February 26, 2008
Republicans lose their leadership positions in Minnesota
I used to be Republican and now swing between Moderate and Democrat — but after seeing the immature response from Minnesota Republican elected officials when their colleagues voted to override the governor’s veto, I don’t think I can go back to being a Republican.
The Republican leader of the Minnesota House said today the six Republicans who voted to override Governor Pawlenty’s veto of a transportation bill have been removed from their leadership positions.
Source: MPR.org
The fact of the matter is that Minnesota’s roads, highways, bridges, and mass transportation are lacking — and if we can’t agree to fund something that fundamental to our infrastructure, then those Republicans who voted in favor of the governor’s wishes should be the ones removed of their leadership positions.
Frankly, I see this as an empty, immature, and irrational response to not getting their way. If you don’t get your way with your colleagues, punish them by stripping them of leadership. That’ll show ‘em.
This is exactly why American wants change in our political system. The inbred fighting amongst both Republicans and Democrats is OLD. We’re tired of the lobbyists running the show behind the scenes. The pork barrel spending is out of control for pet projects.
It’s time we saw more change (for the better) around here.
February 26, 2008, 3:51 pm
Filed under: Politics
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tpkatsa said,
February 26, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
In the interests of full disclosure let me first state that I would not support the transportation bill unless the gasoline and other tax increases were offset by reductions in other areas of spending, such as entitlement programs, so that the net result would be revenue/tax neutral.
Let us suppose the situation were reversed, e.g. six Democrats in leadership positions voted in favor to override a Democratic governor’s veto of say, tax relief or a bill that proscribed abortion, and as a result the Democratic minority leader stripped them of their leadership positions.
Would you also see this behavior by the Democratic minority leader as also an “empty, immature, and irrational response?”
On its face this does not appear to be an issue of “inbred fighting amongst both Republicans and Democrats.” It appears to be an attempt by Mr. Seifert to impose a measure of political discipline within the party leadership. Knowing only what I read here, I would not necessarily be quick to accuse Mr. Seifert of an “immature” response; and I would not do so were a Democrat minority leader to do the same thing in the scenario I describe above.
tpkatsa said,
February 26, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
I forgot to add one thing. If your answer to the question, “Would you also see this behavior by the Democratic minority leader as also an “empty, immature, and irrational response?” is yes, then this undercuts your statement that you “don’t think I can go back to being a Republican” after Mr. Seifert took this action.
Michael said,
February 26, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
In this particular instance, I look at it from the perspective of our infrastructure in terms of roads, highways, mass transit, and bridges; and not necessarily as a Democrat v. Republican issue.
The tax will sting a little, yes, but what have we done budget wise (up to this point) that has made us a model state in ways of transit or quality roadways? I’m sure there are plenty of states that we surpass, but equally so, we lack in ways that a larger metropolitan should not; mass transit in particular.
From my perspective, I view Rep. Seifert’s decision as being a cheap slap on the hand for not toting the party line. While I do not know what made those six individuals change their minds, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of listening to the desires of their constituents as a factor.
And if a leader in the Democratic party made the same sort of decision, I would probably still feel the same way; under the impression that the decision was poor, reactionary, and single-minded without considering the desires of constituents as a whole.
I can see how my post may come across as harsh towards the Republican Party; but rather it’s “politics as usual” that I have little tolerance for. And in my opinion and from my observations, I believe that decision was indeed, “empty, immature, and irrational.”
We’re not talking killing babies here. It’s about keeping our infrastructure intact and meeting the demands of its citizens. To me that seems more straight forward.
tpkatsa said,
February 26, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
“And if a leader in the Democratic party made the same sort of decision, I would probably still feel the same way; under the impression that the decision was poor, reactionary, and single-minded without considering the desires of constituents as a whole.”
Fair enough. But then let’s be clear, would you at least then concede that your statement that you “don’t think you can go back to being a Republican,” was emoting? For you disapprove the same behavior on the other side as well.
I’m not that interested in debating the merits of the tax increase or transportation issue per se in this thread, and the comparison to the abortion issue was simply to throw out a conservative issue for my example.
I was just looking to test the consistency of your disapproval of the behavior, regardless of who does it.
By the way do you attend the Antiochian Orthodox Church in West St. Paul, MN?
Michael said,
February 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Fair enough to say that I was “emoting” — but this is my blog so I guess that would make me free to emote to my heart’s content.
On the comment of not being able to go back to the Republican party, you can thank George W. Bush and the rest of his cronies for that. Observing the general behavior of the general Minnesota Republican Party has just been the icing on the cake.
To be fair to Republicans everywhere — because I know just how much they hinge on every word I say (sarcasm intended) — my perspective has changed over the past several years and simply cannot polarize myself as either Democrat or Republican, which goes into my whole beef with partisan bickering, fighting, and failing to work together towards the general will of the people. Too often it seems that both parties tend to position themselves along so-called party line agendas (regardless of what they are) and make decisions based upon what special interest groups and lobbyists want, and not necessarily what the general populace wants. Case-in-point with the war in Iraq, where a severe majority of Americans want OUT of Iraq but the current administration drags their feet when it comes to making any sort of concrete decision with regard to withdrawing from Iraq.
And on a completely different note, yes, I go to the Antiochian Orthodox Church in WSP.
tpkatsa said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:25 am
“Fair enough to say that I was “emoting” — but this is my blog so I guess that would make me free to emote to my heart’s content.”
Of course.. I have no problem with that. We just need to be intellectually honest, that’s all.
“Too often it seems that both parties tend to position themselves along so-called party line agendas (regardless of what they are) and make decisions based upon what special interest groups and lobbyists want, and not necessarily what the general populace wants.”
One of Mr. Obama’s campaign themes is that he’s going to tackle the “special interests in Washington.” But my question would be WHO’S special interests? Do you think he’s going to attack liberal special interest groups with the same fervor as conservative special interests? I doubt it. So when you say “decisions based on special interest groups” you need to qualify exactly what you mean by that.
Furthermore, what is the problem with special interest groups? After all, the US Constitution states that we the people have the right to petition our govern for the redress of grievances. Special interest groups exist to further the interest of certain sectors of the constituency. So by saying that we should “go after the special interests” the implication is that by extension we should cause the interests of certain groups of people to be ignored.
The same thing goes for lobbyists. There is nothing wrong with lobbying members of Congress. As long as everything is done fairly, squarely, and above-board I have no problem with that. To the extent that corruption exists, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.
Some will dismiss this as idealistic. But I believe we really have to go back to the a priori reasons for government. For example, I watched the Democratic Debate last night. I found Barack Obama to be very impressive. However, neither of the candidates mentioned in their discussion of welfare the question that stuck in my mind: why does the government have the obligation to provide health care? Is provision of health care a necessary and proper function of government? Ditto that with all the other programs that were discussed. There never seems to be any debate about whether these provisions are necessary and proper. In fairness, neither do the Republicans debate these things. Both parties take new government programs for granted. The only issue seems to be the best way to implement them. I believe this is the wrong approach.
“Case-in-point with the war in Iraq, where a severe majority of Americans want OUT of Iraq but the current administration drags their feet when it comes to making any sort of concrete decision with regard to withdrawing from Iraq.”
I’m not entirely clear on what “want OUT of Iraq means.” Does it mean we simply walk away from our commitments to the people of Iraq? Tim Russert’s question last night wasn’t quite correct. Instead of asking “what will you do if Iraq boots us out completely?” he should have asked, “what will you do if Iraq, knowing we are about to leave, pleads with us to stay and protect them from these terrorists?” Now I realize there are good arguments on both sides of the issue but in my view we cannot simply “get out of Iraq.” I respect the position that we should not have gone into Iraq to begin with, but now that we are there, victory must be achieved, and quickly.
I question the wisdom of a President and Commander-In-Chief making a wartime decision because the “American people want…” Military decisions need to be made by military commanders on the ground. Not once did either candidate mention consulting with General David Petraeus as to the best strategy for an exit from Iraq. Mr. Obama mentioned the Joint Chiefs but these are in my view to remote from the battlefield. He’s got to talk to General Petraeus and his generals about the correct way to proceed. Not to do so would be unwise at best and disastrous at worst.
As far as the administration “dragging their feet,” I would argue that the administration wants to win this war. We can win it, it’s going to take a while, but I continue to believe victory is possible. But we’re not going to measure victory by saying “violence is down Y%.” We’re going to measure it by looking at the stability of the Iraqi government, and how much Al-Qaeda has been neutralized. Iraq will continue to be a dangerous place for many years to come. But there are a lot of dangerous countries on earth (Colombia is a good example) which are sovereign nations and ostensibly US allies.