believe in and what they think Minnesota government ought to be like. And that’s for starters.

Second of all, as we listen to the Governor tonight, and I agree with the Governor, our number one goal should be to finish this Special Session and set public employees back to work and Minnesota’s government back on track. That’s absolutely essential that we do this. No doubt about it.

It does little good for me to sit here and point my finger at Mr. Sviggum or Mr. Day or anybody. I’ve been given a privilege and an honor to be one of the Legislative leaders, take it very seriously. And our task now as the Conference Committee on Taxes is up at the Capitol working, [is as I have] instructed them to work hard and long this weekend to see what they can come up with.

Having said all that, I think there’s going to have to be some Legislative leadership coaching if you will, along the way.

When asked by a reporter this afternoon, “How long?” [I said] if hopes and prayers are to be fulfilled, I’d like to see by next Friday, this time.

From top to bottom, this is an entirely unresponsive answer.

Across both interviews I heard not one credible, competent, verifiable reason for his walking away, when as David Strom pointed out, the difference was within statistical error, well below one percent of the total budget. This was close enough already, and with two plus hours left to get even closer, assuming of course, that both sides really want a deal.

I read the totality of this and his statements earlier in this session and I conclude that Senator Johnson is simply lying, thinking he can repeat the 2004 election success, maybe becoming Governor himself. Again, this is my opinion. But I further note that (except for Nick Coleman), the Strib has been strangely subdued, unwilling to carry the usual amount of DFL water this trip. I suspect they're on to Dean Johnson as well.

Mitch Berg had some fun with the latest jeremiad in Wednesday's Minneapolis Star Tribune about the idled workers. My favorite line was this:

Likewise, day-care providers who need emergency loans - for such things as a broken fence or a malfunctioning air conditioner - are out of luck. That loan program isn't up and running, either.

Who knew such a program existed? You get to borrow money to fix a fence in this state? Just because you are allegedly in the day-care business?

I say allegedly because the truth is, if your day-care business needs to borrow money for such small matters as repairing a fence, you were never really in business to begin with. This is what's called "under-capitalization" meaning you have no reserves to pay the unexpected costs that pop up from time to time in any business. Presumably, without this "non-essential" loan program, you would go out of business - and you should! Even if you get this loan, another "emergency" will soon appear and wipe you out anyway. I wonder what percentage of those loans get repaid.

Another way to look at this is that the State is propping up those who can't really run such a business. This creates unfair competition for those who can. No wonder as Mitch and the commenters note, the "non-essential" State day-care referral service has mostly worthless leads.

FYI, as Bob Davis on KSTP noted this morning, a wide shot on a local TV news program last night showed that Merrideth Herried was the only idled worker on the Capitol steps.

Also FYI, the Strib ran 50 inches in two page one articles on the plight of the workers and the state services idled by this impasse. Dane Smith and Patricia Lopez collaborated for only 21 inches of Legislative coverage, basically a sidebar on the jump page.

I only saw parts of the last three episodes of ABC's "Dancing With the Stars" mini-celebrity/reality show, but enough to understand its strong ratings. The music, the dancing, and the costumes were all grand. The women were graceful and lively as required, and always beautiful. Best of all, the men were men, dancing with intensity and authority.

The only negative was the slight smell of a fix at the end, with the underdog, somewhat erratic couple Kelly and Alec getting a perfect score to edge the more consistent John and Charlotte.

Who would have thought that G-rated family entertainment would be so popular? No endless stream of cheap sex jokes, no adults talking and acting like juveniles, and no laugh track. And America loved it.

The first time I heard Wendy Wilde, I was amazed, almost in shock at the high pitched blend of arrongance and ignorance I heard, punctuated with frequent totally unjustified personal attacks.

It was more of the same today, starting with this monologue about the shutdown.

Are you as stunned as I am? I just really thought they were going to pull it out at the last minute. I don’t know if you caught a few of the details in the news but they’re saying at the last minute the Republicans started just throwing all these little things up that nobody ever heard of before. You know, just all these things they wanted on the table at the last minute. Just crazy stuff.

So far, the only source for this rumor of the Republicans throwing a bunch of riders and amendments up is Senator Dean Johnson. As Dennis Prager says, "I belong to the Stupid Party" but even our Minnesota Republicans cannot be that stupid. So just who are "they" that are saying this?

You know, ever since the Republicans took control of the Minnesota House, we’ve had this kind of fake crisis. This isn’t a real crisis. These people made this crisis. This is fake crisis. […] If you paid attention, you have to pay attention, you have to do more than just listen to the mass media on this, but if you paid attention, the DFL’ers caved and caved and caved. These people, Pawlenty and his Karl Rove band of followers, they won’t compromise. They simply won’t give in. It’s do it their way or they refuse. And now look at this: 15,700 Minnesotans out of work, laid off. Some of them if they have vacation pay coming will get that, and then they get to go file for unemployment. And that comes out the pot anyway, so this is just plain stupid, profoundly stupid - Ding! Ding! Ding! - profoundly stupid. […] But then again, it was Governor Tim Pawlenty who used those words the first time. What do they say? It’s he who smells it that cuts it? [Laugh] School bus morality! The one who smells it, is probably the one who cut it. [Laughter] I’m not going to go any further than that! This is the Wendy Wilde show on AM 950 Air America Minnesota.

A fake crisis? I agree, only it was a Democrat show from the start. You need to do more than just listen to the mass media on this? Again I agree, but I think she has Air America in mind, not the Northern Alliance.

The Democrats caved? What they have given up to date never really was there in the first place. Your teenager wants his own car, demands a new Mercedes convertible but caves (BMW hardtop) and caves (Dodge Charger) and caves to get a three year old Honda, all that they could afford to begin with. The DFL supposedly wants a $1.3 billion dollar tax increase, but only by minimizing the voting impact, i.e., tax the rich - again.

The Republicans have comprised, far beyond what the base wants, something you'd know, Wendy, if you bothered to do more than just listen to the mass media.

In the second hour of today’s show, I’m really excited. We’re going to be talking with folks who are moving and shaking in central Minnesota. Now, central Minnesota has been really swept up with this right wing mentality. Even liberals I know that own radio stations in central Minnesota are carrying right wing programming! It’s like, knock you on the head, what are you thinking? Arggh! We actually tried to put our signal on in central Minnesota and the right wingers launched a massive letter and telephone campaign, and we lost our station. Not because there were any ratings, they didn’t even wait for the ratings, they just couldn’t handle the phone calls. It is so sad that a few can dominate the conversation like that.

Only a few dominated the conversation? I thought you said it was a massive letter and telephone campaign. Which is it? The truth, of course, is that even liberal radio station owners have to make a profit, something liberal talk radio has yet to do without public assistance, as in NPR and MPR.

Well, there are folks in central Minnesota who are so ticked off that they’re just not going to put up with it anymore. In the second hour of this show we’re going to be talking to some of those folks in central Minnesota who have built hundreds of additional members of Democrats party in central Minnesota. And we’re also in the second hour of today’s show, we’re also going to be talking with the originator of a campaign that you will see around Minnesota. And indeed if you’re hitting the road, you will see this massive anti-war, anti-Bush administration campaign on Interstate Highways across America. And you’re going to meet the originator of this really fabulous idea. He tells us that Minnesota has actually one of the largest contingents of these Interstate Highway protesters in the nation, so we’re going to hearing a little bit more about the campaign, and how it began and how it’s going, coming up in the second hour of this show.

I am so pleased in this hour of the Wendy Wilde show to be bringing you a real life American hero, so you just sit back and relax and get ready to hear the words of wisdom from a real American who stood up to the big guys and said this just isn’t right.

That hero is Colleen Rowley, the famous FBI whistleblower. I'll be publishing at least some of that interview in the next installment.

In the second half-hour, Nick Coleman did a telephone interview with anti-war activist Cindy Sheenan of the Gold Star Families for peace. I won't be doing a transcript here, for my lasting impression was simply a sad one.

Cindy Sheenan lost her son in Iraq, at the age of 25. For that we are all sorry and honor his service. To Sheehan, this was an act of murder at the hands of President George W. Bush. I cannot directly understand her feelings, of course, but I can compare her statements to the many others who have lost a loved one in such circumstances. And my conclusion from this interview with Nick Coleman is that Cindy Sheehan needs serious professional attention for mental illness.

She in many ways sounded like Howard Dean, except that she forgot to mention Halliburton. But while Dean is excitable and flamboyant, he is clearly pursuing a purposeful political strategy. Sheehan is simply deep in acute paranoia. Looking on the Web, I see that some leftists like Michael Kinsley are dismissive of her and her group for that very reason. But too many, by paying serious attention to her "cause" (like today) are delaying the inevitable help she must seek to get well.

***

The entire second hour of Nick Coleman's show was devoted to a historical review of the Minnesota First Regiment at Gettysburg, it being the anniversary of that legendary battle. The guests were Steve Osmond of the Minnesota Historical Society and Brian Leehan, author of the book "Pale Horse at Plum Run" about this.

This was a very enjoyable hour, a good discussion by all. Nick Coleman may have found his true calling, the Minneapolis Star Tribune's answer to Jason Davis.

Today we heard Sean McDevitt, a radio pro from Reno, newly arrived in the area. Why? To woo and I believe soon marry the soul mate he found on e-Harmony.com. It sounds like true love and I wish them the best.

As a pro, however, I used pass/fail grading, and it's not an automatic pass as Barry Zevan proved last week. But Mr. McDevitt was up to the job. He had a good first hour on the Kelo decision and the State shutdown. I felt he was a bit quick to use the "pox on all your houses" approach, perhaps trying to be fair with a situation he's not familiar with as an outsider. But that's what intrigues me here.

McDevitt is the "man from Mars" we may need here. I would challenge him to view "Almanac" and "At Issue" this week, then decide who's most responsible for this shutdown. I'd even give him a hint: one of these leaders is lying.

The second hour was more about Sean himself, largely at the urging of the producer, Kelly of "The Home and Garden Show." She had her mike on throughout the show, as in "I've started talking and I can't shut up!" Meanwhile, she missed the cue for his opening theme music in the second hour, and finished by thanking him "for filling in."

Sean is a seasoned pro who could have gently dealt with this, but it would be awkward in this "job interview" context. So I will be writing a note about this to Joe O'Brien.

Sean showed solid radio skills throughout and gets an equally solid P (Pass). This week, it's the producer who gets the F.

The admittedly interesting story about the 646 pound catfish took up the first segment. After the break, Nick Coleman addressed the shutdown. I don't warrant that this is a perfect transcript. A few words were not intelligible, and I removed about five percent as unrelated content. Finally, since Mr. Coleman (like Mr. Prager) leaves many sentences unfinished, I did a little doctoring to keep it readable without distorting the content.

Tim Pawlenty is howling like crazy this morning because… He’s the Governor. He’s supposed to be the leader of the State. He has never negotiated … Wasn’t it just the other day he wanted them to get on the State plane […] and they wouldn’t go. They didn’t get on the plane. They went to the mansion. They went about their business.

I don’t know what he’s complaining about. I’ve got complaints about the Democrats. I don’t think they should have dropped the income tax rollback on the irresponsible tax cuts handed out to the wealthiest Minnesotans by the wingnuts who have run [the] State and Federal Governments over the last few years. The Democrats I thought [had] a very modest proposal to restore some of those irresponsible cuts. [It] would have raised millions, hundreds of millions in revenue by restoring a small portion of the tax cuts handed to the most wealthy Minnesotans. There was a “millionaires pay your fair share” […] proposal. They dropped it in the end. I don’t think they even should have. They dropped it trying to reach a compromise.

The Governor all year long put forward one nutty proposal after another, and one dishonest tax hike after another. His own people called him out, like Phil Krinke, the Chair of the House Tax Committee, who said at one point […]let’s start calling these taxes by what they are – taxes! […] Pawlenty has tried to sneak them under the radar, hundreds of millions, billions actually, over a billion dollars in user feed [and] surcharges. There’s a billion dollar property tax offload that has gone on for the last couple of years with local governments being forced to raise property taxes while they’re being starved by State government. All of this has been going on, not to mention the “butt” tax, 75 cents, or it was also talked about as a dollar on a pack of cigarettes. A tax that is not called a tax. He called it a health impact fee.

All of this nonsense that went on has two goals. One is to cover his political butt and preserve his pretense to be a Presidential pretender and a person who has never raised taxes. Of course, he’s raising them left and right, but he’s raising them on the low and middle income people, and dropping the neediest from protection of State government and from State services that the need to get out of … If you believe in a progressive government that helps people move along to get along with the help of their own bootstraps and the compassionate people, that’s not happening anymore.

You know where the compassion is going? To the millionaires! So he was dead set against any income tax increase for the wealthiest Minnesotans, even after the Democrats shaved it. It was very small to begin with and applied to only a small percentage of the wealthiest Minnesotans, and it was reduced. And he wouldn’t take it because that would be owning up to his responsibilities, that would be owning up to the obligations of government, while they are playing games.

The Racino? Excuse me? The Racino was bad policy. What did he do? He bashed the Tribes all year long. He played his own little Minnesota version of a popular game in Washington among politicians and lobbyists which has been shakedown of Indian Tribes. The Indian Tribes of this country, they didn’t do anything wrong. They played by the rules, and the rules were set against them very violently for two centuries or three centuries. But they totally went by the rules. They totally went by the system. They played what government asked them to do and with the deck that they were dealt, and they made some very successful businesses. Now they are a target. […] They’re not being targeted fairly. They’re being targeted around the country by politicians who have used centuries of racial resentment and prejudice to whip up [an] environment where it’s OK to go to after … Indian gaming and the Racino is just another aspect of that.

That’s off the table, now, too. Nothing got done. […] What do we have here? There’s no funding for libraries, early childhood programs, adult education or local public health agencies. […] Because those are not important. Early child programs? We’ll catch up with them when they’re sixteen, and in [Juvenile Detention]. And on licensing: new licenses won’t be issued. I got one, you don’t want one, they’re freaky-looking. And driver testing suspended. Most new professional licenses won’t be available, either. No permits for most over-size, over-weight truck loads. Thank God for small favors. […]

No enforcement of minimum wage, prevailing wage, overtime laws, along with routine workplace safety inspections. Oh, a few arms will be lopped off. Closed completely: Disability Council, [...], Physical Therapy Board, and no traffic information via message boards. […] Most highway rest areas, some of which will close today. […]

At any rate, […] 9,000 State workers [are] off the job. I think most Minnesotans can grin and bear this for a couple of weeks. It’s not a disaster. Remain calm. Remain calm. Your State government is shut down but I still love you, and we’ll get through this together.

But when you see who’s mad this morning, who’s hopping, hollering, stomping, yelling mad, it is the Republicans. It is the leaders of the Republican Party and the Governor of this State, and that’s [because] they bought into a wingnut agenda from day one. It did not work. It will not work. It does not fly. And they would not leave it, they would not abandon it, and as a result, this State government is shut down. They dropped this baby on their toes, and that’s why they’re hollering.

Well, have a good Holiday anyway.

There it is, for your consideration. Remember, this site gave up fisking Nick Coleman for 2005, including on the radio.

With the Minnesota government Slowdown in effect this July 1, I thought it might be interesting to get the full reaction of Nick Coleman and Wendy Wilde this morning. So I recorded all four hours via Replay Radio, edited out the commercials, and started listening today while I'm waiting for the Pepsi 400 to start. Hey, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is there at Daytona!

Here's the outline:

Nick Coleman:

7:00 to 7:30 - The 646 lb catfish and the "Shutdown"

7:30 to 8:00 - Interview with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan of Gold Star Families for Peace

8:00 to 9:00 - Discussion with two historians about the First Minn