The Scolding Aunt - In nearly every Presbyterian church or Lutheran church I've ever attended - and I'm going to assume it's the same in most mainline churches - there's always one old woman who serves as the congregation's professional conscience.

In my church, it's an octogenarian scold who scowls at all comers, rarely says "hi" to strangers - but during open prayers always asks that we "Pray that we quit our imperialistic policy against Iraq", while in the next breath asking "prayers for the starving people of North Korea - and that our government will have the courage to feed them". She's still outraged - outraged, I tell you - that Wellstone lost.

The Strib has one of those: Lori Sturdevant, who wondered in an editorial yesterday on the seeming change in "Minnesotans' attitudes toward toll roads".

Sturdevant - who seemed so depressed by the Republican sweep in '02 and the purported "change for the worse in Minnesota" it swept in that I'm almost glad to see she hasn't harmed herself - says:

That may be because it isn't a toll booth on every freeway lane that's being proposed. It's "a choice," as the governor and his transportation maven, Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau, have been saying with mantra-like repetition. Motorists will be able to choose. They can creep along on the existing no-toll lanes, or zip on the new private lanes, and see a few dollars charged to their credit card accounts for the privilege.

Crawl or pay. It's not a great choice, especially considering some of the possibilities that might have come from a governor less wedded to a no-new-taxes pledge and an auto-oriented political base.

Who says it's not a great choice? It's the choice they use in most of the more congested cities. It shifts the costs of roads from the taxpayer at large to the consumer of the lanes' services.

But no - in Lori Sturdevant's world, it's not just a change in the way transit is funded. It's yet another sign that we Minnesotans aren't worthy of the Humphrey/Mondale legacy - of which Sturdevant is a self-appointed steward:

It goes to show what changes in public thinking can be wrought when, in the name of efficiency or tax relief/reform or some other excuse, government is rendered unable to perform up to the expected snuff.

"Expected snuff?"

I don't "expect" my government to blindly hew to some outdated, pseudo-populist dogma.

But, indeed, dogma is what it's about to Ms. Sturdevant:

Starve a government service [in this case, starve it of increases in the gas tax] long enough, and the public can be made to turn against even the most revered of public-sector sacred cows, in favor of privatization.

If you think this column just morphed into one about schools, colleges, parks and libraries, you'd be right.

First: If "no tolls" is a revered public sector sacred cow, then it's one that's best slaughtered. But the real "sacred cow" is the sense of frivolous faux populism that drives Sturdevant and her limo liberal ilk.

There are elements of privatization that, but for the sense of aesthetic violation they'd cause Sturdevant et al, can and will make schools, colleges, parks and libraries better things for all of us.

And if you think this just morphed into a post about lower taxes, more government accountability, and rubbing Lori Sturdevant's nose in the demographic changes in Minnesota that have finally rendered her a political minority (albeit a loud, perpetually carping one), you'd be right.
posted by Mitch Berg 1/5/2004 06:57:23 AM

Debate - I caught a few intermittent snatches of the Democrats debate Sunday afternoon from Des Moines. But only a few.

Hugh Hewitt wasn't so lucky:

How can an entire national party produce such a humorless group of scolds? Only Lieberman and Kucinich display any sort of timing and energy, and Dennis is as mad as a hatter, and Joe's almost a Republican these days.

All told, a boring, won't-change-anything debate because the rules that allow nuts and also-rans to suck up air-time kill off the sort of exchanges that might develop into an interesting bit of political theater.

The Captain found a great - as in, very critical - review from the AP. Money quote:

They still managed to drift off course on trade, led by Gephardt when he said everyone on stage except Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites) of Ohio and himself had voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement and for liberalized trade rules for China.

"They did the wrong thing," he said.

In fact, Edwards was not in the Senate when NAFTA was decided — and he pointed out he had campaigned against it. Dean, the former Vermont governor, never was in Congress to cast a vote.

Gephardt acknowledged the mistake when Edwards called him on it. "I'm quite willing to say you weren't there," he said.

The discussion turned into a critique by several candidates against the weaknesses of free trade agreements. Carol Moseley Braun and Dean were among those who said trade agreements must include strong labor, environmental and human rights standards.

But Braun voted for NAFTA when she was in the Senate and Dean voiced support for that deal and the China agreement before he entered the campaign.

Listening live, the cringe-inducing moments came thick and fast - but the following observations seemed in order:

• The only Democrat candidate that should be allowed NEAR the Football is Joe Lieberman.
• Dennis Kucinich is an idiot.
• Howard Dean oozes slime - I may start keeping a count of who, between Dean and Clark, contradicts himself the most.
• The only pleasant surprise - Joe Lieberman's vocal mannerisms aren't nearly as irritating this time around. It makes me wonder, as a long-time fan of oratory and the son of a speech teacher - given what an awful speaker Al Gore is, was Lieberman sandbagging on the stump in '00?

Hewitt's right - these things won't be a useful exercise until the caucuses squeeze Kucinich, Edwards, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton out of the picture.

In the meantime, liberal blogger and Dean consultant Kos thinks he's found a problem in the AP's coverage. He begins with a quote from the AP's story:

"I opposed the Iraq war when everyone else up here was for it," said the former Vermont governor, invoking the issue that helped fuel his 2003 transformation from asterisk in the polls to front-runner.

Clark and Sharpton weren't around, but war opponents Kucinich and Braun were. So Dean lied! Again!!! That quote is so juicy, let's stick it up high in the story. Second graf, indeed! Except -- and we're starting to see a pattern here -- Nedra and the AP got it all wrong.

From the Debate Transcript (and I remember this moment in the debate, so I know the transcript is accurate):

DEAN: The proper role of the federal government in education is not to pass bills like No Child Left Behind. I have two big policy differences with almost everybody up here. I opposed the Iraq war; with the exception of Dennis and Carol, everybody else supported it.

But why let simple things like, say, transcripts and the truth, get in the way of a good made-up mythical pretend quote, especially if it further's Nedra's fantasies of "lying" Democrats?

Er...Kos?

If "Nedra's" (AP reporter Nedra Pickler) AP story ran the quote as "I opposed the Iraq war when everyone else up here was for it," and Clark and Sharpton weren't "up here", and the trancript says "I have two big policy differences with almost everybody up here. I opposed the Iraq war; with the exception of Dennis and Carol, everybody else supported it," then it's sloppy reporting.

But it's not one iota worse than the coverage conservatives have come to expect of our own candidates.

Sucks to have the media against you, dinnit?
posted by Mitch Berg 1/5/2004 06:20:58 AM