I live in the 5th. After 100 years in Congress Martin Sabo is retiring. The GOP just got used to not running campains against him. Are they going to concede this seat to whomever the DFL chooses to occupy it?
Inquiring minds want to know.

I have the perfect candidate to replace Sabo in the 5th: Kermit!

Chris, that is scary on so many levels.

Kermit- The GOP does have a couple of candidates who want to run for the seat. But I don't think there's a chance in hell that either has what it takes to win that seat or if it's even possible for any Republican to.

The Elder is right on the money.

Here's what MPR has to say about the 5th:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/2006/campaign/congress/district5/

The money paragraph:

" There is probably no greater DFL stronghold in all of Minnesota than the 5th. John Kerry and Al Gore carried this district in their presidential quests by an almost 2-to-1 margin."

Looking at the candidates, you might as well emblazon "DFL" on the seat. The only republican candidate, Alan Fine, has no political experience. The Indepedance Party candidate, Tammy Lee, might as well be a DFLer: she served as Byron Dorgan's press secretary and Skip Humphrey's communications director. Eleven DFLers and one Green make up the rest of the field; among them are Gail Dorfman, Mike Erlandson and Ember Reichgott Junge.

Can one or of those 6th candidates move to the 5th?

Kermit -- I grew up in the area bounded by Winnetka, 42nd, Boone and 36th.. is that still the 3rd district, or 5th? It was represented for a million years by Bill Frenzel, a republican. However, the demographics have changed since my day, and my recollection is that Frenzel was to the far left of the GOP.
God preserve you from Ember Reichgott.

Chris
I live a block off of Boone just north of Medicine Lake Rd. It's 5th all the way to 169. four years ago we managed a coup by electing Lynn Osterman a GOP state rep, but she lost last time. The area is borderline, but the percentage of retirees makes it pretty much a DFL lock. Ann Rest is the state Senator. Puh.

Dear Mitch,
With all of the enormous amount of respect due you for your great work and to Reps. Krinkie and Knoblach as excellent candidates and legislators with whom I have been honored to work for many years, I must set the record straight on your portrayal of Sen. Bachmann as only a single issue candidate.

Although this is not an endorsement and I am speaking on my own behalf, as a volunteer/part-time lobbyist in St. Paul mainly for EdWatch, but for other groups and on other issues, I need to tell you what I have seen. Senator Bachmann has worked hard in many different areas, the most prominent being her leadership on the repeal of the Profile of Learning. She gave up her career as a tax litigation attorney to research this academic and financial boondoggle. She spoke all around the state and the nation on it, mostly on her own dime. She found the connections between the Profile and the unconstitutional federal interference in education. She was tagged then as a "one-issue candidate" on education, though even back then she was much more than that. She won a primary against an entrenched incumbent after being recruited and endorsed on the first ballot by her district when she had no plans to run. She won an election against an activist Democrat and re-election against another established Democrat whose campaign was run by the teachers' union members from their schools. She crafted the repeal and worked enormously hard to defeat the Profile in a Senate with a Democrat majority. Her leadership on that issue was instrumental in teaching about and igniting the electorate to vote for representatives and a governor that would get rid of the gravest danger to academic education in the state's history.

In addition to her work on the Profile, she authored the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) legislation which requires a 2/3 majority of the legislature before a tax increase can be instated. She recruited Rep. Krinkie to carry that legislation in the House.

She was an original co-sponsor on the 3/16 legislation that would do real conservation and protect hunting and fishing rights before it was mangled to include dedicated funding for the "arts" and public radio.

She has been a co-author on legislation that passed to protect children from being forced to undergo a subjective special education evaluation as well as legislation that passed that would protect parents from coercion to drug their kids with ineffective and unsafe psychiatric meds.

So in addition to having the courage to take the lead on a very controversial issue like marriage, she has led on many other important issues in this state, both fiscal and social.

In addition, just because an issue is considered "social" does not mean it does not have fiscal implications and vice versa. What the state and the feds decide on marriage will have profound effects on tax policy, entitlements, etc. What the state mandates for standards in education, which comprises much of the budget, has profound effects on spending for textbooks, teachers, etc. Our state requires Medicaid to pay for abortions. The examples are endless.

So, in summary, please do not portray Senator Bachmann as merely a single issue candidate. Her track record shows very much the opposite.

Karen,
Why did Michele refuse the opportunity to have TABOR brought to the floor in the Senate?

Why did Michele "distort" her tax record?

Why did Michele illegally have her State Senate campaign pay for her Congressional race appearance at Lumberjack days last year?

Mitch,
I know you like Bachmann and don't like to flame a GOPer, but ethical concerns are another reason to nod away from Bachmann.

Tony,

As re TABOR - that'd be a reason I back Krinkie.

As re tax record and the Lumberjack thingie - enh. Hope it's a mistake.

I do, indeed, try not to flame GOPers unless it's a very clear thing; the media will do more than its share.

Karen,

I didn't mean to imply that Sen. Bachmann is a single-issue candidate. Social issues are her forte, of course.

She has done great work via EdWatch in education, you are correct. My question; is that a Congressional issue?

Like I said - it was a tough choice.

Dang,

I live fairly close to you two (by 34th/Zane in Crystal). But I worked at the Dominos in Midland Square in the early 90s, so if you were there then, I might have delivered your pizza.

(Chriss and Kermit, that is)

Mitch,
I am so glad you asked about the Profile being a Congressional issue. It absolutely is. There are many details on the EdWatch website and in Allen Quist's books: FedEd-The New Federal Curriculum and How it is Enforced and America's Schools-The Battleground for Freedom, but here is a brief synopsis:

The Profile was Minnesota's compliance with several federal laws: Goals 2000(G2K), the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act(ESEA), and School to Work (STW). These were all passed in 1994 when the Dems controlled Congress but were set in motion by Bush 41 who signed the US into an international (UN/UNESCO) agreement (not a treaty so it was never officially ratified) called the World Declaration on Education for All (EFA).

G2K set up 8 education "goals" that brought us, among other things, early childhood programs, mental health in the schools, vocationally oriented standards that de-emphasized academics and brought in all of the diversity training, group projects, fuzzy math, whole language, globalist social studies, acceptance of evolution as gospel, etc. which are all based on the national standards in the various disciplines (including the National History Standards that were so bad that even Paul Wellstone voted against them (in a non-binding resolution) In G2K, the goals were said to be voluntary, but there was federal grant money (carrot) for all of the programs in there that all fifty states took.

The ESEA was the stick. If states wanted to receive their Title I money, they had set up their own standards (supposed freedom), but those standards were required to be based on G2K (federal mandate and control), as well as lots of prodding and bribery to use the federal standards which was what every
state ended up doing. So, Minnesota's Profile of Learning ended up looking amazingly similar to every other state's standards.

Minnesota spent hundreds of millions of dollars revamping our entire education system to comply with these federal laws, while our children were dumbed down, all to receive 1-2% of our education budget with all of these strings from the feds.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) just tightened the federal noose and made things worse with adequate yearly progress for all of the various groups, a national test (NAEP) for the first time requiring every state's participation in that test to monitor states' compliance with these national standards, etc.

Sen. Bachmann's research by reading those laws and Minnesota's agreements with the feds exposed that connection. Minnesota's repeal of the Profile, led in the legislature by Senator Bachmann, sent shock waves through the federal establishment. Her speaking out in MN and across the country helped inspire many states to question federal control of education. Connections she made with Members of Congress, staff, and conservative leaders and activists across the country on this issue have helped start a revolt against the federal interference in education Minnesota had the highest percentage of its congressional delegation vote against NCLB of any state in the country (80%). In the last two federal education budgets, the President has recommended cuts of $3 billion of the worst of the programs such as mental health for babies and funding of various parts of the leftist federal curriculum. Sen. Bachmann also sponsored legislation to remove MN from NCLB that unfortunately, Alice Seagren gutted while still a legislator and Steve Kelley radicalized.

This is the result of work against the Profile, which is very much a federal issue. Sen. Bachmann has a deep understanding of these national issues and how they manifest in the states.