« RHETORIC ON VETO OVERRIDE OF GAS TAX INCREASE | Home | LIBERAL BLOGGERS EXPRESS FRUSTRATION ABOUT DFL LEADERSHIP DURING 2007 SESSION »
ABELER: DEMOCRATS “KILLED THEIR OWN OVERRIDE”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 22, 2007
"[Representative Jim] Abeler, cleaning out his desk in the nearly empty House chamber after adjournment, pointed to a perceived heavy handedness in House Democrats as steering the vote. 'The tone of the Democrats made it much easier to vote 'No,'' said Abeler. 'Ironically they killed their own override,' he said." Source: ECM Publishing, May 22, 2007
Topics: Uncategorized |
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Tingelstad, Abler, and Earhardt were danged near guarenteed to vote with the DFL…until LARGE MARG Kelliher and her pit yorkie Tony Sertich poisoned the water with their tactics.
Meanwhile, over in SenateLand, Larry the Looter was waiting for the override to come in…and he waited…and waited…and waited….
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Liberals energized social conservatives to close ranks and fight domestic partnerships, mandatory sex education, smoked “medical” marijuana and others.
Governor Pawlenty received thousands of calls in the last week of the session. Concerned parents thanked the Governor for signaling his opposition to mandatory sex education, and urged him to veto any bill containing same.
Mandatory sex education was removed in the 11th hour of the session.
Thank you Gov. Pawlenty.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
This is what is known as circling the wagons. It’s good to see the Republicans find their voice again.
Onward to 2008, and be sure to let these guys and gals know how much you appreciate their efforts by giving them financial support.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
[...] House RINOs - In January, it seemed that the House Republican ranks would be dictated by a handful of moderates who, on a variety of issues but particularly the gas tax, signaled their intention to vote with the DFL. The angst within the caucus was high, with several of the more conservative members wishing Seifert and the leadership would, in the words of one adviser I spoke with, “put a few heads on pikes to serve as a warning.” No such public executions followed but the defeat of much of the DFL’s legislative agenda, including the failure of a veto override on the gas tax by 6 votes, showed that whatever sway the GOP’s moderates had vanished through Republican arm-twisting and DFL’s “heavy handedness.” In doing so, the party’s RINOs may actually have emerged as winners, perhaps avoiding the likely endorsement and primary challenges that any number of veto overrides might have produced. [...]
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Republican leaders simply led. Democrat leaders did not.
There was not much in the way of arm twisting in the minority. Marty simply did a great job holding the cadre together through the storm.
You can criticize the Rino’s but a few of them actually were true to their word in maintaining solidarity with the Gov.
We’ll see how they hold up in special session.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Tingelstad and Abler *were* voting with the Democrats up until the override vote.
At one point, Rep. Emmer noted that the HHS bill had money for chiropractors, which he opined “must be why Rep Abler voted for it”.
Abler, especially, has some ’splainin’ to do.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
That clown Ernhart (whatever his name is, the old Edina RINO) needs to go. He’s an embarrassment to Republicans. He is all for tax increases, votes like a Democrat.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Have to hand it to the anti-gay theocrats at the Minnesota Family Council - their campaign of lies was effective. That in addition to an ineffective Outfront Minnesota got the Dems to first throw gays under the bus (dropping the domestic partner provisions), then the comprehensive sex education bill.
The Abstinence Only - condoms don’t work sex ed programs that the MFC and their ilk support do not reduce teenage sex - but they do help increase the chances that the teenagers participating in those programs have unprotected sex when they do engage in sex - after all - if “condoms don’t work”, then what’s the point.
I recall well Tom Prichard’s testimony in 1999 in opposition to repealing the sodomy law - Prichard said that repealing the sodomy law would increase teenage pregnancy. I’d challenge Chuck Darrell to explain that one.
Karl Bremer interviewed Prichard after his testimony against repealing the sodomy laws. The interview is published on Lloydletta’s Nooz:
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2007/03/tom-prichard-waxes-eloquent-on-his.html
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Thanks Eva.
What does the defeat of comp sex ed have to do with an “ineffective OutFront Minnesota”?
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Chuck - I notice you didn’t answer my question. How does repealing the Minnesota Sodomy law increase the incidence of teenage pregnancy? Tom Prichard testified that this would happen when this bill was heard in 1999, and I always wondered about this. Please explain this one.
Outfront Minnesota was ineffective in the DP benefits issue - that showed when they didn’t object when the Democrats dropped the issue - there were other orgs that worked harder on the comp sex ed issue (though I believe Outfront took a public position in favor of it).
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
BTW, Chuck - noticed your CLE Seminar - how is a seminar taught by Jason Lewis eligible for Continuing Legal Education credits?
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 am
anti-gay theocrats
For everyone else, this is Bachmann-Obsessive’s divisive term for vast majority of people who have ever lived who, down through the centuries, view homosexuality as wrong. Dare to hold this normal position and, to her, you’re a “theocrat”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 am
And a “theocrat” is somone who is primarily interested in dictating to others what sorts of relationships or arrangements people have in their personal lives. Big Government in the bedroom, if you will.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
Eva,
Here is a question for you: Why did you choose to ignore Johnson’s supreme court remarks when you heard them, first hand, at Bethlehem Lutheran?
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Chuck - you are still avoiding the questions - I’ll answer your question when you explain this:
How does repealing the Minnesota Sodomy law increase the incidence of teenage pregnancy? Tom Prichard testified that this would happen when this bill was heard in 1999, and I always wondered about this. Please explain this one.
Theocracy - Answers.com: theocracy
Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. See also church and state; divine kingship.
Theocrat is either a ruler in a theocracy, or a believer in a theocracy.
A little history for folks - the MFC - as the Berean League, got started in 1982 to fight repeal of the Minnesota Sodomy Law -
609.293 Sodomy.
Subdivision 1. Definition. “Sodomy” means carnally knowing any person by the anus or by or with the mouth. Subd. 5. Consensual acts. Whoever, in cases not coming within the provisions of sections 609.342 or 609.344, voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
HIST: 1967 c 507 s 4; 1977 c 130 s 4; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11
This covers married couples - and activities that many married couples engage in. The MFC believes that Government should be meddling in people’s bedrooms - and it isn’t just gay bedrooms.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Eva,
Sheesh, you need some new material. The topic is the 2007 session, (less Sen. Dean Johnson) not Eva’s Worn-out Oldies from last century.
The question - germane to this session - was whether mandatory sex education would remain in the E-12 bill. Gov. Pawlenty answered no.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Chuck, In other words, you can’t answer the question. You can’t justify your organizations support of sodomy laws. And you can’t explain Prichard’s testimony that repealing sodomy laws would increase teenage pregnancy. Are you embarrassed by your organization’s history? It certainly seems like it.
Why did your organization do auto-calls (I got three messages on my phone) that started with “anal and oral-anal sex” then went on to talk about the E-12 bill. I’m wondering whether Governor Pawlenty would approve of that sort of broadcast message to voters. How many kids picked up the phone and heard that message?
May 25th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Eva,
Do you believe the government should inject the bedroom into the classroom? Unless you do not, then your logic on this matter — government involvement in sexual matters — is inconsistent and flawed. Further, your cavalier use of the term “theocracy” undermines the true meaning of the term — the United States, nor any of its laws, implicates a theocratic form of government.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Wonder all you want, but if anal-oral sex is appropriate classroom material, then its appropriate for public debate. In fact, MFC encouraged that debate and found thousands of parents who don’t want their kids to be taught about rimming in public school sex ed - with or without a dental dam.
Background: MFC examined several sex education curricula used in Minnesota public schools and found the teaching of unhealthy sex activities like anal and anal-oral sex. (For more information and brochures, go to mfc.org)
The E-12 funding bill attempted to mandate sex education for all children grades 7-12.
Call me out Eva; because the more parents learn about the unhealthy content in several public school sex ed curricula, the easier it is to defeat it.
(Sheesh, ask Eva about the relationship between OutFront and mandatory sex ed and she responds with sodomy statutes, theocrats and interviews from the last century.)