« FRANKEN DEEPLY UNPOPULAR NATIONALLY | Home | COMMENT REGISTRATION ACTIVATED »
UPDATE ON GOP GUBERNATORIAL RACE
By Ryan Flynn | July 4, 2009
Minnesota Democrats Exposed has been keeping up on the jockeying among Republicans in the Gubernatorial race.
I have written about the early stages of where the race was and some things have changed while some things have only been reinforced.
More names that have been bantered about among GOP insiders:
U.S. Senator Norm Coleman
State Senator Mike Jungbauer
Congressman Jim Ramstad
State Senator David Hann was talked about early and has now made it official by filing a campaign committee.
All of these candidates as well as the others in the previous post would be serious contenders for the nomination.
It will be a fun cycle with both sides wide open.
Happy Fourth of July to everyone!
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 56 Comments »
56 Responses to “UPDATE ON GOP GUBERNATORIAL RACE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Draft Vin Weber!!
July 4th, 2009 at 2:37 PM
I think Norm should return to New York.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I think Norm should run…or Marty Seifert. Please let one of those two be the candidate for the Rebublicans!
July 4th, 2009 at 4:24 PM
“I think Norm should return to New York.” Followed by Al Franken.
July 4th, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Happy Fourth of July to you as well, Ryan.
The list of Rebublican candidates for Governor is long and strong.
July 4th, 2009 at 4:38 PM
J.L. Does Franken* still own a home in New York?
It will be interesting to see where Franken* spends his time a way from Washington. Over the next four years he’ll make a few fundraising appearance in Minnesota – that’s about it. Sometime in 2013 – if he’s stupid enought to run again, Franken* will suddenly make Minnesota his “home” again.
Vern, Norm has lived in Minnesota for the past thirty-plus years. Franken*, the past two.
July 4th, 2009 at 5:22 PM
You forgot the footnote, so I’ll add it:
* What does that say about our boy Coleman when he loses to Ventura AND Franken?
July 4th, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Al Franken*
* Endorsed by the DFL despite the fact he was caught cheathing on his taxes 17 states.
July 4th, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Liberal danbrome, that should be ..
Al Franken*
* Endorsed by the DFL despite the fact he was caught cheating on his taxes 17 states.
July 4th, 2009 at 6:22 PM
It would be nice to have a true conservative like Marty Seifert run for Governor. It is a well known fact that when a true conservative runs they win.
If Marty Seifert runs the only hope the DFL has of even coming close to beating him is by taking the low road early and often which I’m sure they will. It is amazing how Democrats follow the DFL leadership like sheep to slaughter.
The good news is Marty Seifert has a good record of sound conservative leadership that will allow him to easily defeat the tax and spend liberals. Democrats need to keep in mind that by the time the next election comes around Obama’s favorable poll number will be down in the 30′s with his negatives in the 50+ range.
The Obama administration is proving to be a complete failure and the people are taking notice of that fact. In 2008 the people voted to bring in the clowns but they are now realizing that clowns are scary critters.
July 4th, 2009 at 7:12 PM
And how does this post expose Democrats? I thought the name of this site was MDE not RGCC (Republican Governor Candidate Conjecture).
July 5th, 2009 at 9:24 AM
It exposes the fact that the Democrats can kick the living hell out of any of the above-named losers. Me, I want the eloquent and brilliant Tom Emmer to carry the torch for the GOP. Carry it right to the funeral pyre for that joke of a party.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I think Gov. Pawlenty was free to create the record he has because he knew he wouldn’t have to defend it. His record will be hard to defend by others.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:29 PM
If the Republicans run another Caspar Milquetoast “moderate” they will lose again. We, the conservative base, have been out to see the submarine races once too often. We’ve finally learned: moderate=democrat. So go ahead and run another “moderate”. You’ll see us stay away in droves.
It’s nice that Pawlenty finally got religion in his second term. But we will live for decades with the results of his “moderate” first term: Choo choo train, salad oil diesel, alcohol subsidy, baseball stadium tax, health care fee, cap and trade….
Conservative Homie ain’t play that way no more.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:29 PM
MinnyDem,
What makes you think your party is going to nominate anyone worth a damn? The party of Skip Humphrey, John Marty, Steve Kelley and Roger Moe. LMAO!
Hiram,
Are you joking??? If you compare Minnesota to states where liberal Democrats rule, our state is in much, much better shape. While other states are going broke, Minnesota will have a balanced budget. And we will still have among the most expensive human services in the upper midwest.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:37 PM
[...] UPDATE ON GOP GUBERNATORIAL RACE | Minnesota Democrats Exposed [...]
July 5th, 2009 at 3:04 PM
“While other states are going broke, Minnesota will have a balanced budget.”
We have gone broke. That’s why the governor is breaking promises the state has made to it’s citizens.
July 5th, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Nothing the goverment or a politician does is a promise Hiram.
Take for example Obama. No new taxes, in fact a tax cut, if you make less than $250,000. Taxes have gone up and I have not received a permanent tax cut.
I promised by kids a nice summer vacation this year but due to changes in my finanical condition I had to cut back. Now we are staying around home and making a couple of day trips. Most of our meals on these trips will be picnic lunches that we take with us.
Fortunately for me my kids understand that when the money isn’t available that we can’t go take it from someone else just so we can have what we want. If the Democrats weren’t so intent on making everyone dependent on the goverment we would not be in the situation where we currently find ourselves.
July 5th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Hiram, when Democrat sycophants promise the moon in order to get elected, they do so on their own behalf. How can Pawlenty break a “promise” made by the tax and spend liberals of this state?
July 5th, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Good point. The political rancor now is uncomfortable as is the attention over the healthcare bill. I wish the Republicans had come up with more innovative solutions for social needs (prescription drug bill for Medicare patients was very good and just common sense) other than religious based charity subsidies. It looked good on paper and in speech, but the healthcare tied to employer system and barred access to those with preexisting conditions who either have to receive welfare or if working lose all support and be totally uninsured. This ruins incentives and is just silly. Most people are insured. Many choose not to be. The targeted population including the elderly who aren’t old enough to retire or who aren’t disabled needed help. The government should have subsidized healthcare (the client would pay a significant percentage of net income and there would be basic economic controls to prevent too much moral hazards) via a private insurance companies with tax right-offs and other resources in order for private insurers to afford to insure these people. Why do the young and healthy fully employed and thriving need government healthcare? Or subsidized care through a private insurer? Government in my opinion is to provide targeted relief for inadequacies in the market for those playing by the rules. Instead people who follow the rules at times end up as losers. Again bad incentives.
Now we all are practicing socialists I guess. Well its not my fault or the Republicans.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Well, I guess we know what Chestnut as doing on the 4th…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/04/nathans.hot.dog.eating.contest/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
July 5th, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Liberal danbrome, between you and Assboy Madia – who’s the hot dog champ?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:31 PM
chile… are you trying to get sued?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:34 PM
“when Democrat sycophants promise the moon in order to get elected, they do so on their own behalf.”
But when laws are passed by the legislature and are signed by the governor, they act on the government’s behalf. Both the legislature and the governor are responsible for the failure of the legislative session and both must explain to the voters why they failed to keep their word.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Liberal danbrome, once again … between you and Assboy Madia – who’s the hot dog champ?
Are you going to sue me or is Assboy. It would be great if my lawyer could get Assboy on the stand and ask him some straight forward questions.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Hiram,
We are most certainly not broke. We would be broke if Minnesota kept increasing spending on social programs as the DFL has proposed over the last three years. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty put the brakes on the billions in increased spending as much as he put the brakes on the proposed tax increases — increases not just on the rich but on all income earners as well as folks who buy clothing, alcohol, tobacco and a whole host of other things.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:39 PM
brone,
Awww…po’baby’s feewings hurt? I’d love to see you try to sue somebody here and I’d gladly defend them. You’re a fool and an ass. Why don’t you find something better to do?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Hiram are you talking about “laws” or “promises”?
Which “laws are passed by the legislature and are signed by the governor” are you disputing?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:45 PM
“We are most certainly not broke.”
Sure we are. Read Hanson’s letter. If a state can’t pay it’s bills, as this government can’t, the state is broke.
What do you think broke for a state looks like?
July 5th, 2009 at 5:47 PM
“Which “laws are passed by the legislature and are signed by the governor†are you disputing?”
I am not disputing any laws at all. The legislature and the governor together enacted laws making certain appropriations. Those are the promises that are being violated. Both the governor and the legislature must explain why they didn’t keep their word to Minnesotans.
July 5th, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I do not plan to sue anybody based on what they say about me here.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Liberal danbrome, who are you going to sue and what are they saying about you there?
e-Harmony as already been sued and they were forced to create a site just for you. You’re running out of time liberal danrome, you better find someone to sue and do it quick.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Hiram, what “word” was given to Minnesotans that was broken. Who made it? When was it made? How was it made? Whys it made?
July 5th, 2009 at 6:26 PM
chile..
Your reading skills are clearly limited..
See post #31
July 5th, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Libeal danbrome says: “I do not plan to sue anybody based on what they say about me here.”
That leaves open the question of who it is you’re going to sue, dumbass.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:47 PM
“what “word†was given to Minnesotans that was broken.”
The oath that elected officials take to enforce the law.
“Who made it?”
All elected officials, and in particular the governor and the legislators.
“When was it made? How was it made? Whys it made?”
When they were sworn into office, and as a condition of their employment.
The conclusion of the legislative session was a failure of the process, for which both the governor, his successor, and the legislature must be held to account.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Hiram,
The governor can’t enforce a law when there isn’t enough cash in the coffers. Under Minnesota law, when there isn’t enough cash it’s the duty of the governor to ensure the state doesn’t run a deficit (which is prohibited under our Constitution).
You’re right that this last legislative session was a failure. But it was a failure on the DFL majorities to compromise with the governor on spending. The legislature is supposed to agree on how much to spend first and then negotiate over priorities. Instead, they passed spending bills willy nilly knowing full well there wasn’t enough cash to pay for their laws. I’d submit that the legislature should be held accountable for passing laws in bad faith.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:16 PM
chile..
Read the sentence again, you nimrod.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:46 PM
If you weren’t threatening to sue in post #23 what were you doing?
July 5th, 2009 at 11:00 PM
1 more time…
I do not plan to sue anybody based on what they say about me here.
There is no threat.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:11 PM
2010, dambrome is saying that he made an idle threat.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:13 PM
2010, correction:
Liberal dambrome, is saying that he made an idle threat.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:08 AM
damnbrone,
You claim you do not plan to sue anybody based on what they say about you. But this is what you said in your exchange with chile:
chile Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Liberal danbrome, between you and Assboy Madia – who’s the hot dog champ?
danbrome Says:
July 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
chile… are you trying to get sued?
Which is it brome, you suing or not suing?
July 6th, 2009 at 6:49 AM
“The governor can’t enforce a law when there isn’t enough cash in the coffers.”
Sure, but that’s no excuse for his failure to do so. In terms of the kitchen table economics we talk about, just because you can’t pay a debt doesn’t mean you don’t owe it.
“But it was a failure on the DFL majorities to compromise with the governor on spending.”
Absolutely, but it was also a failure of the governor to compromise with DFL majorities on spending. Both sides were at fault. But unallotment is the governor’s policy. He didn’t break any promises to Minnesotans when he failed to reach an agreement with the legislature. He did break them when he unallotted statutorily mandated funding. Whether that’s right or wrong is for the voters to decide.
“The legislature is supposed to agree on how much to spend first and then negotiate over priorities.”
Where is that written? What actually happened between the legislature and the governor is deep into realm of inside baseball. In my personal opinion neither side exactly covered itself with glory. But both the governor and the legislature have the obligation to work effectively with each other. And when that happens each bears a share of the responsibility.
“I’d submit that the legislature should be held accountable for passing laws in bad faith.”
That’s absolutely untrue. Good faith doesn’t require the legislature to pass laws the governor will approve, just as good faith doesn’t require the governor to sign the bills the legislature puts on his desk. The executive and the legislature are separate and equal branches of government, neither one works for the other, and both are equally accountable to the people and the voters of Minnesota.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Hiram says, “Whether that’s right or wrong is for the voters to decide.”
I agree, but unfortunatly the voters will not get to decide. Pawlenty made that decision for the voters by announcing that he will not run for governor again.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Hiram,
Your analysis of government spending is out of whack. The government has no obligation to spend money it doesn’t have. Pawlenty has no obligation to raise taxes just because the legislature wants him to.
The DFL house and senate leaders acted in bad faith when they passed spending bills when they knew there wasn’t enough money to pay for them. You know, Hiram, (and we’ve been over this before) the legislature could have compromised with the governor to bond for some of the spending and make the cuts less “painful”. Instead, they chose to pass the spending bills first and then at the last minute, with no time for debate or for legislators to even read or know what was in the bill, pass a billion dollar tax bill. That is bad faith and Minnesotans are smart enough to know this.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:36 AM
“The government has no obligation to spend money it doesn’t have.”
Sure it does. Once it assumes the obligation in the form of passing a law.
“Pawlenty has no obligation to raise taxes just because the legislature wants him to.”
Of course he didn’t. But he did have an obligation to enforce the law.
“The DFL house and senate leaders acted in bad faith when they passed spending bills when they knew there wasn’t enough money to pay for them.”
No. They were doing their jobs as legislators. And of course, they did pass the bills that would have paid for them.
“the legislature could have compromised with the governor to bond for some of the spending and make the cuts less “painfulâ€.”
And of course, the governor could have compromised with the legislature to tax for some of the revenue. Neither was under any obligations to give in to the other. Both are responsible for the failure to give in at all.
“Instead, they chose to pass the spending bills first and then at the last minute, with no time for debate or for legislators to even read or know what was in the bill, pass a billion dollar tax bill. That is bad faith and Minnesotans are smart enough to know this.”
If the governor wants more debate on some issue concerning the people of Minnesota, he can call a special session. That’s not what he is doing so it apparently isn’t a concern for him, and that’s fine, it isn’t for me either.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Hiram,
If I wrote out a check to someone for $1 million when I only had 99 cents in my checking account, that check would have the force of law, but the recipient would not be entitled to the money.
That’s exactly what the DFL majority did this session: they wrote out a bad check when they spent more money than was in the state’s coffers and Gov. Pawlenty unalloted their excess.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
“If I wrote out a check to someone for $1 million when I only had 99 cents in my checking account, that check would have the force of law, but the recipient would not be entitled to the money.”
Actually, he would be. And it would be up to you to fulfill your obligation to the person to whom you wrote the check, to come up with the money somehow.
Following your analogy, legislation that wasn’t enacted creates no obligation, it’s a check that was never written. The money that the governor unallots will be from appropriations that were enacted by the legislature, and signed by the governor.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Hiram,
Money doesn’t grow on trees. Pennies don’t fall from heaven. And Democrats don’t have any business passing spending bills that are pipe dreams.
If you don’t like the statute which allows unallotment, then maybe the DFL legislature should repeal the law.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
And Democrats don’t have any business passing spending bills that are pipe dreams.
And I suppose Republican governors don’t have any business signing them into law. But they do.
“If you don’t like the statute which allows unallotment, then maybe the DFL legislature should repeal the law.”
The law is the law, but using it is an acknowledgment of failure to govern effectively. This governor loves to duck responsibility, and I don’t think Democrats should let him get away with it nearly as much as they do.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Hiram, what governor passed into law was the spending bill – he vetoed the tax bill.
You remember the tax bill, don’t you Hiram? The Senate DFL waited until a few minutes before the end of the legislative session and then rammed it through with no opportunity for discussion.
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2009/05/19/shame-on-you-senate-dfl/
July 6th, 2009 at 4:26 PM
“what governor passed into law was the spending bill – he vetoed the tax bill.”
Is that a problem for you? That he approved and signed into a spending bill knowing he had no way to pay for it?
July 6th, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Hiram,
The governor could have vetoed all of the spending bills and shut down the government altogether. I can only imagine the screams and howls coming from the statists had he done that. Instead, Pawlenty used his authority to line item veto wasteful spending and unallot the rest because of the revenue. I will fully admit that it’s not the job of the legislature to send the governor the bills he demands just as it’s not the job of the governor to rubber stamp the bills sent to him by the legislature.
Had the DFL majorites been responsible, they would have agreed to an overall budget amount with the governor (as every single other legislature has done in modern history) and then haggled over the details. Instead, they wrote a bad check by making promises to the people that could not be fulfilled.
One other thing about unallotment: in the event that the economy turns around and revenues to the state increase, the money can be reappropriated to the programs that were unalloted.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:40 AM
This is Hiram posting under a pseudonym. My postings are being blocked by MDE’s spam filter, so it’s not easy to respond. I don’t generally post under pseudonyms, and I won’t use this one again. I do understand and respect that this blog belongs to Minnesota Democrats Exposed, and it is totally within their rights to accept or reject any posting they choose.
The DFL and the governor did agree on the budget amount. What they failed to agree on was how the budget should be paid for. That wasn’t a detail, and there wasn’t much haggling over it.
The governor has made a bet on our behalf that the turnaround in the economy will be swift and sharp. He won that bet six years ago. It should be interesting to see how it turns out this time when the stakes are higher.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Hiram,
Thanks for the clarification. But you’re wrong about what the governor and legislature agreed upon. There was no global agreement on the total amount of the budget, which has occurred during every budget session in modern history — except for this session.
The legislature did not agree on a number representing the total amount of the budget. They sent the governor spending bills with no agreement on the budget.