In the annual St. Cloud State University Survey, 55 percent of Minnesotans surveyed say the state is on the wrong track, down one percent from last year.

About 22 percent of Minnesotans said unemployment and jobs were the biggest problem, with another 14 percent pointing to the economy. The survey found that most respondents thought Democrats could do a better job with the economy, while they trusted Republicans to fix the budget.

Despite their trust in Republicans to fix budgets more than 54 percent of those surveyed blamed the Republican-dominated legislature for this summer’s government shutdown, with a little more than 18 percent laying full blame at the feet of DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. Event those who identified as Republicans blamed the legislature at a higher proportion, according to survey results.

About half of all respondents want to see state budget solutions that rely only on spending cuts, while a little more than a quarter of those surveyed want both.

The survey also found that U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann was the most unpopular figure of the 11 surveyed, with those surveyed giving her a rating of 33 out of 100. It also found that even in her home state, Bachmann would perform much worse in a hypothetical match-up against Pres. Barack Obama than either Herman Cain or Mitt Romney. Obama won in all three hypothetical match-ups.

Source: A still from Campaign to Defeat Obama's video

The Campaign to Defeat Obama, a political action committee with ties to the Republican Party and the Tea Party Express, has launched a campaign linking Democratic Party lawmakers and President Obama to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is depicted by the organization as “violent mobs.”

“Barack Obama has been one of the protest mobs’ biggest cheerleaders,” writes the campaign’s chief and right-wing political consultant Joe Wierzbicki in a release announcing a new campaign ad. ”The new poll finds that support for the violent Occupy Wall Street mobs has fallen further, and since Barack Obama has been one of the protest mobs’ biggest cheerleaders, it spells trouble for him as well.”

The mainstream media hasn’t spent much time highlighting this vulnerability for Obama, but that is where you come in. We urgently need your help to raise the money to launch our new TV ad campaign that shows how Democrat leaders shamelessly have championed the Occupy Wall Street mobs that have cost taxpayers millions of dollars and created considerable damage in cities across America.

The ad closes with a question: “Are we going to let these mobs and their Democrat champions do this to America, or are we going to fight back?”

Voters still sympathize to a significant degree with the main message of the movement, which centers on the need to address the inarguable fact of expanding inequality in the country tied to the finance industry and corporate America. Although recent polls report dipping popularity for the Occupy movement, they also report greater support for the movement than for the Tea Party, with much greater public sympathy for the movement than for Wall Street and large corporations.

Wierzbicki is a longtime pitchman for Republican Party-associated firm Russo Marsh & Rogers. Wierzbicki’s 2011 Campaign to Defeat Obama PAC shares a Willows, California, PO Box with the Our Country Deserves Better PAC and with TeaPartyExpress.org. All three organizations share the same treasurer, a Kelly Lawler, who was a former staff member at the National Republican Campaign Committee.

As the “OWS as Democratic Party-backed public menace” ads hit the airwaves, a blogger for the Economist underlined how Occupiers might pose a major political problem for Democrats.

“As long as the Occupy movement remains without acknowledged leaders who can credibly distance it from the worst behavior of its least reasonable affiliates, the movement will increasingly come to be defined by its most egregious episodes.”

The blogger points to CBS coverage from clashes in Oakland.

“You see the problem? Who watches CBS News? Older people. Older people who don’t cotton to this sort of shenanigans and who vote in droves.”

The Massachusetts Republican Party recently launched a nearly identical campaign targeting Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren as the “matriarch of mayhem.”

Haunted by the memories of the 2008 election between former Sen. Norm Coleman (R) and current Sen. Al Franken (D), Minnesota is bracing for yet another contentious recount, this time to determine the state’s next governor.

Just as the ‘08 outcome had national implications — Franken became the temporary 60th Democratic Senate vote in 2009 (due to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s death not long after) — a delayed decision on the 2010 gubernatorial race would have wide repercussions at both the local and national levels. The state legislature, which flipped to the GOP on Tuesday, could quickly pass conservative bills while a Democratic governor, Mark Dayton, waits in limbo. All the while, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty finds himself in a unique posturing position before his probable bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

After all precincts reported their totals on Wednesday, former U.S. Senator and Democratic candidate Dayton held a narrow 43.63–43.21 percent lead over his Republican opponent, state Rep. Tom Emmer, in the gubernatorial campaign. Tom Horner, a third-party candidate running for the Independence Party, drew 12 percent.

Mark Dayton leads Tom Emmer by nearly 9,000 votes. Photo: Minnesota Independent

With only 8,856 votes separating Dayton and Emmer, media outlets have held off on calling the race, and, so far, neither candidate has declared victory nor conceded defeat. Vote tallies are unofficial until the State Canvassing Board meets on Nov. 23. Counties will examine their vote totals and the final numbers could still shift before that date, but as long as Dayton and Emmer remain within 0.5 percent of each other, the state will automatically conduct a recount, likely starting on Nov. 29.

The term for the next governor is scheduled to begin on Jan. 3. If the recount drags on past that date, the constitution calls for the current executive to remain in office. Pawlenty issued a press release Wednesday affirming that he will stay in the governor’s office until a new governor is sworn in.

“My administration is fully committed and prepared to accomplish the swift and orderly transition to the next governor as soon as a final determination is made. As required by Article V of the Minnesota Constitution, I will continue to serve as Governor until a new governor takes the oath,” the release said.

While the gubernatorial campaign remains in limbo, Republicans swept both sides of the state legislature this week. Pawlenty faced a hostile Democratic legislature during the entirety of his eight years in office. Democrats at times held veto-proof majorities, forcing Pawlenty to push only a limited form of his ideological goals during his tenure. If the final decision on certifying the next governor drags into 2011, Pawlenty and state Republicans could rush through numerous pieces of conservative legislation, allowing the governor to add accomplishments he can tout to the Republican base when he hits the campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire next year.

It is difficult to discern exactly how long a recount could last, but the Coleman-Franken scenario from 2008 offers insight into the process. The state declared Franken the initial winner after a hand recount of votes lasted seven weeks. Reforms to the election process and a smaller pool of votes cast during a midterm year means a recount should proceed quicker in 2010, likely to last three to four weeks, according David Schultz, a professor at the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul.

If that’s the case, the outcome should, theoretically, be known before the end of the year, just in time for the next governor to take the oath on schedule. However, like 2008, it is not the recount itself that would extend the race but rather subsequent lawsuits that would endlessly drag out the final result. If the losing candidate chooses to file a lawsuit challenging those results, the state Supreme Court chief justice appoints a three-judge panel to review the complaints. That decision itself can then be appealed to the state Supreme Court, the highest point it could reach in a state-level election.

Following the 2008 recount, Coleman continued filing lawsuits up the ladder in questioning Franken’s victory. The three-judge panel did not make their decision until April 2009, and then the Supreme Court’s final ruling did not come down until the end of June, when Franken was finally allowed to assume his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Differences between the current gubernatorial results and 2008 may shorten that judicial window. Unlike the few hundred votes that separated Franken and Coleman, Dayton’s nearly 9,000 vote lead should prove difficult for Emmer to overcome in the recount.

On Wednesday, Jay Weiner, journalist and author of “This Is Not Florida: How Al Franken Won The Minnesota Senate Recount,” detailed changes in Minnesota election law since 2008 that should streamline the process in 2010. “Key among the changes: Absentee ballots this time ’round were viewed and accepted by centralized absentee ballot boards in each county. No longer did tired poll workers late at night have to quickly determine if absentee ballots followed the various guidelines,” Weiner wrote. “Also, signature mismatches, an element in the Senate recounts election contest trial, have been eliminated.”

The GOP has brought in a lawyer from the 2000 Bush v. Gore case to act on Tom Emmer's behalf. Photo: Facebook

Even if continuing the recount through lawsuits would be unlikely to change the results this time around, the Republican Party has every reason to extend the process for as long as possible if Dayton appears likely to win. The state party has already taken an aggressive public posture on the recount that indicates they are willing to see the race through.

“The stakes are enormously high in this one, much in the same way they were enormously high with Franken and Coleman. I see the same political motives for filing the challenge,” David Schultz said.

At a GOP news conference on Wednesday morning, state GOP Chairman Mark Sutton strongly pushed back against those who may view Dayton’s substantial lead as a solidified victory. “We’re going to pursue this until we’re absolutely certain that all the votes were counted correctly.”

The state party has hired Washington lawyer Michael Toner, who was the general counsel for the 2000 Bush campaign, an indication that they may already be eying a post-recount lawsuit. “It looks like it’s recount part two: And this time it’s personal,” Sutton said. (When contacted with questions, Toner directed the Minnesota Independent to the communications director for the Minnesota Republican Party, who did not return e-mail seeking comment.)

“This is the exact same rhetoric they were using two years ago. They’re starting off with similar strategy … which is to claim voter fraud,” Schultz told the Minnesota Independent. Republican claims of voter fraud were bolstered on election night when Hennepin County, which houses Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs, made a tabulation error and reported too many votes. That mistake was corrected and accounted for, bringing Emmer’s results closer to Dayton’s, but state Republicans have continued to point to it as an indication that Emmer could further close the vote-total gap.

Would Pawlenty be willing to push conservative bills through a Republican legislature during litigation even if Dayton continues to hold a solid lead in the vote totals? The governor’s communications director did not respond to requests for comment, but in a press release from Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC, the governor praised the Republican state victories.

“The historic nature of this victory cannot be overstated: For the first time since legislative races were partisan, Republicans will now have majorities in both the state House and Senate. This is a great validation of our work over the last eight years to cut spending and keep a lid on taxes,” Pawlenty wrote.

Pawlenty’s statement is in line with other Republicans’ attempts to frame the legislative victories as a governing mandate granted by voters even if the party loses the gubernatorial race. If party officials truly view the results in those terms, they would likely feel justified pushing their agenda while they still have a friendly face in the governor’s office.

“There may be powerful incentive for the Republicans to want to enact and do things very, very quickly during that time period,” Schultz said. “Get a budget passed, do all kinds of stuff when they’re guaranteed of having a Republican majority and a Republican governor.”

Pawlenty has said he will make a decision on his presidential campaign sometime during the first quarter of 2011; he did not seek a third term so that he could begin building his campaign infrastructure and increase his time spent in early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. An extended recount would delay his ability to implement those plans, but it would also allow Pawlenty to build his conservative legislative credentials in ways previously prevented by a Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Standard Republican issues of taxes and social conservative topics would likely be among the first issues addressed. Pawlenty often touts his record of not raising taxes in a liberal state when he visits national media outlets. The opportunity to pass a major tax cut — especially corporate rates that a Gov. Dayton would be unlikely to let decrease — may be too tempting for Pawlenty to pass up. One idea floated in the past that may surface again is a taxpayers bill of rights, which would essentially only allow Minnesota taxes to be raised if they are put to a popular vote.

Codifying a ban on same-sex marriage may also be addressed. Passing legislation tackling this topic would play well among the base in Iowa, one of the states Pawlenty has invested in most heavily as he eyes 2012. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost retention votes on Tuesday after state and national conservatives campaigned against them for their votes in ruling bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Pawlenty praised their efforts to oust the judges, and passing legislation against same-sex marriage in his own state would add credibility to his statements when he speaks to the Republican base.

One issue that would immediately confront Pawlenty if he stays in office past his initial expiration date would be an opt-in to a federal Medicaid assistance program. As part of the health-care reform legislation, Minnesota has the option of gaining extra federal Medicaid aid by increasing state enrollment. That would require the state to spend an extra $188 million, but the state would be expected to gain $1.4 billion of federal assistance in return. Democrats support the opt-in, with Republicans opposed. During the budget session last year, the two sides struck a deal: Pawlenty had the option of opting-in last year –- which he declined -– and the next governor would be presented with the same choice when he or she assumed office. Dayton campaigned on taking part in that federal program, but the next governor would have to make that decision by Jan. 15, leaving the choice in Pawlenty’s hands if lawsuits prolong the election.

Patrick Caldwell is the American Independent’s Minnesota correspondent.

lol so funny !! in 45 min’s im going 2 dinner with the senator : )

In an interview with gay porn news website The Sword, Koering admitted to the date.
“I don’t see anything wrong with going out with him. Do I think that being a porn star is the best thing? No. But that’s his choice,” Koering said. “I think he’s a nice guy.”

Wilde has starred in films such as “My Brother’s Hot Friend” and “Cruiser Boys.” He divides his time between Brainerd, Minn., and West Hollywood, Calif., and at one time offered escort services on rentboy.com, the same website where religious right figure George Rekers found his “vacation companion.”

“I think he wanted to get in my pants, truthfully,” he told The Sword following the date. “And he was pretty flirty. But it was just dinner. We both were checking out the waiter though. It was fun.”

“He told me he wants to be president one day! But first, he needs to win his re-election,” Wilde told The Sword. “He said once he was re-elected he’d work on gay rights issues and NOH8 stuff, you know? He said he’d make it so gay marriage was legal in Minnesota.”

Koering denied that portion of the conversation.

Among the tweets erased by Parry was a May 27 comment about President Obama:

“read the exclusive on Mr O in Newsweek. He is a Power Hungry Arrogant Black Man.”

Another tweet read, “What’s with the Dems and Pedophiles?”

And another erroneously interpreted voting laws: “Only those serving overseas can vote absentee!”

At the Republican endorsement convention in Faribault, Parry said he wants “a senator that is not worried about being politically correct. Welfare is meant to be a safety net, not a hammock.”

Parry did not immediately return the Minnesota Independent’s request for comment on the scrubbed tweets.

Koering came out in 2005 after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban civil unions and same-sex marriage pushed by then-State Sen. Michele Bachmann. He is one of very few openly gay elected Republicans in the United States and was re-elected by his conservative Brainerd-area constituents in 2006, despite a hard push by religious right activists to defeat him for his votes on gay rights.

When he came out in 2005, he was cautious about pushing hard for same-sex marriage, a position he still appears to hold.

“I think some of the gay activists will be upset with me for this, but sometimes I think an agenda is pushed so far and so fast that people have no alternative but to push back,” Koering told Raw Story at the time. “And I think that sometimes you have to move slowly.”

Update: Gay Republican responds to criticism: Gay marriage is a ‘pointless issue’

Larry Craig Photo: WDCpix

U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) cannot withdraw his guilty plea in the infamous 2007 Minneapolis-St. Paul airport bathroom sex case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today in an “unpublished” opinion. That means Craig is stuck with having copped in District Court to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct for allegedly signaling an interest in engaging in sex via foot taps from one restroom stall to another in which an undercover police officer was staked out.

The decision’s “unpublished” status means the court doesn’t want its ruling used as precedent in future cases — interesting, in view of charges that Craig sought special treatment or was being singled out for preferential or especially harsh treatment because of his status as a U.S. senator. Craig issued this statement:

I am extremely disappointed by the action of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. I disagree with their conclusion and remain steadfast in my belief that nothing criminal or improper occurred at the Minneapolis airport. I maintain my innocence, and currently my attorneys and I are reviewing the decision and looking into the possibility of appealing. I would like to thank all of those who have continued to support me and my family throughout this difficult time.

Whether the 28-year Senate veteran who is retiring this year plans an appeal isn’t known; Craig’s office has not yet returned a phone call to the Minnesota Independent. One recorded message said the staff was busy boxing up his files.

The case hinged on Craig’s plea, as cited in today’s ruling:

I am pleading guilty to the charge of Disorderly Conduct as alleged because on June 11, 2007, within the property or jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin County, specifically in the restroom of the North Star Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal, I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment or [sic] others, which conduct was physical (versus verbal) in nature.

And the offense that’s at the root of all this? As cited in today’s opinion:

The complaint stated that appellant “peered” into the restroom stall occupied by the officer for as long as two minutes and that the officer “observed the Defendant tap his foot several more times and move his foot closer to the stall occupied by [the officer.  The officer] moved his own foot up and down slowly.  [The officer] observed the Defendant move his right foot so that it touched [the officer‟s] left foot, at which point the Defendant‟s foot was within the stall area of the stall occupied by [the officer].”

Hudson, Toussaint and Kalitowski

A three-judge panel consisting of Judge Natalie E. Hudson, Chief Judge Edward Toussaint, Jr., and Judge Thomas J. Kalitowski issued the decision. The opinion has two parts. First, the panel denied Craig’s arguments that his plea wasn’t specific about what action he was pleading to, and that there wasn’t an adequate judicial record of the hearing where his written plea was entered. (There is a record, the judges said; Craig simply didn’t provide them with a transcript.) It was Craig’s fault, the judges wrote, that he didn’t ask for a second hearing to establish what had occurred at the first — but at the time, Craig was still hoping to keep the case hush-hush.

The court didn’t buy Craig’s insistence that no “others” were bothered by his conduct (besides the officer in the next stall) as the charge requires. The judges said they took “others” to mean people who were also in the restroom at the time, and anyway the presence of “others” beyond one other person can be theoretical.

Craig’s late-in-coming entrapment defense also didn’t move the judges, who found that, for one thing, the senator initiated the bathroom dialog, and for another, failing to assert entrapment isn’t grounds to take back a guilty plea.

In the second part of the opinion, the Court of Appeals panel found that the law under which Craig was charged does not inhibit free speech to an overly broad extent. The senator knew that his foot-tapping might “arouse ‘alarm, anger or resentment’” as required under the law, and also that it was an invasion of privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN) filed an amicus brief in the appeal at the request of Craig’s attorneys, ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson told MnIndy in an interview today. Samuelson conceded that the Court of Appeals “didn’t like our arguments,” which focused on the free-speech aspects of the case. But he contends, “Their reasoning is wrong.”

They talked about the language ‘to arouse’ … that inciting language. They say [Craig] was doing it. But they ignored that the guy who started it [the airport police sergeant] was not Craig [the official charge quoted above notwithstanding].

Frankly the court is really conflicted on this one. My gut tells me they just wanted this case to go away. The ACLU’s position in these sorts of laws have been used against gay men for a long, long time. If the police were concerned about public sex in the bathroom, then they should have followed best practices of police departments — put a sign on door, send cops through … the activity will probably disappear from that restroom and move someplace else. …

This really is entrapment, in our opinion. There is a line there that we think this sergeant crossed. By [the court's] reasoning the police officer is more guilty than Craig.

This a classic first amendment case of government suppression of unpopular speech. If this is inappropriate, what’s the status in heterosexual pickup bars? They [Craig and the officer] weren’t engaging in or planning on having sex in the bathroom. They were planning it [for somewhere else].

There is a double standard. Speech is speech. This never got more than speech. You can’t regulate this speech and then not regulate the speech of heterosexual people. … We don’t have police officers posing as [sexually available] women or whatever. …  The antidote to bad speech is more speech — the sign on the door [prohibiting bathroom sex].

With this ruling, Craig regains his rightful place as Minnesota’s most prominent issue of public-sex-in-a-bathroom-stall — eclipsing the more recent occurrence at the Metrodome during a University of Minnesota football game, where a sex act actually took place in a bathroom stall.

“The conduct at the football game,” Samuelson says, “now that was conduct.”

The protesters won’t work with law enforcement or corporate media, two factors that contribute some mystery about how many will show up in 2008 and what tactics they might use. Through the organizing power of the Internet, however, notes from organizing meetings give anyone with access a glimpse of plans for bridge blockades, strategies for disrupting public transportation and even information about a family-friendly anarchist area. They’ve even created a video that spoofs common misconceptions about violence by anarchists.

The truth, however, is that several statements by organizers assert that violence is not off the table. Although the protesters say they won’t take the first swing, they vow to protect themselves as law enforcement will likely attempt to thwart their plans involving illegal behavior.No Working with Authority

Anchored by the Twin Cities-based RNC Welcoming Committee and facilitated by Unconventional Action, the protesters have organized groups in cities such as Madison and Milwaukee, Wis.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Iowa City, Iowa; and Chapel Hill, N.C. Planning for the RNC disruptions has been under way since it was announced that the convention would be held in St. Paul.

The network of activists isn’t coming to St. Paul to protest the policies of the Republican Party necessarily. The protesters will attempt to make the convention as big a headache for Republicans as possible by tactics such as blocking access to the convention and creating a “free state” near the convention. Businesses supporting the RNC would not be exempt as targets. Ultimately, “making the Republicans/Democrats (whatever you want to call them) obsolete” is the focus, according to the Welcoming Committee. The two-party political system — in fact, the political system itself — isn’t working for them. They aren’t Democrats, and they aren’t liberals. They are anarchists.

The plans of those arriving in September 2008 to disrupt the RNC don’t include working with local law enforcement. At a recent community discussion with St. Paul police regarding security and free speech for convention protesters, the RNC Welcoming Committee didn’t show up. They did send fliers, however, which read, “Don’t believe police propaganda: Authority belongs to the people, not the police.” The flier listed reasons why they won’t dialogue with law enforcement:

“Police protect the current power structure, not the people. Police rely on violence to protect a system that promotes violence. Police protect a social order that is founded on racism, sexism, and homophobia. Police brutality has consistently been a problem.”

“[P]eople ought to be allowed to control their own lives, and not each other’s,” the Welcoming Committee flier read. “Real problem-solving in communities doesn’t and can’t occur through authoritarian intervention… Communities should have the resources and power to manage themselves, but not enough to control others.”

It would be accurate to call them the ultimate believers in a “small government” ideology.

Planning Early

The early start to organizing disruptions at the RNC is purposeful. “It may seem strange to organize a gathering primarily focused on mobilizations so far in advance,” wrote the Chapel Hill, N.C.-based Carolina Consulta in notes from a meeting last May (PDF). “Past experience has taught us that it is unrealistic to expect hundreds of people from different parts of the country to be able to develop an effective strategy at a last-minute spokescouncil held two days before we hope to shut down an entire city center. Ideally, affinity groups across the country should know exactly what their roles will be many months in advance, so they will come mentally, physically, and tactically prepared to fulfill them.”

The tactical goal for the groups is to shut down the convention. “We can only have leverage over our rulers by showing our own power, that we must back our demands by demonstrating that we can interfere with their business as effectively as they interfere with our lives,” says Unconventional Action. The Carolina Consulta writes that among its goals is “to shut down the cities, delay and disrupt the conventions and corporate media coverage, to deter cities from wanting to host the conventions in the future,” and “to use the media to our advantage.”

The plan so far is this: “Tier One: Establish 15-20 blockades, utilizing a diversity of tactics, creating an inner and outer ring around St. Paul’s Xcel Center, where the RNC is to take place. Tier Two: Immobilize the delegates’ transportation infrastructure, including the buses that are to convey them. Tier Three: Block the five western bridges connecting the Twin Cities.” The group has been collecting information on transportation routes and logistics for the convention.

While the preliminary plans continue to be discussed as local organizers build toward a consensus, affiliated groups around the country continue to organize. Anti-RNC forces will convene in May 2008 to solidify plans, according to the Welcoming Committee Web site.

The Violence Factor

Will anarchists and anti-authoritarians attempting to disrupt the convention use violence as a tactic? The answer: Maybe.

“As the Welcoming Committee, we refuse to condemn the defense of individuals, communities, and the Earth. Most violence comes from the state. When you come to our protest, look around: We won’t be the ones with nightsticks, guns, and Tasers,” according to their Web site.

A frequently-asked-questions section on the site addresses the consensus on violence and destruction. “What is your stance on violence and property destruction? Destruction bad. Property bad. The concept of property is used to deprive people of the basic necessities of life. We live here, and want to live in beautiful, clean environments, just like you. We also believe we have a right to defend ourselves, and if the tools used to attack us include the tools of property, it’s not exempt.”

In a press conference in late August, Welcoming Committee spokester Bea Bridges said, “The State asks that we only resist in ways it finds convenient and easy to contain, promising repression of those who act outside the parameters it sets. This is a threat — a violent threat with which the State hopes to terrorize us into submission. Therefore, there exists no ‘peaceful’ option. Some among us may choose to resist State violence using pacifist tactics, while others use whatever methods they deem necessary and appropriate. But, no matter how we respond to it, violence is already present at the protests through no fault of our own.”

The suggestion of violence is one the Welcoming Committee pokes fun at. A video released by the group in August has created buzz among media outlets this month.

Police Encourage Cooperation

The Welcoming Committee is part of a larger demonstration against representative politics. The Democratic National Convention in Denver next August will see similar tactics. But the groups understand that they will be working with others who do believe in the power of representative politics. “We aim to organize militant direct action that manifests opposition to both the Democratic and Republican Parties,” says a statement on the Unconventional Action Web site. “As anti-authoritarians, we oppose so-called representational politics, but even those who still believe in it must understand that we can only have leverage over our rulers by showing our own power, that we must back our demands by demonstrating that we can interfere with their business as effectively as they interfere with our lives.”

In a letter to the Minnesota Monitor, St. Paul police officials wouldn’t comment on specific strategies to communicate with the anti-RNC forces or if they have specific plans to deal with disruptions caused by the protesters, but did provide some general statements about what residents can expect. “We encourage those people who wish to demonstrate during the event to work with us to develop a relationship, which can only help make the event an enjoyable event for everyone,” said the letter signed by St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington and Commander Douglas Holtz. “We want to have an open and honest dialogue with any group who wants to express their concerns, and we are very willing to reach out to enhance communications in an effort to make the event a success for everyone.”

As for violence, the St. Paul police said, “While there has been attention given to those that might want to disrupt the event, the St. Paul Police Department would like to assure the residents, businesses, and visitors, we will be prepared to keep the peace, we discourage acts of disruption — and we will not tolerate criminal activity.”

The letter says that they “anticipate that those who come to St. Paul will follow the law.”

Two articles came out recently in the Rochester Post-Bulletin stating what many in the 1st Congressional District already know:

Rochester can no longer be counted on to deliver the Republican vote.

More…In an article entitled “Region’s GOP leanings no longer a given“, veteran Post-Bulletin political reporter Matt Stolle writes:

For decades, the Rochester area was considered reliably Republican territory, a region of GOP stalwarts who for decades loyally voted for the party of Lincoln. But two years ago, Rochester’s political foundations were shaken with the election of two Democrats, Tina Liebling and Andy Welti, to the Legislature. Suddenly, Rochester was an area very much in political play.

In a separate article on the same day entitled “Some say extremism cost GOP members“, he writes,

…longtime observers say the loss of political moderates within the area Republican Party has less to do with the party’s diminishment than the changing dynamics of the Rochester area itself. As Rochester has grown and diversified, particularly from an influx of minorities and immigrants, its political orientation has changed.

The reason for the change is not only the evolution of the city’s population, but the evolving nature of the national and statewide political scene. Stolle writes of Rochester resident Richard Hall, who

recently attended a rally for DFL senate candidate Amy Klobuchar, and as he scanned the room at Daube’s Bakery in Rochester, he couldn’t help but notice a political trend.

Many of the people there had once been Republicans.

Hall was in a position to know. A retired IBM engineer, Hall’s life in many ways had followed the same political arc as many of the 40 to 50 Rochester residents gathered in the bakery that day.

A one-time moderate Republican, Hall abandoned the GOP many years ago after it, in his opinion, went from being “fiscally conservative and socially liberal to socially conservative and fiscally out of control.”

Perhaps the critical turning point in the evolution of the political balance was in 2002, when Rochester Republicans turned their backs on party moderates and refused to endorse incumbent GOP State Senator Sheila Kiscaden. The popular Kiscaden ran on the Independence Party ticket and easily won reelection.

The Rochester Republicans were hoping to regain ground in 2004, but two of their incumbents, Carla Nelson and Bill Kuisle, were upset by newcomers Liebling and Welti, and another GOP stalwart, Fran Bradley, almost lost to Rochester school board member Kim Norton.

So what’s different in 2006?

1. While the President’s approval ratings are down all over the country, they’re even lower in Minnesota
   ]]> http://minnesotaindependent.com/422/the-r-in-rochester-no-longer-stands-for-republican/feed 0