Pat Kessler is one of the small pack of “deans of Minnesota political journalism”.
And he’s done some good work during the campaign so far.
But his “Reality Check” piece yesterday deserves a look.
Tom Emmer, the Republican Candidate for Governor, said he supports Arizona’s tough new immigration crackdown. However, on Sunday, he toned down previous comments about how “wonderful” it is.
“What I said was … I was asked one question: ‘what do you think about the Arizona law?’ I said ‘it’s a good start when you talk about Arizona,'” said Emmer on WCCO Sunday Morning.
But, IN FACT, that’s not what he said.
On Minnesota Public Radio, Emmer described Arizona’s law as “wonderful,” said it does not target minorities and that it’s appropriate for police to ask for papers.
“I think what Arizona did is a wonderful first step,” said Emmer. “I’m very disappointed at the federal government.”
That’s the big “reality” check? Emmer went from a “Wonderful” start to a “Good” start?
So we’re parsing adjectives, here? Is there some hidden difference in weight between “Good” and “Wonderful” starts? Especially since both adjectives describe precisely the same approach?
Given how illegal immigration polls, I’d say either adjective works just fine with the voter.
Emmer was also noncommittal about whether he supports allowing Minnesota to opt out of federal laws, like President Obama’s new health care plan.
“You said I proposed that once,” he said. “What I have always proposed is that you gotta go based on the constitution.”
IN FACT, Emmer is a sponsor of a constitutional amendment to exempt Minnesota from all federal laws that are not enumerated in the Constitution. Under his plan, no law could go into effect unless two-thirds of the Minnesota legislature votes to approve it.
I wonder if Kessler is confused; rejecting federal laws not enumerated in the Constitution is the precise definition of “going back to the Constitution”.