Fort Hood Shootings In a Nutshell

I’m going to play amateur psychologist and sum up the Fort Hood shootings. Army Major Nidal Hasan is a practicing Muslim who opened fire on his fellow soldiers, killing many, wounding many. Let’s be frank. He was not insane. This was premeditated. He did not expect to survive. He fully expected to check out. Hassan had given himself a suicide mission.

The key part of this is that Hasan was Muslim. A fact which the liberal media tries to sanitize.

Let’s compare and contrast. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is a sin to commit suicide or to murder. That kind of behavior merits the opposite of heaven. But in the Islamic tradition, as proved by terrorists over and over, if one rationalizes the suicide and murder as a religious imperative, then one supposedly goes straight to heaven. What a deal.

So in this case, Hasan was getting frustrated with life and his responsibilities, decided to do something “holy” for Allah, was fairly certain he would not survive, thus taking a straight path to eternal bliss.

Let’s be blunt again. In the western tradition, Hasan was an out-and-out coward. No guts because he was not supposed to feel any pain, or take any consequences for his actions. He was supposed to get away with causing others a great deal of anguish, making a name for himself, and earning the outspoken praise of Islamic radicals, as well as the quiet appreciation of other Islamics around the world. He was supposed to be a great man in death.

Except the dumbell survived. Perhaps to face earthly justice. Which will surely be mild and politically correct. Mild indeed compared to what happened to his victims and their families.

America's Queen Michelle I

What's next--hereditary royalty? Maybe Michelle hopes the hubby will get a second term and by the end of that, she'll have been able to get him crowned King, and someday we'll see Queen Sasha ascend the throne after daddy has passed on.

Look at the list of the 26 servants (helpers, aides, ladies-in-waiting--whatever) Mrs. Obama requires, published recently on Canada Free Press. Look at their salaries, and remember, that's just the beginning--it doesn't cover their benefits, perquisites, and in-kind goodies that ease the household budget in so many ways. This is insane, people. The entire media establishment should be making fun of this woman for appearing unable to make a telephone call on her own. The whole First Lady thing has gotten way out of hand. Let's go back to allowing them ONE personal secretary, IF they pay for it themselves.

Remember how Palin was hung out to dry for buying some expensive clothes with campaign donations? How's Michelle going to make this robbery right? At least the money Palin spent on clothes was given voluntarily; Michelle is taking your money and mine at the point of a gun to pay 26 people to help her choose what to wear before she jets around the country to indoctrinate school children and tout gardening and whatnot.

Cisco sent me this link, signing off with his usual rabble-rousing "I ain't paying for this." Are you, dear reader?

Down with Queen Michelle--Starve the Beast!

Blue Dogs Beware

President Obama proved that he can smooth talk his way into making history. That was then, this is now.

Since taking office, Obama has introduced the nation and members of his own party to Rules for Radicals Politics -- Chicago style. His inaugural proclamation ending the petty grievances and worn out dogmas that strangled politics was seen as a commitment to seek unity with both political parties. Instead, it proved to be a warning to those who would challenge him – from either party.

When Obama promised to remake America, few realized that Marxism was the objective. This week Congress is pressing forward with two of the biggest threats to personal freedom in our nation's history – the political take-over of both health care and the energy we use.

Blue Dog Democrats are being pressured to fall in line to support their leadership. But, 2010 is just around the corner and voters are watching.

For those Blue Dogs who expect campaign help from President Obama, think again. Creigh Deeds expected to ride Obama's popularity into the Virginia Governor's mansion. Jon Corzine, for whom Obama spent the weekend stumping the trail, expected the Smooth Talker In Chief to lift his re-election campaign past the finish line. But, Obama's presence did nothing for these Democrats. Arguably, it only reminded voters of how the power-greedy in Washington are losing jobs and killing prosperity in the heartland.

Blue Dogs beware. President Obama cannot save your seat if you vote against your constituents.

New Brighton Elects New Mayor, Re-Elects Council Member

New Brighton mayoral challenger Dave Jacobsen defeated incumbent Steve Larson. Jacobsen received 57% of the vote to Larson's 43%. Larson did a little better today than he did two yeas ago when two challengers split the opposition vote.  Update: Larson received 45% of the vote in 2007. He did worse yesterday than I originally thought.

Voters also re-elected Gina Bauman to the city council. Gina received the second most votes with 1100.

Challenger Char Samuelson received the most votes with 1210 and will fill the seat vacated by Sharon Doffing. Samuelson is actually winning her old seat back. In 2002, while holding this office, she ran for and won the House District 50B seat in the Minnesota State House of Representatives. A year later, Doffing won this seat to finish out Samuelson's term. Doffing then won re-election in 2005.

Newcomer Paul Jacobsen received 1016 votes.  A respectable showing for his first time, but not good enough for only there were only two seats up for election.

For the freedom loving conservatives in New Brighton, the election of Jacobsen and re-election of Bauman is huge. Samuelson may have benefited from name recognition and her four year stint in the legislature as a Republican (sometimes in name only). She was backed in this race by the Bob Benke-Steve Larson DFL leaning mini-machine. Had Larson been re-elected, I fully expected Samuelson to support his initiatives. It will be interesting to see if Benke and Larson attempt some behind-the-scenes influence on the city council through Samuelson.

For New Brighton election results, click here.

Mounds View School Board District 621

As of this writing, it appears that the incumbants of the Mounds View School board have won re-election.  Follow the results here.

Get Out and Vote Today!

Please make every effort to get out and vote today. We have the opportunity to elect Dave Jacobsen as our new mayor and to return Gina Bauman to the City Council. If all of us who support Dave and Gina get out and vote we have a good chance of at long last getting a mayor and council that will be able to move the city out of the state of economic stagnation and diminished respect for private property rights characteristic of the Benke-Larson years.

Like a baseball player trying to get on base in a critical situation, we stand a better chance to get the government we want by stepping up to the plate and taking our swings than we do by sitting back and hoping for a walk. There are no guarantees the election will come out the way most of us would like it to, but the chances are much better if all of us like-minded people get out and vote rather than leaving it to others to vote in our interests.

Sometimes even the best ball players strike out, but it's much easier to live with the result after going down swinging than it is getting called out without even getting the bat off of the shoulder.

Let's get out and make it happen. If we're too lazy to get out and vote for the government we want we deserve whatever we end up getting.

Mounds View School Board Election

Mounds View School District 621 (Mn) elections are tomorrow. Three seats are up for election.

The incumbents:

• Greg Madsen
• Marre Jo Sager
• Jon Tynjala 

The challengers:

• Jack Brunell
• Timothy Husnik 

For more info, check out HD50B.com. Here's a teaser. Marre Jo Sager is opposed to any form of vouchers, saying she wants the district to be so good, all parents wish to send their students to MV public schools. Translation, she supports the government monopoly. Further, she knows that many parents currently do not want to send their kids to government schools, but do so mostly because the schools already took their money.

Sager seems to fear that empowering parents with the choice of where to spend their child's "state issued tuition" will hurt government school enrollment. Is that a bad thing? As long as the kid gets an education and you aren't dependent on the MEA or it's union dues, does it really matter where the kid gets the education?

Gina Bauman Sets the Record Straight

As in most political contests it is starting to get ugly out there. In a post on Enlighten New Brighton Council Member Gina Bauman corrects some of the misconceptions that are apparently being spread by the competition in the New Brighton City Council and Mayoral races.

As a unabashed supporter of Bauman's re-election I'm glad she has chosen to address some of the absolute garbage that is going around and have reproduced her post in its entirety here:

Door knocking the city with Dave Jacobsen, who I hope will be our next mayor, has been an eye-opening experience. I have been hearing some misleading and downright false statements being made about what I have said, done, or will do if I am re-elected to the council. So as the campaign draws to a close I would like to make some clarifications to set the record straight before you go to the polls this Tuesday to place your vote.

• I have never proposed to sell or develop the golf course. Council member Doffing was the only representative that I recall to ever bring that up in a work session with no other support from any one.


• The average salary for city employees (not including public safety) is approximately $90K a year based on full time equivalents. Mayor Larson is playing fast and loose with numbers, counting job-sharing and part time positions separately and telling people that the average is about $65K a year. My calculations come from the city employee salary and benefit summary, which shows that approximately 49 FTE employees make approximately $4.4 million a year before benefits. Salaries and benefits for ALL employees is $9 million a year out of a $13 million dollar city budget. The reason this has become an issue is that for the last two years the 3.9% city tax levy increase was used for salaries and benefits only for all city employees while expenditures were covered by reserve funds. This prompted me into asking for a salary and benefit breakdown for all employees, which is I believe the first time any council member or mayor has asked for this information. While our staff does a great job, I feel they are very fairly paid for a city of our size, so I championed a 2010 freeze on salaries. This is contrary to what you will read on another council candidate's (Graeme Allen) handout, which implies that it was the employees who voluntarily made the sacrifice to freeze their salaries.


• As to council and mayor having paid health benefits available to us, I understand to a point that this could be controversial. During the League of Women Voters forum on October 19th the question on rescinding this benefit was asked. I explained that the mayor and another council member take the health insurance - this is a true statement. While Mayor Larson voted against the resolution in a 4-1 vote, he still chose to drop the state-run health insurance in which he was previously enrolled in favor of the city sponsored plan. In fairness to Mayor Larson it should be noted that he does pay the employee contribution portion of the premium himself, which has led to the "does he take it or not" controversy. Council member Phillips is the only other council member currently taking the benefit with an approximate cost of $6000 per year. Because of health issues both of them are difficult to insure. Since this has become such a hot button issue, council member Phillips brought forward in our recent work session that he will bring this issue up for discussion in the next council meeting on Tuesday, November 10th for a vote to rescind the benefits. In that same work session I posed the question to the mayor that since he did not vote for the resolution in the first place, why did he enroll in the plan? After his numerous public proclamations on how he was the only one who voted against the benefit he probably should not have, on principle, taken it regardless of whether or not he pays the employee contribution. I am curious to see how he votes when the question comes up at the next council meeting as he said he was going to talk with his lawyer when council member Phillips brought up not offering health benefits to the mayor and council regardless of who pays the employee contribution of the premium.


• I have heard from many people around town that there is a council candidate (Paul Jacobsen) and/or some of his supporters knocking on your doors and implying that although he differs with me on some issues he believes in the same fiscal responsibilities that I do as part of his request to put a sign in your yard. I want to make it clear that I am not endorsing any other council candidate, as you can see from the signs I display in front of my business.
 

• The next rumor I need to address made my jaw drop when I first heard it tonight (11/1). Did any of you know that I purportedly, single handedly mind you, drove out the hotel from wanting to build on the Quadrant with my stalling tactics? This is certainly news to me. I didn't realize I had such power. This ridiculous and mean-spirited rumor is being spread by none other than Bob Benke, who in the worst way needs Mayor Larson re-elected to retain his membership in the the "good old boys" network behind the scenes. And where is Benke getting this so-called information from? He knows that I no longer want the city taxpayers to pay the $10,500 per year it takes for Mayor Larson to belong to the North Metro Mayors Association. This organization is nothing more than a lobbyist group that is very self-serving to its members. Although there is no real benefit for the city of New Brighton to belong, there is a definite benefit to Mr. Benke as he receives payment as a lobbyist for that association that depends on how many cities belong to it.

I would also like to address some of the statements and/or responses that other candidates made at the two candidate forums.

One candidate (Paul Jacobsen) stated that the city is short two police officers and a deputy director. The city is NOT short two police officers. The city has one police officer who is serving in Iraq until February 2010 (who we should all thank for his service and pray for his safe return). The second police officer would be a 29th police officer. A few years ago, there were two different occasions when the police department did try hire for that NEW position, that did not work out either time. Recently New Brighton put in an application for not one, but two, more officers under a federally funded program grant that would have paid for the two new officers for three years, bringing the count to 30 officers (which we never have had). The city was turned down for the grant based on our low crime rate and no new population growth. We don't meet the criteria for federal funding and I don't believe we meet the criteria to have the citizens of New Brighton pay for the additional officers either. We have some great police officers and I support them wholeheartedly, but at this time it is my opinion that we do not have a public safety need to add any more officers. Regarding the deputy director, that position was vacated due to early retirement offered to all employees by the city. This was a $98,000 a year position that may possibly be filled sometime next year, possibly by promotion within the department. When the time comes then I will support hiring a police officer to fill any vacancy created by a promotion.

The candidate who made these erroneous statements about public safety staffing is being coached behind the scenes by an outgoing council member who sometimes focuses on Public Safety as if it is the only department in the city. Council candidate Paul Jacobsen needs to inform himself better on this issue before running on it. And please do not buy into the innuendo that some are spreading that I am anti public safety. I have a brother who is a member of the St. Paul Fire Department while his wife is a sergeant with the Minneapolis Police Department. I know first hand how critical their responsibilities are. I also have a family, business and a home in this community, all of which would be negatively impacted without the top-notch Public Safety department New Brighton is fortunate to have. 

I have just seen the campaign handouts that are were delivered bundled together this weekend for Steve Larson, Char Samuelson and Graeme Allen. I found them fascinating to read since many of their "solutions" to the issues are not what they have expressed before (at least in the cases of Larson and Samuelson who have current or past council experience). Larson and Samuelson have been like-minded for many years, going back to when they served on the council together and have been on what has proven to be the wrong side of many issues that led to several of the problems the city currently faces. Something that also surprises me is that the mayor is backing Allen, who has only lived in his apartment in the city for the last year and half. I find this curious because when it comes to commissioner appointments, Mayor Larson, as a matter of principle, will not vote for anyone who has lived in the city for such a short period of time.

The bottom line is this is a very important election for New Brighton. We need our elected officials to put the interests of the people and the city first. It seems that some people run for office without a good understanding of the issues involved or fully appreciative of the privilege and responsibility that goes with the position. Others appear to just want to extend their careers and keep in lock-step with the past.

I believe that if you re-elect me as your council member and elect Dave Jacobsen as your new mayor, along with one of the current council members we will have the three votes it takes on the council to represent you with the financial responsibility, good judgment, and accountability needed to move New Brighton forward to a better future.

Please vote on November 3rd for Gina Bauman for City Council and Dave Jacobsen for Mayor.

Gina Bauman
New Brighton City Council

New Brighton Mayoral Race - Job Performance Matters

In the real world of the private sector, after one has been on the job in their chosen professional career long enough potential employers look at a candidate's job performance as the primary criteria for deciding whether or not to hire. For example, consider an applicant for an engineering position with thirty years of demonstrated superior skills and job competency. The employer is not going to care too much, if at all, what the applicant's GPA was or even what their degree was in, or even if they have a degree. In most cases this information will probably be verified, more as a check on the character and honesty of the applicant more so than as an indicator of whether or not they can do the job.

This same principle can, and I maintain should, be applied when voters select someone for elected office. A long time incumbent has a public record and documented job performance that can and should be the primary metric to judge whether or not he or she should be returned to office. Their private sector or other previous elected office record may reinforce the conclusions drawn from an examination of their record in office or indicate how the performance could have been predicted, but really is of little consequence in the retain/replace decision. The office holder either has performed well in office or has not. It really doesn't matter how the skills, or lack thereof, to do the job were developed or acquired as the on-the-job record can speak for itself.

Conversely, a challenger to the incumbent, particularly one who has not held elected office before, can and must be judged on their life and career experience as it is usually the best objective criteria available to decide whether or not the he or she deserves to replace the incumbent. There are of course other criteria (appearance, associations, charisma, demeanor, public speaking skills, etc.) that can be taken into account, but these secondary parameters for the most part do not indicate a lot about whether or not the candidate is up to perform as needed in office. They can certainly bolster or detract from the overall assessment of a candidate's suitability for the office, but are moot points if the candidate is not capable of doing the job.

In the case of our current Mayor Steve Larson, it's obvious that after ten years as Mayor and twelve more as a member of the City Council that he is not capable of doing the job. At the last candidate forum it was clear that he was intimidated by Dave Jacobsen's impressive private sector resume and pathetically attempted to convince the audience that his private sector career as a route salesman for Ambassador Sausage qualified him as a "small businessman". He also intimated that in a previous position at Gilllette he learned all about abatement of chemical contamination. Larson's "look at me, I have private sector experience just as good as his" pitch was comical, like that of a puppy jumping up and down on its owner looking for attention.

My point in this is even if one assumed Larson's portrayal of his private sector expertise was valid, it would still not change the fact the he has failed miserably on the job that he is seeking to retain.

After watching his performance for the last twenty-two years it is clear that he doesn't know an Excel workbook from a Teletubbies coloring book when it comes to finance and budgeting. He obviously did not know a lot about eminent domain and the trouble it could get a city into. He was often the leader on what has been proven to be the wrong side of majority votes on a variety matters concerning the Northwest Quadrant. During his tenure on the City Council and as Mayor the business climate of the city has deteriorated considerably. Just how many more chances does this clown expect the voters to give him to show that he is up to the duties of the job?

Dave Jacobsen's record of success in the private sector demonstrates real world experience and expertise in dealing with the same types of problems that Mayor Larson and his cronies in city government have created for New Brighton through their arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence. Mr. Jacobsen has had to deal with environmental remediation and government regulations while working within the constraints of a limited budget. The difference is that if Jacobsen had shown the inability to deal with the problems that Mayor Larson has he would have been forced to seek employment elsewhere, or at the very least been demoted.

Over the years Mayor Larson has managed to hang on to his job through uncontested elections, poorly run or under-funded campaigns against him, or getting just enough of a plurality in a multi-candidate election. He has proven to be political survivor in that he has managed to take credit for many of the good things the City of New Brighton does (e.g. public safety, parks and recreation, community programs, etc.) that really have very little, if anything, to do with the responsibilities of the mayor, regardless of who occupies the office ("Mr. D" has recently posted a good analysis of this over in his 'hood, as well as some thoughts regarding the job qualifications of the contestants).

The question to be answered in the New Brighton mayoral election this Tuesday is actually pretty simple: will the city and the taxpayers be better off with new leadership that has a proven ability to successfully deal with the sort of problems the city currently faces, or staying with the current bumbling leadership that has caused many of the problems and has allowed others to get worse through its inability to effectively deal with them?

The answer should be pretty obvious. Dave Jacobsen has a resume that indicates he is capable of successfully leading New Brighton through the tough problems that are ahead. Mayor Steve Larson has a twenty-two year record of ineptitude on the job he is seeking re-election to that demonstrates that not only is he largely responsible for many of the problems the city faces, but has also shown he is not up to successfully dealing with them.

It's time to end Mayor Larson's reign of error. Vote for Dave Jacobsen to be the next mayor of New Brighton this Tuesday.

New Brighton "Non-Partisan" City Elections - A matter of picking the right partisans

(Final post of the series)

The previous posts of this series highlighted three of the nine candidates involved in the New Brighton Mayoral and City Council races, pointing out just how partisan these candidates are in the "non-partisan" election. As I noted in the introductory post to the series, I am all for partisanship as it provides a good criteria to judge which of the candidates deserve our votes. I chose to feature the candidates that I did based on how far from the type of partisan they appeared to be from the type of partisans I want to see elected next Tuesday.

It's interesting to note that I selected the candidates I was going to put the spotlight on before former Mayor Bob Benke, who is as hard-core partisan to the left as I am to the right, made his endorsements known in the local papers. The fact that we both identified the same three candidates for opposite reasons indirectly validates both of our choices, as my picks validate the liberal bona fides of his selections and his endorsements confirm that I picked the right ones to identify as the worst choices in the election.

I want to see highly partisan Conservatives in the Mayor's office and in the council seats, simply because much of the trouble the city has gotten itself into over the last decade or so can be attributed to liberal policies enacted by those who had the majorities to get it done. It makes no sense to expect or trust the same people largely responsible for the mess, or those newcomers who will more than likely think and act in the same way, to all of the sudden have the wisdom, skills, judgment, and motivation to clean it up.

True Conservative policies (as opposed to wishy-washy nonsense like "compassionate conservatism", "a new tone", or "middle of the road moderation") work every time they are implemented while liberalism/socialism/statism (or whatever one wants to call it) has invariably been an epic failure when implemented on a large scale or over a long period of time.

With so many candidates in the City Council race the choices voters have cover the whole spectrum from hard right, to hard left, as well as a couple of candidates who have staked out the political middle of the road (which in the real-world analog is often marked by a yellow stripe and is a place where road kill ends up at ambient temperature). Gina Bauman has the proven experience, Conservative creds, and public record that clearly indicates that she has earned another term. She kept the promises she made in the last election (primarily fighting for fiscal responsibility and putting an end to eminent domain abuse). If the Conservative base gets out and votes we will make it official.

The decision on how to replace Sharon Doffing won't be as easy, but there appears to be a few candidates with the background, intelligence, and aptitude to do the job. There is room for reasonable people to disagree here as to which of the candidates is the best choice (as is the case within the Conservative crowd I hang with), but if good Conservatives get out and vote their conscience we will hopefully end up with a worthy replacement. On the down side, with the large field there are enough candidates who will almost certainly propagate the status quo or even make things worse if they end up getting elected.

The mayoral race, on the other hand, is pretty much black and white with absolutely no gray area. Voters need to ask themselves if as a city we want to continue with an inept career politician who as been a main driver of regrettable policy from the Mayor's chair, or do we actively look to switch to someone with a good private sector track record for getting the kind of work done that will be needed to undo the damage inflicted by the past decisions and policies?

If the people of New Brighton are paying attention and give the question any thought at all Dave Jacobsen is clearly the better choice - again it will be up to those of us in the Conservative base to get out and make it happen. The last time around 55% of those who voted wanted someone other than Larson, but the three-way contest split the vote just enough for "Landslide" Larson to slip back into office. This time in a one-on-one contest with a vastly superior choice for our side hopefully things will turn out better for the current and future residents of New Brighton.

By the way, did I mention I'm partisan on who I am supporting in the election? Hopefully a majority of the voters will also be both partisan and on the right side (in more ways than one) of the issues.

Words of Wisdom from Mr. D...

Mark, aka as "Mr. D", over at Mr. Dilettante's Neighborhood makes a concise but very good point about the upcoming New Brighton elections.

Well worth checking out and keeping in mind as you try to make sense of all of the campaigning that will be coming at you over the next few days.

New Brighton Races Non-Partisan? Exhibit C: City Council Candidate Char Samuelson

(Part 4 of a series)

Char Samuelson is a former member of the New Brighton City Council as well as a two-term State Representative from District 50B. On her run for the Minnesota House she ran as a Republican. So, are we looking at a partisan Republican right-winger here? Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Char is definitely a partisan, not so much in terms political ideology, but rather in the belief that government and more of it is the answer to many societal problems. In her tenure in the State House she had the well deserved reputation of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only), voting with the DFL on nanny state legislation and running up a mediocre-at-best record on her votes regarding taxes and spending. We could have done worse, as was later proven without a doubt by Kate Knuth, but Samuelson certainly did not show deeply held Conservative convictions.

In the 2005 Taxpayers League of Minnesota Legislative Scorecard she scored a pathetic 33% rating for 2005 (the lowest for a Republican) with an anemic lifetime rating of only 66%. It is also interesting to note that Samuelson was the only one at the candidate forums to publicly state that she would vote to raise taxes "if necessary".

But don't just take my word for it that Char is would more than likely vote in step with the old guard. From former Mayor Bob Benke, a highly partisan liberal and primary perpetrator of the failed Northwest Quadrant redevelopment project, in his endorsement of Samuelson in both of the local papers last week (my emphasis added):

I also highly recommend a vote for returning Char Samuelson to the council after an absence while serving in the Legislature and many other ways in New Brighton. She also has proven to have sound judgment, dedication and fiscal restraint. She proved her mettle when in the Legislature, making tough votes that drew the ire of her Republican colleagues. She deserves your vote for council.

Benke touting her judgment and "fiscal constraint" (downright laughable, considering the source) should raise a huge red flag. The fact that Bob the Builder is confident she will vote the "right" way and praises her for wandering off of the Republican reservation indicates she will continue to be part of the problem rather than helping to clean up the mess at City Hall.

Bulldozer Bob's endorsement alone should remove Samuelson from serious consideration for the office by any Conservative or Republican voter. Char Samuelson was part of the problem on the City Council when the city ignored market and industry experts and started down the road of eminent domain abuse and fiscal irresponsibility with the Northwest Quadrant project. By including her on his City Council Dream Team along with Mayor Larson and the liberal council candidate Graeme Allen, Benke has probably pounded the final nail into the casket of her campaign if the people of New Brighton are paying attention.

Char Samuelson is a nice lady and has held office officially as a Republican, but has demonstrated that she is not a Republican, let alone Conservative, partisan but rather one of a big government nanny stater. There is little doubt on how she will vote if elected to the council. Her yard currently sports a "Larson for Mayor" sign, and has displayed the signs of the current council old guard in past elections when clearly better choices were available for Conservative voters. Clearly, she will be an extension of past Council failures rather than a force for positive change.

More to come...the wrapup.

BOOT the Mounds View (I)s

A local city council member of the Republican persuasion recently said within my hearing that we should go with the incumbents in the Mounds View school board races. His basic idea is that we should take the bad we know over the unknown since MV's finances have been handled prudently, and MV performs well compared to other districts.

This boils down to, "Swallow a poison you know over an unknown substance."

Me, I'm taking the unknown substance. I'm tired of a school board whose best qualification is that "stability provides consistent policy and staff direction." A bus consistently headed to hell--is that the one you want to board? I have personal experience teaching at the university level in this area, my spouse has even more extensive experience teaching at the university level in the Twin Cities, and I have numerous friends who have taught and are teaching at universities here. The universities in question can produce good evidence their students come from the top 10% of area high school graduates, along with top graduates from across the country. While the occasional bright star makes university teaching worthwhile, for the most part, students can't build sound arguments, can't diagnose the trouble with their ailing sentences in English (let alone speak or write in a foreign language), can't apply equations in their science classes or even deal with a straight number problem in their math classes. And these are the kids who get into college; think of the poor fellows who can't get accepted! To produce this low-quality product, the district consistently comes to the voters asking for another levy to supplement their per pupil revenues, even though they could see the demographic handwriting on the wall years ago, and knew they needed to get out the big shears. Instead they roll over and play dead for the teachers' union, and pass me the bill. That's "prudent" handling of district finances? This is the performance that makes the incumbents preferable to the unknown?

Boots On! Kick the incumbents. Even if the newbies are worse, they're easier to get rid of when we want to try again. And it would be hard to be worse, at this point.

Why informed citizens are a career politician's worst nightmare

A New Brighton resident notes in an open letter to his fellow residents what was not asked or said at the last mayoral candidate forum, but really should have been...check it out here.

New Brighton Races Non-Partisan? Exhibit B: City Council Candidate Graeme Allen

(Part 3 of a series)

Graeme Allen appears to be a nice, thoughtful young man running for his first elected office. He is obviously well educated, polite, and affable. So what wouldn't there be to like? Well (a little nostalgic throwback to the days when we had a real president), he also is claiming that he will be non-partisan [cue the laugh track here].

On his campaign blog Allen states the following in a post announcing a fundraiser:

I'd love to have a chance to talk with you about my ideas for growth opportunities in New Brighton, my plans for city outreach to the schools as well as my pledge to put aside personal politics and put a non-partisan focus on the important issues facing the city today.

That sound you now may be hearing is more than likely your Bravo Sierra detector going off.

His choice of venue for his fundraiser in-and-of-itself immediately hoists a huge red-flag as to how non-partisan he and his supporters really are (hint: not very). It also shows questionable judgment on his part regarding where one goes to get good coffee in New Brighton :) .

A little on-line research into Mr. Allen brings up several strong indicators that he is an ambitious young liberal activist. According to his LinkedIn page, he is currently the "Director of Government Relations" at Minnesota State University Student Association. For those of you who don't speak bureaucratese, Mr. Allen is a lobbyist, and, at that, a lobbyist for an institution within the "education community" (as an amusing and ironic aside, check out the example the Urban Dictionary gives within its definition of "Bravo Sierra" if you have not already clicked the link above - honestly, I did not know this until after I had linked it). These folks are not generally known as a fraternity of right wingers. Allen emphasizes in his campaign literature that he learned many of his values and beliefs from his parents, who are both "educators". It would be interesting to know if the term "educators" refers to teachers, administrators, bureaucrats in the education industry, and/or whatever else.

Allen states in his campaign literature his belief that city government needs to "invest" (this is liberal-speak for "spend copious amounts of your tax dollars") in "education". Liberals typically can't grasp the concept that government at any level cannot and does not invest in anything - it does not create wealth and can only spend the money and consume the wealth of the taxpayers. Just <earmuffs>wtf</earmuffs> does his "plans for city outreach to the schools" in the above quote from his blog mean in the context of a city council race (other than, of course, that he is a "all good flows from the government" liberal)? There are many liberals/socialists/statists running for the School Board in this election, but Allen is running for New Brighton City Council. It seems he is trolling for votes from the crowd responsible for the liberal indoctrination and spending orgy that goes on at the School Board.

I'm all for providing our children with the opportunity to get a good education (as opposed to supporting the liberal education industry, which is nothing but a political power and influence vehicle for the left-wing), but someone needs to explain to Mr. Allen that "education" is outside the scope and responsibility of city government (duh!). To me his bringing up the topic of education as one of his main reasons for running for city council indicates that he is pretty clueless as to the legitimate purpose of city government. My guess is that he is gratuitously throwing out the issue to attract votes from the liberal "education community", who generally view the nebulous concept of "education" as sacrosanct in any context.

LinkedIn also reveals that Allen has also served as the "Volunteer Manager at Mike Erlandson for US Representative". Erlandson was the chief of staff to the ultra-liberal former US Representative Martin Olav Sabo, as well as serving in his more widely known position as chair of the Minnesota DFL from 1999-2005 (an organization Mr. Allen also logged some time in as an intern). I'm pretty confident that Allen did not attend many College Republican meetings in his student days and that he does not have a framed portrait of Ronald Reagan on his desk.

Graeme Allen is clearly a very bright and likeable guy, but "non-partisan" is a stretch to the point of being laughable. His youth and idealism may make him naive enough to honestly think he is or can be non-partisan, but anyone with the long term exposure to the mentally pathogenic kind of liberal ideology he is known to have had will almost certainly vote as a partisan liberal once in elected office.

In a sputtering economy and with the complex problems facing the city, do we need another liberal on the City Council? Virtually all of the problematic issues the city needs to deal with were largely caused or worsened by liberal policies emanating from all levels of government. Putting yet another liberal in city government would be like throwing gasoline on the fire. Haven't the residents of New Brighton already been burned enough by liberal thinking and policies? As in the case of Mayor Larson, don't buy this "non-partisan" ploy by Graeme Allen. There is ample evidence that he will govern like a liberal if elected,

If you're not yet convinced that Graeme Allen (partisan or not) is not a good choice to sit on the City Council, check out the endorsement for Mr. Allen in this week's Sun Focus by none other than Bob "the Builder" Benke, the former (thank God!) New Brighton mayor who was one of the primary archi-wrecks of what some New Brightonians refer to as the "Benkeville" area of town (aka the Northwest Quadrant).

Benke, a highly partisan liberal power broker, appears to still have a lot of influence at City Hall, particularly with our current mayor. If the citizens of New Brighton are paying attention in this election and want to start cleaning up the mess started under Mayor Benke and perpetuated under Mayor Larson, an endorsement by Bulldozer Bob should be the kiss of death to any campaign for elected office in New Brighton. The Benke-Larson cabal needs to be dismantled, not passed on to a new generation of central-command-and-control government liberals.

More to come in the next installment...

The LWV New Brighton Candidate Forum - Superficially Revealing

The League of Women Voters Candidate Forums have always been a poor source to glean information about the candidates due to the restrictive format, but this one was a bit more tedious than usual. Nothing against any of the candidates for participating, as for all practical purposes they are pretty much obligated to show up. Nonetheless, some useful information did emerge from this little candidate get-together.

All candidates for the most part attempted to answer the questions posed within the ridiculously short time allotment (some questions were ducked or were obviously misinterpreted, but nothing really flagrant). The format is particularly bad where there is a large number of candidates in the field as was the case with the City Council candidates.

A real problem with the format is that there is no time or provision made for rebuttal. During the presentation some of the candidates obviously, whether intentionally or because of inadequate knowledge of the subject, mis-stated some facts that those of us who follow city government know darn well were wrong. There was no opportunity for a candidate to rebut an erroneous statement made by another that could make them look bad, or for a candidate to defend challenges to their assertions. This is an inherent problem with the format but, since all of the candidates were equally hampered by it, the net result should have been a wash other than contributing to an overall shallowness of the event. One candidate did however manage to circumvent the rules to get in a cheap shot at another candidate (one not even running against him, at that!). More on this later.

The mayoral candidates were up first. Watching this it was obvious that the restrictive format was much better suited for Mayor Larson, a career politician not known for intellectual depth, than for the quiet, analytical Dave Jacobsen, a first time candidate coming from a long private industry business career.

Larson mechanically delivered his usual "how much I love public service and give to the community" canned sound bites and rattled off sanctimonious accounts of his civic involvement while avoiding directly addressing issues with any specifics. If you're a fan of Politician Buzzword Bingo, Larson is definitely the guy you want to have a card for at one of these events.

Jacobsen held his own and addressed the questions posed to him head on, at least summarizing his thoughts and positions in the inadequate one-two minute per question time limit. Having watched Mayor Larson and his clumsy ineptitude for years and after talking to Dave Jacobsen about his campaign, I strongly recommend voting for Mr. Jacobsen to bring some sorely needed competence and dignity to the office. As Jacobsen said in his closing statement, let's give Mayor Larson the opportunity to become a full-time baby sitter for his grandchildren.

Overall, the mayoral forum didn't prove much, though a few points could be concluded. Those of us who watch the goings-on at City Hall saw the well-worn, pat answers, and stretches of the truth we've come to know and expect from Mayor Larson. If one watched closely you could tell Larson does not like dissent or contradiction. His body language subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) went into full defensive mode when Jacobsen made a point he perceived made him look bad or revealed some stretch marks that had been inflicted on the truth. Jacobsen gave confident and sincere answers with as much substance as could be expected to be squeezed into the short alloted time. It did appear obvious which one of the men was the career politician plying his trade and which was just answering questions posed to him as best he could in the permitted time.

The City Council part of the forum was also pretty superficial - actually even more so than the mayoral portion due to having to make time for seven candidates to respond. Even so, some conclusions could be drawn if one listened closely.

Going around the counter from the audience's left to right:

Graeme Allen looked to want to play the role of the fresh new face with fresh ideas, but appeared to carefully avoid a lot of specifics. There seemed to be a problem with his microphone and with his rather soft-spoken demeanor he was sometimes hard to hear. All in all while he was polite, credible, and obviously a bright guy, he didn't really say anything to distinguish himself from the rest of the field. This definitely did not appear to be an ideal format for him, given his softspokeness and lack of experience as a political candidate (he does have experience as lobbyist and and behind the scenes politico). I got the impression that he really wants to hold elective office but does not appear to have fully thought out what he wants to do if he is elected.

The next two candidates were interesting and had similar styles. Ron Meyer (a former military man with experience on city commissions) and Paul Jacobsen (a current military man with a clear military demeanor), showed good public speaking ability and booming, authoritative voices that commanded attention. Both of these guys would have gotten by just fine if their microphones had completely failed.

Meyer is a good and engaging speaker, but emphasized a self-described complete non-political philosophy and was all over the map regarding issues. He looked to be saying whatever he wanted to regardless of what the specific question was. Nice guy, good talker, but no core convictions or substance. I'd definitely vote for him to be the life-time Stockyard Days Grand Marshall or the voice of New Brighton at a Chamber of Commerce event, but he does not seem to be a credible council candidate, especially given the decisive action needed to address the many problems the city faces.

Jacobsen was confident and positive, but was very short on specifics and just plain wrong in some statements regarding city staffing and public safety. He also did not seem too informed on matters concerning spending and the budget. He strikes me as a good family man and a fine representative of our military, but I was a disappointed in his obvious lack of knowledge of city government and his demonstrable mis-statement of the facts on some issues. This was made even worse by his authoritative tone. He struck me as having the potential of becoming a skilled politician who will confidently forge ahead and not let facts and figures get in the way of presenting what he thinks the audience wants to hear. Before his performance in this forum I had penciled him in as a possible worthy replacement for Sharon Doffing, but now is on my "very skeptical" list.

Char Samuelson was the only other candidate besides Gina Bauman with council experience (she served on the New Brighton City Council before her two terms as State Representative). She gave what I thought was a surprisingly lackluster performance. Her answers and qualifications for the office did not stand out among the other candidates with no council or elected office experience. She was cheerful and gracious to the other candidates, but said very little, if anything, substantive, other than that she would vote to raise taxes if the city needed the money. Besides that she really didn't say anything objectionable, but also didn't say anything remotely close to impressive. I don't think anyone watching who did not know of her previous elected positions would have come to the conclusion that she has such experience. She is clearly a likeable person but did not show any passion, qualifications, or drive for the office she is seeking.

I felt that Walt Witzke gave a good accounting of himself. He is a quiet, non-imposing figure, but has experience on city commissions and is obviously engaged in the process. As a fellow engineer I appreciated his no nonsense analytical approach to the questions and he did a good job directly answering the questions and getting in as many specifics as one could expect in the restrictive time allotment. He is obviously a very smart guy who knows how to apply analytical thinking to a problem. He does not project the stereotypical image of a politician (to me this is a plus) so it's hard to gauge how effective his campaign will be. I haven't seen enough of him to go so far as an endorsement or recommendation, but I did not see anything from his performance in the forum (which is all I have to go on) to be critical of.

W. Christopher Stedman's performance was a bit puzzling. He is a good speaker with a deep, attention getting voice (not quite to the level of Meyer or Jacobsen, but still impressive). After hearing all of his answers I felt that he never really answered the implicit "why are you running" question. He didn't say anything objectionable and acknowledged agreement with several of the other candidates on some non-controversial issues, but didn't really stake out a firm position on anything. Seems like a likeable guy that hasn't quite fully thought out why he really wants the position or what he would do if he got it. He's young and energetic and may be better suited to get involved on a city commission as a pre-requisite to perhaps a future run for office after getting a better feel for the local political scene.

As would be expected Gina Bauman, the only incumbent, was head and shoulders above the rest of the field with respect to direct answers to questions, command of facts and figures, and general knowledge of the issues and the workings of city government. The limited time format was pretty restrictive but, even in spite of having to deal with some problems with her microphone, her depth of knowledge and passion for the position clearly came through as she was able to work a lot of facts and figures as well as some informative insight as to how city government works into the short time allotted. I supported Gina in her first run for office four years ago and feel that she has done an excellent job on the council. I heartily endorse and recommend a vote for her in the election.

The most telling moment of the evening came when Mayor Larson, who was hanging around outside of the council room during the City Council portion of the forum, apparently disagreed with a statement made by Gina Bauman in an answer to an audience question. He had one of his cronies send a note to the LWV moderator (or perhaps she took it upon herself) via a note card in the same manner that audience questions were being collected. On receipt of the note the moderator then announced that there was a "correction" and read Larson's statement to contradict what Gina had said. Regardless of whether or not Gina's statement was correct (it was, by the way) the ham-fisted move was in direct violation of the ground rules for the forum. The LWV moderator should have had the good sense to ignore this completely out-of-line action, but Larson or his minion should not have made the request in the first place.

Gina and the other council candidates had no opportunity to rebut Larson's bogus "correction" or to offer their own "corrections" to anything said by any of the other participants. There is a good reason for this rule - if not in place and enforced the forum could easily break down into a "that's a lie"-"no it isn't, poopy pants!" back and forth. Larson could have made a statement to the media after the fact if he disagreed with what Gina said, or waited until his opening statement at the forum next week, but he just couldn't resist inserting himself into a discussion that he wasn't even a part of.

This revealed a lot about the character, or lack thereof, of our illustrious mayor. This inept stunt was not a surprise to those of us who have observed how thin-skinned and defensive he can get when someone says something not to his liking. I've always had the impression that Mr. Larson feels rules apply to everyone else but not to him, and this was yet some more confirmation.

We the voters have the opportunity and the power to at long last clear the stage of this pathetically lame act that has had a grueling 22-year run. If enough of us vote for Dave Jacobsen we can force Mayor Larson to trade in his taxpayer paid membership in the North Metro Mayor's Association for a free, entry-level membership in the Babysitter's Club. I'm sure he could handle the position and make his grandchildren as well as the people of New Brighton very happy.

New Brighton Candidate Forums Next Two Mondays

There is a candidate forum Monday 10/19 at 7:00 PM at New Brighton City Hall. This event will be moderated by the League of Women Voters.

Another forum is scheduled for next Monday 10/26, also 7:00 PM at City Hall. This event is a production of Twin Cities North Area Chamber of Commerce.

Please show up with some good questions for the candidates. I can't speak about the Chamber of Commerce forum, but in the past the LWV has lobbed "non-inflammatory" softball questions oriented toward the more left-leaning participants. The questions from the audience have usually been more substantive and have induced more useful information to help voters make an informed decision.

It's a beautiful day in Mr. D's Neighborhood...

...as it always is.

In case you're not familiar with it, Mr. Dilettante's Neighborhood, located in good ol' New Brighton, is a great source for political commentary at the local, state, and national levels as well as for "just for fun" stuff and serious social commentary. I highly recommend bookmarking it or adding it to your feeds list. If nothing else, regular reading will definitely improve your vocabulary!

Check out the latest from the 'hood regarding the New Brighton city elections. It's well worth the effort.