The National Republican Congressional Committee has rented a mobile
billboard on the side of a truck to schlep around Minnesota's vast
Seventh Congressional District, asking residents to contact their United
States Representative.
Incumbent congressman Collin Peterson welcomes the attention, telling
the Marshall Independent that he views the attention as encouragement
to run again.
This week, some GOP operatives have also been spreading rumors online
that Peterson plans to purchase a condo in Florida and retire from
Congress.
In an interview, Peterson, who turns 69 later this month, denied the
rumors about retirement and a Florida condo and said the recent
Republican efforts to push him out the door were having the opposite
effect.
"I went from neutral on running again to 90 percent just because of
this stupid stuff they're doing," said Peterson about the mobile signs
and retirement rumors. "You can't let these people be in charge of
anything, in my opinion."
In another sign that Peterson intends to run again, his campaign
raised $165,000 in the first quarter of this year, in line with his past
fundraising efforts.
Perhaps those people at NRCC will recruit a candidate sometime soon.
In a hilarious attempt at faux outrage, an pseudonym tries to spin Peterson's comment, "You can't let these people be in charge of
anything, in my opinion" into a statement about the people of the district, rather than the NRCC and its "stupid stuff" like rumors of a condo in Florida.
Bluestem suspects Peterson would be more at home in the Missouri Ozarks near Branson. We can imagine the Second Amendments Hall of Fame already.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has rented a mobile billboard on the side of a truck to schlep around Minnesota's vast Seventh Congressional District, asking residents to contact their United States Representative.
Incumbent congressman Collin Peterson welcomes the attention, telling the Marshall Independent that he views the attention as encouragement to run again.
"There's always speculation about me; they're trying to run a
campaign against me to try to get me to retire," he said. "It's actually
making me more inclined not to retire. But I never decided until
January or February of an election year."
Peterson, who turns 69 next month, said he "needs to see where things
are at" in early 2014 before making his final decision on whether or
not to run again and whether or not his presence in Washington will be
beneficial for the country and his district.
The claim requires a lot of context. Peterson was one a small group of Democrats to vote against the health care law
in the House in 2010 when it was passed. Peterson has subsequently
voted against GOP bills that would repeal the law, including a measure
almost two weeks ago that passed the House almost entirely along party
lines and faces no chance of passage in the Senate.
Mostly, Peterson's been trying to keep it real and pass a new Farm Bill. In the face of Republican obstructionism and Democratic reluctance to cut food assistance, it's "not out of the woods yet," the Blue Dog told Forum Communications.
This latest campaign against Peterson is part of a long ritual for
Republicans in the 7th District. The area has voted for GOP candidates
at the top of the ticket for years while returning Peterson to
Washington at the same time. . . .
"It's pretty clear that the NRCC is out of touch with the vast
majority of Republicans in the 7th District who support Congressman
Peterson and who appreciate his work to get the farm bill passed in
spite of the Republican leaders who are buying billboards to attack
him," said Peterson spokeswoman Allison Myhre in a statement to MPR
News.
But the Democrats say this campaign is part of a misguided and harmful strategy.
“Republicans just lost a national election by trying to repeal health
care reform and put insurance companies back in charge – and now
they’re foolishly doubling down on a failed strategy,” said Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner.
The Washington Post’s fact checker criticized the
NRCC’s new campaign, saying its claims that the IRS will be “running
healthcare” go too far, especially because the employer-provided system
is largely left intact under the new law.
Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be
involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false,
misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic
language that means little to ordinary people.
An informal list of 17 members the NRCC believes can be convinced to
step down, privately called the "Dem Retirement Assault List," makes
clear the party needs Dem incumbents to step aside if they have hopes of
taking back the majority. The NRCC has taken pains to attack those
lawmakers in recent weeks.
The list includes 14 members whose districts voted for Sen. John
McCain (R-AZ) in '08. McCain won districts held by Reps. Ike Skelton
(D-MO) and Bart Gordon (D-TN) with more than 60% of the vote, and
districts held by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Alan Mollohan (D-WV),
Marion Berry (D-AR), Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Mike Ross (D-AR) with more
than 55%.
McCain narrowly won seats held by Reps. John Spratt (D-SC), Allen
Boyd (D-FL), Vic Snyder (D-AR), Baron Hill (D-IN), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND),
Tim Holden (D-PA) and Collin Peterson (D-MN)....
But that pressure seems weak
so far: press releases criticizing the incumbents, plus a little money
thrown to media buys in certain districts. But the emphasis goes on the
word little: in three districts ” not including Petersons 7th ” a total
of $6,300 was spent by the NRCC on ad buys.
In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, NRCC Executive Director
Guy Harrison listed 10 moderate Democrats who are in the committee’s
sights for 2012: West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, Arkansas Rep. Mike
Ross, Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson and Pennsylvania Rep. Jason
Altmire. All four were held under 60 percent Tuesday and represent
districts that voted for John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008.
Peterson increased his margin in 2012 against the hapless Lee Byberg.
In today's National Journal, Reid Wilson (remember him from the 2009 Hotline retirement piece?) reports in Parties Push For House Retirements:
In 1992, Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson won re-election by a single
point. Two years later, he defeated Republican Bernie Omann again, but
by just two points. He hasn't faced a serious re-election bid since.
But this year, more than 18 months before Election Day, House
Republicans are trying to convince Peterson he's in for a tough race.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has already spent a
small amount of money on advertisements in Peterson's district, and the
committee has a press staffer dedicated to pushing opposition research
to reporters in Democratic-held areas that, like Peterson's, voted for
Mitt Romney in 2012.
The amount of money and effort Republicans are putting into
Peterson's race, at the moment, is negligible. The committee spent just
$2,000 on the early advertisement, a drop in the bucket compared with
the millions spent every cycle on competitive races. But the goal isn't
to beat Peterson so far out -- it's to get in his head on a daily basis
and, eventually, to get Peterson to retire rather than run for a 13th
term.
So far, Peterson doesn't seem bothered by the Republican attention. "They don't have anybody else to go after," he told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune last month, when the ads ran. "It's kind of ridiculous, but whatever."
But when he goes home next week, Republicans will seek to remind
Peterson that he's not alone. The NRCC has a dedicated tracker set to
follow Peterson around his district . . .
Back during the Republican Revolution in the 1990s, the drive to cut wages by weakening overtime took the form of then Senator John Ashcroft's "Family Friendly Workplace Act," but the principle was the same: allow private business to offer workers the supposedly voluntary option of working long hours, then taking time off rather than overtime. Nevermind that loophole that might allow management to schedule an employee for 60 hours one week, 20 hours the next, without receiving either comp time or overtime.
That was the 1990s version of family-friendly, because moms especially want time off and don't care so much about their paychecks, or so the "family friendly" narrative goes.
Say what
you will, but anti-worker politicians are good at giving deceptive names
to things. “Right to work” takes away your rights at work. “Paycheck
protection” puts your wages at risk. And who could forget Paul Ryan’s
plan to “strengthen Medicare” which ends Medicare as we know it.
House Republicans are pushing the “Workplace Families Flexibility Act of 2013,”
which they claim would allow busy working parents to spend more time
with their kids. That’s bogus. The bill replaces the 40-hour work week
with a “comp time” accrual system that would allow employers greater control over their hourly employee’s schedule.
What’s worse? The bill ends ”time-and-a-half” overtime pay for hourly
and non-exempt workers as we know it, giving renewed incentive for
businesses to work their employees as long as they want with near
impunity.
In other words, the bill does the opposite of what House Republicans say it will. . . .
Check out the deets in the post. Here in Minnesota's Seventh District, we'll be seeing web ads urging Blue Dog Democrat Collin Peterson to enlist in the Republican War on Women's paychecks. (Peterson's already in with the attack on reproductive rights and raising the minimum wage).
The National Republican Congressional Committee is demanding vulnerable House Democrats "support more freedom for working moms" in new web ads, a sign the committee is trying to improve the party's standing with female voters.
The ads call on Democrats to back the GOP-drafted "Working Families Flexibility Act," which would allow employers to give comp time for overtime hours rather than pay employees for them. The bill will likely be voted on in the House next week...
But a spokester for the D-Trip flipped the narrative:
Democrats fired back, pointing out that most House Republicans voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
"House Republicans wish women voters would forget their past and ignore their agenda, but women voters are too smart for that," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner. "This Republican Congress has been the most extreme, anti-woman legislature in American history with an agenda to deny women equal pay, quality health care services and even domestic violence protections. If Republicans think their problem is the style of their marketing campaign — not the substance they're selling — they've missed the message of the 2012 elections.
Bluestem hopes that Peterson can stuff his latent Republican tendencies back in the closet with his boots and resist the urge to cut working moms' paychecks.
Photo: Blue Dog Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
While winter's pale blue eyes linger on here in Chippewa County, signs of spring are making a tentative entrance: a wren taking shelter in the garage during an ice storm, Tundra Swans wondering if this might be the place, a puzzled Yellow-Rumped Warbler perplexed by the snow, and this cycle's announcement by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) that Blue Dog Representative Collin Peterson is high on its list of targets.
In its first targeted campaign of the season, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, aired televised attack ads this month against Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn. — more than 18 months before voters go to the polls.
The ads attempted to tie Peterson to President Obama and his health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, both unpopular in his sprawling rural district. “Instead of voting to balance the budget, he voted to spend $1.8 trillion on Obamacare,” a narrator said in the ad.
Peterson did not vote for the Affordable Care Act, but voted against its repeal. He also voted against the House Republican budget, which brings federal spending in line with revenues over 10 years.
Peterson laughed off the attack. “They don’t have anybody else to go after,” he said. “It’s kind of ridiculous, but whatever.” . . .
. . .The NRCC spent $2,000 on the early ad campaign against Peterson, which is a paltry sum, said John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “It’s just not that much money.”
We're hoping that former state senator and ethically-challenged tweep Kvetchin' Gretchen Hoffman runs. Not because this would help the Republican Party's odds, but because Bluestem could revive our Tales of Hoffman series. She's rich, she's crabby, and she's from North Dakota. What's not for the RNC to love?
And then there's the press release, which is crystal clear about Peterson's offenses to humanity:
After chiding Peterson for expecting “Minnesota seniors to foot the bill for his unbalanced, irresponsible priorities,” the statement from communications director Andrea Bozek read: “Peterson owes Utah families an explanation for his poor record, and his support of wildly expensive law that hurts jobs and Utah’s seniors.”
That should provoke outrage from Biscay to Climax.
Photo: Utah, the extreme western part of Minnesota's Seventh District.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Last year's Farm Bill stalled in the House when Tea Party Republicans decided not feeding the poor was a winning meal ticket in the 2012 elections. That worked well for folks like Allen Quist, sent him back to his rural Nicollet County farm instead of the big hotdish contest in the Beltway.
. . .Some House Republicans, often from the rural Midwest, began proposing
putting food stamps—which make up more than 70 percent of the
Agriculture Department budget—into a separate bill. This would be a way
to reduce food-stamp spending or get the program turned over to the
states. These members seem to have forgotten that Congress created food
stamps as part of the farm bill in the 1960s, when the declining rural
population translated into fewer rural representatives in the House and
fewer votes for the farm bill, and that the number of rural
representatives continues to decline. . . .
. . . The participation in food stamps appears to remain higher than
anticipated, however, because wage rates are so low. Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack has suggested that the way to resolve the problem
is to help food-stamp beneficiaries improve their skills and get better
jobs.
Meanwhile, House Republicans press for cuts and most
Democrats resist. House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin
Peterson, D-Minn., said he has told his panel’s chairman, Rep. Frank
Lucas, R-Okla., that he wants to be part of any decision-making on
food-stamp cuts. Peterson also defended food stamps with a statement
that is sure to raise hackles in farm circles: “There is less fraud in
food stamps than in any government program. There is five times as much
fraud in crop insurance than in food stamps.”
Even an old Blue Dog can stay on point when the scent's strong even.
Leaders of congressional ag committees from both parties
seem optimistic that there will be a farm bill this year, but tough negotiating
remains, especially if committees have to trim spending even more than they did
when putting together bills in 2012. . . .
The House ag committee's ranking Democrat, Collin Peterson of Minnesota,
seems to be a strong supporter as well. But he is hearing complaints
from some of his farmer constituents about insurance not being limited
for very large farms. . . .
Just as a year ago, negotiating changes to the commodity
title of the farm bill and the spending level for the nutrition title remain
difficult.
Peterson said that more money
could be saved from SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, if the
federal government and not states, determined the income level for eligibility
for what used to be called food stamps.
The federal threshold for food stamp eligibility is 130% of
the poverty level, Peterson said, but in red states, it's actually higher--200%
in North Dakota, 165% in Texas and 185% in Arizona, versus 130% in Peterson's
state of Minnesota.
"The states that you would think would use this (the
lower, federal level) are not," he said.
Peterson said he's urging his committee colleagues "we
should be looking at policy here, instead of a number."
A good point, dawg.
Photo: Minnesota Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
This is a major under-the-radar story. The House Agriculture
Committee, including its Democrats, voted just this week to gut the
Dodd-Frank regulation of derivatives by approving a series seven bills.
Of the seven, six are strongly opposed by public-interest regulation
watchdogs. All seven bills now go to the House floor for a vote there.
This is a bad-Dems story, and also a derivatives story.
Read the details at Americablog.
Minnesota's Democrats on the committee--ranking member Collin Peterson and Tim Walz--aren't among the "bad-Dems." Given Peterson's work on financial reform in 2010 when he chaired the ag committee, the "No" vote isn't a surprise. (The ag committee's oversight of commodity markets gives it the ability to consider legislation related to the financial industry).
The most controversial bill to advance Wednesday is explicitly
designed to expand taxpayer backing for derivatives. It was the only
legislation that lawmakers were required to cast individual votes for or
against; the others were all approved by unanimous voice votes. The
bill to increase taxpayer support for bank derivatives dealing was
approved by a vote of 31 to 14.
Prior to the vote, the top Democrat on the Agricultural Committee,
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), gave a speech warning that the
legislation could repeat the deregulation debacles of the 1990s.
"Two of the worst votes I ever made in this place was the Commodity
[Futures] Modernization Act of 2000 that exempted all of these swaps
from any regulation or any margins," Peterson said. "I didn't know any
better. The other vote I made that was really bad is eliminating
Glass-Steagall. We should have never done that and I bought into that.
You know, if we had Glass-Steagall back, this wouldn't be an issue here
... You're putting taxpayers on the hook. And if you wanna do that,
fine. But I mean, you know, when I, when a lot of us were here, we
hadn't paid enough attention and this thing blew up on us. At the time
we did the Modernization Act, there were $80 billion in swaps, in
derivatives. We gave 'em legal certainty, we eliminated the regulation
requirements, and it went to $700 trillion and it blew up on us. So just
be careful: You can vote any way you want, but this could come back and
haunt you.
Here's Peterson speaking out about the bills:
Photo: Seventh District DFL Congressman Collin Peterson.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
Last week, Minnesota learned that the National Republican Congressional Committee had once more ritually named Minnesota's Blue Dog Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson vulnerable.
Beltrami County was represented during President Obama’s inauguration Monday morning. . . .And yes, that is Jay-Z and his wife Beyoncé standing behind him.
After the photobomb, can a cameo with Peterson's cover band, The Second Amendments, be far behind? Jay-Z did record Collision Course with Linkin Park, so anything is possible. This is America, after all.
If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via paypal:
Blue Dog Collin Peterson is angry about the short shift farm programs got in the fiscal cliff deal. Minnesota's Land Stewardship Project, which works on local food, sustainable farming and economic justice issues in rural Minnesota, isn't pleased either.
That's a wide spectrum of ag grumpiness--although there's no sign yet that producers are ready to tractorade to DC. Yet.
Many farm groups sought changes that would have given farmers
protections, such as in the case of bad weather, while eliminating
controversial direct payments to farmers.
They didn't get them because the 2012 Farm Bill didn't get a vote in the House--although the Senate and the House Ag Committee approved it. Instead, Davis reports that the reset button was hit, and Congress has to work up a new bill. Meanwhile, the fiscal cliff deal cut out or didn't fund some important projects for conservation, new farmers and other pieces of the puzzle that help rural communities.
Farm policy takes a dramatic step backwards in the fiscal cliff deal
brokered in Congress and soon to be signed into law by President Barack
Obama. Rather than moving forward with much-needed financial and policy
reform Congress and the Administration prioritized continued excessive
commodity subsidies.
After expiration of the farm bill on October 1, 2012 and the
inability of the U.S. House to deliver a bill for conference, pressure
was on to include a farm bill extension in the ongoing fiscal cliff
deal. But along with a few other plums, what ended up being the center
point of the farm bill extension was continuation of the egregious
commodity program known as direct payments – subsidies provided to
producers with no regard for current production or market realities. The
fiscal cliff deal and all agriculture policy within it was initiated by
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Vice President Joe
Biden.
Extending direct payments was unexpected since nearly everyone in
agriculture has recognized the $5 billion a year in subsidies for this
commodity program as outdated and in need of reform. There is no logical
explanation for the extension of direct payments other than it panders
to southern commodity growers in favor with Senator McConnell.
And while wasteful commodity spending was extended, frozen out of the
late-breaking deal was virtually any support for new farmers, rural
development and even disaster aid; despite the worst drought gripping
our country in decades.
Another major failure was the decision not to remedy a funding
hang-up that will prevent farmers from using the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) in the coming year. CSP is aimed at supporting
farmers who are maintaining and improving soil and water conservation
on their active farm land. The program has been popular in the Midwest
and nationally with 50 million acres now enrolled by farmers and
ranchers.
To add insult to injury, Congress gave the wealthiest Americans
increased exemption from estate taxes, a measure that is not only
fiscally imprudent, but will serve to keep more land locked up in the
hands of the heirs of large landowners and decrease new farming
opportunities.
All in all family farm agriculture loses in the fiscal cliff deal –
reverting to the policies of old and disregarding the growth areas in
this sector of our economy.
LSP continues to be committed to advancing a farm bill and
agriculture policy that provides for prosperous rural communities, a
healthy environment and more, not fewer opportunities in agriculture. In
the coming year we will renew efforts to demand reform and
accountability to wasteful and detrimental spending while supporting new
farmer and conservation provisions.
While Peterson and LSP don't always see eye-to-eye, clearly there's a lot of shared frustration over ag and rural America taking a back seat (or no seat at all) in Congress. When it comes to making cost-cutting elimination of programs like direct payments, the Senate and House Ag committees got that work done but had it disregarded, while far less costly but innovative programs that farmers and consumers want are cut or left without funding.
Urban readers: remember this the next time you blame Minnesota's farmers for direct payment subsidies. That's not what they've asked Peterson and Walz for in a farm bill.
And while Bluestem doesn't agree with all the cuts the House Ag committee made in the now-moribund 2012 Farm Bill, Peterson does have a point here:
The ag committee cut $35 billion in the bill it passed, but House
leaders never allowed the full body to consider. That cut was sought by
top Republicans, but Peterson said other committees did not comply by
finding cuts in their parts of the budget.
“The committees that were irresponsible and didn’t do their work got
what they wanted, and the Agriculture Committee got screwed,” Peterson
said. “It is a little hard for me to swallow.”
Hard not to be grumpy about that.
Photo: We're all Grumpy Cat now.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
National Farmers Union's government relations staff has posted a Fiscal Cliff/Farm Bill Extension Update that illustrates some of the reasons for the vulgar language flowing from the lips of MN Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
Turning to the ways in which the compromise will affect rural Minnesota, Bluestem is pleased with some provisions like the extension of the wind energy production tax credit, but not so happy to read about developments like these on the nine-month extension of the Farm Bill:
The provisions included in the fiscal cliff deal were not a straight
extension of the 2008 bill, and the legislation provides no mandatory
funding for the energy title, specialty crop and organic provisions, and
beginning farmer and rancher programs, among others.
Land Stewardship Project, Minnesota Farmers Union and the Minnesota Farm Bureau have all worked for beginning farmer and rancher programs. With the aging of the state's farmers and high economic barriers to entering agriculture like the price of land and equipment (even for smaller operations), the programs are growing in importances for producers and consumers.
Late last night the House of Representatives passed Senate-negotiated fiscal cliff compromise legislation, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 8 ),
sending the bill to the president’s desk and finally putting to rest
the negotiations that had dominated the lame duck session of the 112th
Congress. The Senate had previously passed the legislation in the early
morning hours of Jan. 1.
Included in the legislation was a one-year extension of the 2008 Farm
Bill, in addition to numerous provisions reauthorizing various expiring
tax rates and credits. The final extension was a great disappointment.
Congress had every opportunity to pass a new five-year farm bill by the
end of the year but chose instead to ignore its rural constituents. In
addition, the extension that was finally included in the fiscal cliff
bill was not the version drafted by the chairs of the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees, but one that was developed by Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., without input from agriculture leaders.
Lovely. Forum Communications' Ag Week has more in Bad step for ag?
Photo: Western Minnesota cattle farmer and LSP staffer Terry VanderPol explains dirt to new farmers. It's soil science, people.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
While Minnesota's U.S. Senators and the Democrats on the House Ag Committee argued throughout the summer and fall for the need to pass a new Farm Bill,many of Bluestem's friends didn't pay much attention to their warnings.
That is, until they realized one consequence might be outrageously priced milk.
It's not them, Bluestem must admit. It's the complexity of a bill that deals with food, from farm to fork, that got mired in what Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives thought was a winning message about SNAP, or food stamps. While that narrative of "takers" didn't pan out in November, the GOP still controls the House, and the bill, approved by the Senate and the House Ag Committee, languished without coming to the floor.
The deal only prolongs the 2012 saga over farm programs. The Senate
and House Agriculture committee in 2012 both passed five-year bills to
replace the 2008 farm bill. While differences remained over how southern
crops were treated and how much food-stamp benefits were to be cut, a
compromise long appeared at hand. The deal guarantees that those
five-year bills are dead and lawmakers will have to start over again
once the new Congress convenes Thursday.
The deal simply extends the 2008 farm bill, which expired Sept. 30, for one year.
Efforts
to craft a new farm bill will in turn be affected by the
debt-ceiling-sequester-continuing-resolution-tax-reform mess that is
coming in late winter and spring.
Extending the old bill--without reforms either the Senate or House versions--is more expensive than passing those versions, but would have left less for House Republicans to bicker about.
One proposed House Republican version on the dairy extension already causes the bickerfest to go on at the expense of farmers, Bloomberg Businessweek's Derek Wallbank reports in Budget Deal Add-On Would Stop U.S. Milk Prices Doubling:
House and Senate agriculture committee leaders said they backed a
different one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill. Representative
Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture
Committee, said he would oppose the short- term dairy-only bill if it’s
brought to the floor, calling a one-month extension measure a “cruel
joke” on American farmers.
The Senate "fiscal cliff" bill may be no gift for farmers in the Upper Midwest either, if David Rogers' report in Politico is to be believed.
The giant New Year’s tax package rushed through the Senate Tuesday
morning includes a nine-month farm bill extension that forestalls ill, even some of Bluestem's best informed friends didn't start paying attention.any
immediate spike in milk prices but also represents a bitter blow for
farmers who had hoped for long-sought changes in the dairy support
program.
In the final hours, Senate Agriculture Committee
Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) found herself pushed aside in favor
of legislative language generated by the office of Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a bit player and frequent “no” vote when the
Senate adopted a more comprehensive five-year farm bill last June.
The upshot is a victory for Southern agricultural interests with the
greatest stake in a costly system of direct cash payments to often
already profitable producers. In the dairy arena, giant processors like
Dean Foods Co. come out ahead while the outcome is a major blow for the
National Milk Producers Federation, which watched with disbelief from
the sidelines on New Year’s Eve.
“The deal is blatantly anti-reform,” said Ferd Hoefner, policy direct
for the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Many smaller, targeted
programs to fund farm and food system reform and rural jobs…were left
out completely.”
“The message is unmistakable - direct commodity subsidies, despite
high market prices, are sacrosanct, while the rest of agriculture and
the rest of rural America can simply drop dead.”
The impact in the House is still unclear.
Coming into Tuesday, Republicans were scheduled to bring up their own
short-term solution to the milk crisis . . .
Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the top Democrat on the House
Agriculture Committee, had warned the White House that it must tread
carefully on the dairy and farm bills issues or risk a backlash. But at
this stage, given the size of the Senate vote, milk producers risk being
swept away with the tax cut surge.
Beyond dairy, the outcome is a wake-up call to the entire farm lobby
of its weakened political standing in Washington and need to avoid so
much infighting.
Update: The Politico story has been revised to include the reaction of Peterson to the passage of the bill, which he voted against:
“Upset is an understatement,” Peterson told POLITICO. “I’m not going
to talk with those guys. I’m done with them for the next four years.
They are on their own. They don’t give a sh-it. about me, anyway.”
“This is crazy, “ Peterson said of the tax package itself. “The farm
bill is one thing, but there’s just no way I’m going to add $4 trillion
to the deficit. … We’re not doing anything. We’re making it worse.”
In Minnesota, farm groups from across the production and political spectrum had urged the House to pass the 2012 Farm Bill (the Senate bill had already been approved) to no avail. However, a least one farm leader called for the passage of the nine-month extension so that farmers, processors and consumers would have some measure of certainty.
"With Congress at an impasse, a
nine-month extension may be the only path to a five-year farm bill in
the new Congress,” said Doug Peterson, MFU President. “An extension must
be responsible and protect baseline
funding and continue vital farm and consumer programs such as the Milk
Income Loss Contract Program (MILC), crop insurance, child and elderly
nutrition, and conservation.”
Since Minnesota has so far been spared the worst of the nation's drought, agriculture has remained a bright spot in the state's economy. In December, CBS Minnesota reported that Minnesota Agricultural Exports Hit Record $6.8B for 2011.
Photo: Farming in Minnesota.
Donate: If you enjoy reading posts like this at Bluestem, consider throwing some coin in the plate at Paypal:
Now the media is widely reporting a consequence of the Republican leadership's inability to bring the Farm Bill to the floor: the return of the Agricultural Act of 1949. This will be a disaster for both milk drinkers and producers. Back in September, Collin Peterson to Julie Rovner of National Public Radio:
"At that point, we'll have $38 milk," Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn.,
told a rally at the Capitol last week. "So what do you dairy farmers
think about that?" (That $38 refers to the price per 100 pound weight —
the wholesale pricing unit. Basically, it works out to nearly four times
what dairy farmers are guaranteed now.)
That's a temporary boon. As a Southeastern Minnesota dairy farmer told Winona Daily News reporter Nathan Hansen in US heading toward a ‘dairy cliff’:
Shelly DePestel, partner at Daley Farms near Lewiston, Minn., said
the increased price levels wouldn’t be good for dairy farmers if it
disproportionally impacts consumers.
“If the support price
doubles, consumers are going to feel the brunt of that,” she said.
“Consumption will go down and the price will also go down. It’s a
vicious circle, that won’t take care of itself.”
But farmers still shudder at the thought of any prospect, even
remote, of reverting to an old system under which milk could surge to $6
a gallon.
The Agricultural Act of 1949 contains the basic
provisions for setting milk prices. The act is superseded every time a
new farm bill is passed, but if no new bill or extension is passed the
old act goes back into effect.
That law includes a mechanism
for guaranteeing a minimum milk price that covers producers’ costs. The
government guarantees to buy their milk products at that price, but
producers can usually do better selling on the consumer market. But if
the old mechanism were applied to current market conditions, the
government price could be double the current rate, industry officials
say. Farmers would sell their dairy products to the government instead
of the private market and store prices would surge. Then prices might
collapse as the government eventually sold its dairy stockpiles.
“I certainly feel like I have been screaming into the wind for months
now,” said Rep. Tim Walz. “This thing has been done, passed out of the
Senate with almost a two-thirds majority. Just like so many other
things, it’s just kick the can down the road.”
It's hard to fault Walz for his anger. Passing a Farm Bill was a big issue in the First Congressional District contest between Walz and Republican opponent Allen Quist, who blamed the food assistance title in the bill for everything from America's divorce rate to single ladies voting for Democrats (seriously).
Voters and ag leaders rejected Quist, signaling they want Congress to quit dawdling. Sadly, it looks like Boehner, Cantor and company will continue to dawdle until the cows come home--and head to the auction barn as the dairy industry suffers.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader
contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to
the tip jar. If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on
this page for a snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly
"bleg" though Christmas.
Bluestem isn't sure that's a grand bargain for Greater Minnesota.
PB Political reporter Heather Carlson writes:
The fiscal cliff refers to a double whammy
of tax increases and hefty spending cuts that automatically take effect
on Jan. 1 unless Congress and President Barack Obama take action to stop
it. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that those cuts could
drive the country back into a recession.
Republicans have been making the case that entitlement reform needs to
be part of any fiscal cliff solution. But Walz said before he is willing
to consider changes to those programs, he wants Republicans to be open
to raising tax rates on higher-income individuals. He said he can make
the case that the lowered tax rates passed during President George W.
Bush's tenure played a role in driving up the national debt.
He asked "So they are going to ask us to take a look at Social Security
but they are unwilling to look at part of it that was part of the
problem in the first place?"
Is this "grand bargain" such a great idea? Earlier this month Michael Lind addressed the big picture at Salon in The case against a “grand bargain”:
According to news reports, President Obama wants a “grand bargain”
with the Republicans, who retain a majority in the House of
Representatives even though in this year’s election more Americans voted for Democrats than for Republicans for Congress.
The details of various “bipartisan” grand bargains vary, but most
proposals, like the one proposed by the right-wing Republican Alan
Simpson and the conservative Southern Democrat Erskine Bowles, the heads
of the president’s failed deficit reduction commission, would trade
modest Republican concessions on higher taxes on the rich for Democratic
support for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other
entitlements.
Any such grand bargain would be a bad deal for mainstream Americans.
Social
Security and Medicare have absolutely nothing to do with the short-term
U.S. fiscal problem. Middle-class entitlements do have long-term
problems, like inadequate payroll tax revenue for Social Security in the
2030s, and excessive medical prices in the U.S., which affect private
healthcare as well as Medicare and Medicaid. But these are unrelated
problems that deserve to be discussed in unrelated debates according to
unrelated timelines. . . .
Closer to home, the picture gets much worse. From a press release from the Minnesota AFL CIO:
According
to a new report released by the AFL-CIO yesterday:882,408 Minnesotans could be
negatively impacted if Congress attempts cuts to Social Security,
including 115,780
people with disabilities and 59,076 children. Of the
879,145 Minnesotans
who get their health care coverage from Medicaid, 422,219 children and
96,039 seniors could be affected if the lame duck Congress makes cuts to Medicaid benefits. Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid combined deliver $26 billion per year into Minnesota’s economy.
As
the so-called “fiscal cliff” approaches, members of Congress have
suggested cuts to benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
even while calling for renewing
tax cuts for the richest 2%. If those tax cuts are renewed, the richest
2% in Minnesota would receive an average of
$29,690 in tax cuts, while the rest of Minnesotans would receive an average of
$1,370. The 2012 House Republican budget plan would cut federal support to Minnesota’s Medicaid program by at least $16.9 billion over 10 years.
Social Security Works for Minnesota’s Rural Communities
• Social Security is more important to rural Minnesotans than to other Minnesotans. One out of 5 (21.9 percent) rural Minnesotans received Social Security compared with 1 out of 7 (14.7 percent) non-rural Minnesotans in 2010.
• Social Security is more important to the local economies of Minnesota’s rural counties than to its non-rural counties. Total personal income in Minnesota’s 66 rural counties was $51 billion in 2010 of which $3.9 billion, or 7.6 percent, was from Social Security. By comparison, total personal income in the state’s 21 non-rural counties was $176 billion, of which $7.8 billion, or 4.5 percent, was from Social Security.
Broken down on the congressional district level, here's what that looks like:
To look at the county-by-county data, check out the report here:
Photo: The Grand Bargain looks like Garden Troll Zombies to Bluestem. Or that might be too much Netflix.
Blog begathon: Bluestem is supported by reader contributions. If you liked this post, consider throwing some coin to the tip jar.
If you don't like using PayPal, email at the address on this page for a
snail mail address. We'll be running our twice-yearly "bleg" though
Christmas.
Friends have been asking: who do you think wll win tomorrow? Usually, we make a Scooby-Doo noise and shrug noises about being a poor county blogger.
But we've been pressed--so here goes.
Amendments
Both fail, though it's a long night.
President
Obama will comfortably win the State of Minnesota.
United State Senate
Klobuchar
Congress:
Nolan squeaks in the Eighth, all other incumbents hold. Blame Golnik. Reward group or factor of your choice.
Walz takes the First with 56-57 percent of the vote; Peterson wins by 55-56 percent. Both opponents depart from politics, but hang around fringes of religious right.
The rest are holds, with Graves coming closest.
Minnesota Senate
Bellwethers: Look to these. If the Democrat wins in these seats, the DFL will be having a great night. If none, not so great.
SD4 Kent Eken--Phil Hansen
SD17 Lyle Koenen--Joe Gimse
SD22 Alan Oberloh--Bill Weber
SD24 Vicki Jensen--Vern Swedin
SD26 Judy Ohly--Dave Senjem
DFL pickups/resdistrict holds:
Tom Saxhaug takes SD5; Kevin Dahle takes SD20; John Hoffman in SD36; Melisa Franzen takes SD49; Jim Carlson in SD51; Greg Clausen in SD57
Minnesota House
Bellwethers: Look to these. If the Democrat wins in these seats, the DFL will be having a great night. If none, not so great.
HD1B Marc DeMers--Debra Kiel
HD2A Roger Erickson--David Hancock
HD5A John Persell--Larry Howes
HD12A Jay McNamar--Scott Dutcher
HD14B Zachary Dorholt--King Banaian
DFL pickups/redistricting hold:
Brita Sailer in HD2B; Tom Anzelc in HD5B; Tim Faust in 11B; David Bly in 20B; Jerry Newton in HD37A; Barb Yarusso in HD42A; Ron Erhardt in 49A; Laurie Halverson in 51B
A bad DFL night: Liebling and Norton lose in Rochester, Andrew Falk in Western Minnesota, Patti Fritz in Faribault/Owatonna. Not likely. The Kath seat in 24A will go to the GOP, most likely. If not: another sign it's a good DFL year.
This isn't really Bluestem's cup of coffee, but there you have it.
Off to the Western border...
Photo: Tea leaves. We're coffee drinkers (above) SD 22 DFLer Alan Oberloh. Because the lege so needs a full man beard (below).
Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and on H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, (CISPA), Seventh District Republican candidate Lee Byberg is bunking with the likes of DFL incumbents Tim Walz, Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum.
The measure passed the House of Representatives on April 26, with Byberg's opponent, Congressman Collin Peterson, joining House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member Michele Bachmann (an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3523), Chip Cravaack, John Kline and Erik Paulsen in supporting the bill.
Lee Byberg, Republican candidate for Minnesota’s 7th Congressional
District House seat, took part in an event Thursday hosted by the
Concordia College Republicans.
Byberg talked about the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. . . .
The Concordia students expressed their concerns about CISPA by
wearing blue tape over their mouths, signifying the chilling effect they
fear the law could have on free speech.
Kate Engstrom, president
of the Concordia College Republicans, said the group was protesting
Internet “censorship acts like CISPA, which ultimately limit the
freedoms of American citizens online.”
“I think maybe they have
good intent,” she added, “but ultimately they will limit our freedoms
and that can spill over into areas where people are not doing anything
wrong and still being penalized.”
Engstrom said one point of Thursday’s event was to educate students on where the candidates stood on the issues.
She
said Democratic incumbent Collin Peterson “did specifically vote for
this. I think he co-wrote it,” she said, referring to CISPA.
The bill was introduced on November 30, 2011, with Bachman as an original co-sponsor. John Kline joined in sponsoring the bill on February 29, 2012, with Peterson among the last representatives adding their namesto the bill on March 29, 2012. Cravaack and Paulsen joined Bachmann, Kline and Peterson in voting for the bill, which passed 248-168.
“I voted for H.R.
3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, more commonly
known as CISPA. We live at a time when everything is online, from
personal information to financial data to entire databases. One cyber
attack and information that is necessary for our modern-day existence
could be wiped away, or, even worse, in the hands of our enemies.
“As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, I know that the threat of cyber attacks is very real. We
know, for example, that the Chinese government has been hacking into,
stealing and duplicating sensitive information from Western companies.
It remains crucial that the U.S. government take action and protect
American industries and their millions of users. This legislation
enhances cyber security by allowing companies to voluntarily provide
information to the U.S. government when there is a credible threat to
their servers.
"This legislation was carefully crafted after considering
the input of over 100 private companies, trade groups, and civil
liberties organizations, and the final version reflects their opinions. I
commend Chairman Mike Rogers (MI-08) for his diligent work to account
for privacy and constitutional concerns. Cyber threats are now clearly
defined, the bill contains no mandates or increased regulations, and it
provides vital assistance to our national defense.”
Photo: Lee Byberg's signs and Concordia College students occupy Michele Bachmann's office to protest her signing on as an original sponsor of CISPA. Just kidding: they're protesting about Peterson joining the Minnesota's Republican delegation in voting for the bill in April.
Allen Quist's financial disclosure has finally been posted to the House Office of the Clerk's database, but that of Willmar poultry industry executive Lee Byberg has yet to appear.
Quist previously said he did not file the form because he was unaware
of it. He also said that he did not file the form immediately after
being notified last week because the form did not list the address it
should be sent to. Later, he said that it was instead the online version
of the form that he downloaded that lacked the address. Both forms
carry the address on the front page.
Quist says he mailed out the form last Wednesday, and that he is
waiting for it to be received and put online. He said that he sees no
point in releasing the forms ahead of that time.
The absence of Lee Byberg's information in the database has received little attention from the press in the Seventh District--but then, neither has the Byberg campaign in general.
Looking over Quist's statement, Bluestem is a bit surprised to learn that Quist appears to have no retirement funds, only a couple of nice chunks of farmland in Iowa and southern Minnesota. We would have thought that self-proclaimed ant Allen Quist would have squirreled away a retirement portfolio of some sort or the other. Maybe that's for grasshoppers like Congressman Walz.
The Forum Communications chain has endorsed Peterson. In Worthington, the Daily Globe editorial board writes in Peterson should be returned to DC:
Some voters in southwest Minnesota will have the opportunity, thanks
to redistricting, to color the oval next to Collin Peterson’s name for
the first time.
Doing so would be a wise choice, indeed.
Peterson,
a Democrat who has served primarily the northwest portion of the state
for the past 22 years, is seeking his 12th two-year term. His opponent
is the same as it was in 2010 — Lee Byberg, whom he defeated by a 55-38
percent margin despite it being a very strong election year for
Republicans.
How did Peterson buck this election trend? Simple:
he’s one of the House’s last remaining “blue dogs,” a group of moderate
Democrats that — believe it or not — find it prudent to work diligently
with, and garner respect from, their GOP colleagues. Considering the
makeup of his congressional district, this should be considered
unsurprising. . . .
Here are two elected officials who are not part of the problem in Washington.
Just
the opposite. When the ice thaws in Congress, and Republicans and
Democrats at last are willing to embrace the Simpson-Bowles compromise
budget or another "Grand Bargain," here are two elected officials who
are sure to be in the room, hammering out the details.
Minnesotans
should be proud. And the rest of the country should know that if more
in Washington behaved like Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Collin Peterson,
America would be better off.
No one knows Minnesota’s 7th Congressional District better than
Collin Peterson. The 11-term congressman is seeking a 12th two-year
term. He’s earned it and should be re-elected. . . .
. . . In a rerun of 2010, Peterson’s opponent is businessman Lee Byberg.
Byberg’s campaign is essentially a retread, rife with the boilerplate of
tea party rhetoric. He got little traction two years ago during what
was billed as a Republican wave election, and will get less traction
this year.
Finally, Peterson’s no-nonsense style and the real
substance of his work are refreshing in a political world of
double-speak from the partisan playbook. He’s clear, direct and
confident. Like it or not, you know where he stands.
There is more
to do, specifically on a farm bill, deficit reduction, health care and
tax reform. Peterson’s history confirms he will work to get it done.
Voters in the 7th should re-elect him.
The 7th Congressional District, including much of west central
Minnesota, faces the same choice in 2012 as two years ago: Collin
Peterson, a Democrat from Detroit Lakes, or Lee Byberg, a Republican
from Willmar.
The choice is simple: Peterson has a strong record over his 11 terms and deserves to be re-elected for another two years. . . .
. . . He has also displayed a unique
ability to work across party lines and interest groups. He has
demonstrated such on farm legislation where he has to work with everyone
— from the poultry and hog industries to the ethanol industry or from
the dairy industry to the food industry.
Peterson has continually
won re-election in recent years by double-digit margins, primarily
because he gets along, he knows how to work in a bipartisan manner and
he treats all with respect.
Byberg is a Willmar business
executive, serving in several positions with Willmar Poultry Co. His
primary campaign issue still remains the out-of-control government
spending, a rerun of his 2010 tea party line. He also opposed the health
care reform act and the proposed dairy part of the 2012 Farm Bill.
Byberg’s message just has not connected well with voters in this
campaign.
Peterson remains straightforward and direct so voters
always know where he stands. He continues to work hard on issues of
importance in his district: passing a farm bill, working toward deficit
reduction or fixing health care reform.
. . . Ask farmers about Peterson’s usefulness as chairman of the House Agricultural Committee when Democrats were in control. And as the ranking Democrat on that committee while in the minority.
Ask the communities throughout the huge 7th Congressional District about Peterson’s assistance in getting projects done and funds secured for their benefit, including Glencoe on items like the municipal airport designation to the federal aviation system and for local airport improvements.
Ask residents of the district about the congressman’s fiscal conservative nature on spending and the budget, even when it flies in the face of his own party.
The list goes on.
Peterson’s sin, like Dille’s before, is that he is too moderate and too independent a thinker. He also can work both sides of the aisle in the House to find common ground and consensus that are hallmarks of good legislation.
We like that. We like his overall voting record. We support his re-election.
Byberg was not endorsed by any paper in the 2010 election; we'll see if this streak changes in the next two weeks.
Although MNCD7 Republican congressional candidate Lee Byberg pitch his "Freedom Chorus" concert with singer Lee Greenwood as a "nonpartisan" event, Sunday night he talked about fundraising and voter indexes to the audience of over 1000.
The Lee Byberg campaign is bringing a “Freedom Chorus” to Alexandria featuring Lee Greenwood.
The
choir is wrapping up its tour with a grand finale event in Alexandria
on October 21, from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Lake Geneva Christian Center.
Admission is free.
Byberg, who is making his second bid for U.S.
Congress, said his campaign isn’t sticking to the script of TV ads,
phone calls, and direct mail.
“Yes, we’ll be advertising on TV.
Yes, you’ll hear us on the radio,” said Byberg. “But to really connect
with voters we are going big. We are leading a movement, and the Freedom
Chorus is a celebration of what unites us as Americans.”
Byberg has been able to command more attention this year than in 2010
for a variety of reasons. His name recognition is higher now just
because he’s been in the public eye for so long, but door-knocking and
making speeches is only part of his strategy. He published a book this
year (“Builders of Our Land”), has scheduled a concert with country
music star Lee Greenwood (of “God Bless the USA” fame) in Alexandria,
and, in one of his campaign’s more ambitious efforts, is assembling an
area “mega-choir” of more than 100 District 7 residents to sing hymns
and patriotic songs at a few venues around the area.
“The music is symbolic of us coming together,” he said.
Now that Byberg has a more visible platform, he’s trying as often as
possible to broadcast his message, one of smaller government and
economic encouragement. The best way to increase government revenue, he
said, is by businesses and individuals making more money. . . .
Byberg told the Echo and other venues that the Alex concert is "nonpartisan."
Here's a video of select moments from Byberg's 28 minute or so nonpartisan speech:
A friend who attended the event estimated that 1,000 people attended the Lee Greenwood concert and Not A Partisan political rally. Republican activists estimated 2000 in the crowd. While the event was free, those who attended were given a copy of Byberg's ghost-written book with a contribution envelope inside the front cover.
In addition to Republican Congressional candidate Byberg, Republican state senate candidates Torrey Westrom and Bill Ingebrigtsen, house candidate Mary Franson, and U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Bills.
Photos: Representative Mary Franson and state senator Bill Ingebrigtsen and the event emcee (top); crowd shot (bottom).
MNCD7 Republican challenger Lee Byberg has never been shy about his paid friends in the entertainment business. His FEC reports document that endorser and Valley radio talker Scott Hennen had a most worthy business relationship with Byberg.
The Willmar turkey industry executive is making his second bid against DFL incumbent Blue Dog Collin Peterson.
Political wars are not unprofitable for radio talk show hosts who own consulting services and other living things.
Take Scott Hennen's consulting relationship with Minnesota CD7 endorsed Republican Lee Byberg.According to the latest Byberg filing with the Federal Elections Commission,
Hennen-owned Freedom Force Communications LLC was paid $14,500 in Q2
for media/fundraising ($7000 in April and $3500 in May) and "monthly
website" ($4000 in April).
The haul is declining a bit, however, from earlier quarters.
Bluestem didn't believe that the [Scott Hennen's] endorsement [of Byberg] was bought, but we did wonder what sort of disclosure might be required by Hennen
of the lucrative arrangement between his business and the Byberg
campaign. Hennen is a radio talk show and serves as a frequent speaker
at Republican and Tea Party events. A bit of transparency might help listeners evaluate Hennen's remarks.
The question remains a valid one.[Blogger and Gretchen Hoffman supporter John] Gilmore noted that " Scott Hennen has been paid over $35,000 by candidate Lee Byberg over the last two years."
Now Byberg has a new friend, Lee Greenwood, who's headlining his upcoming concert in Alexandria. There's been some chatter in the media about the appearance. The Alexandria Echo Press reports in Freedom Chorus featuring Lee Greenwood to perform in Alexandria:
The Lee Byberg campaign is bringing a “Freedom Chorus” to Alexandria featuring Lee Greenwood.
The
choir is wrapping up its tour with a grand finale event in Alexandria
on October 21, from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Lake Geneva Christian Center.
Admission is free.
Byberg, who is making his second bid for U.S.
Congress, said his campaign isn’t sticking to the script of TV ads,
phone calls, and direct mail.
“Yes, we’ll be advertising on TV.
Yes, you’ll hear us on the radio,” said Byberg. “But to really connect
with voters we are going big. We are leading a movement, and the Freedom
Chorus is a celebration of what unites us as Americans.”
Byberg has been able to command more attention this year than in 2010
for a variety of reasons. His name recognition is higher now just
because he’s been in the public eye for so long, but door-knocking and
making speeches is only part of his strategy. He published a book this
year (“Builders of Our Land”), has scheduled a concert with country
music star Lee Greenwood (of “God Bless the USA” fame) in Alexandria,
and, in one of his campaign’s more ambitious efforts, is assembling an
area “mega-choir” of more than 100 District 7 residents to sing hymns
and patriotic songs at a few venues around the area.
“The music is symbolic of us coming together,” he said.
Now that Byberg has a more visible platform, he’s trying as often as
possible to broadcast his message, one of smaller government and
economic encouragement. The best way to increase government revenue, he
said, is by businesses and individuals making more money. . . .
Byberg told the Echo and other venues that the Alex concert is "nonpartisan." That's surprising, since his campaign committee's latest report shows that Lee Greenwood, Inc. has been paid $8000 for a "solo acoustic performance" for the Rally for America. Presuming that that the sum is the total fee, and not an advance retainer, the money is a reduced rate for Greenberg. The 70-year-old singer's "God Bless The U.S.A." has graced Republican campaigns since the Reagan administration.
Still, the illusion that an event paid by committee fees--with a paid entertainer who is a big-ticket item for a campaign that's over $100,000 in debt--is "nonpartisan" might be put to rest by the media reporting on this campaign event.
As deputy campaign director of Minnesota for Marriage (M4M),
Republican political operative Andy Parrish has never been shy about
tweeting and Facebooking about the marriage restriction amendment.
Until October 2.
Since then, his tweets and Facebook page have been nearly all A
Stronger Minnesota, the new political committee that's supposed to be
the conservative answer to A Better Minnesota. We count three
M4M-related posts out of over fifty tweets and retweets, as well as only
A Stronger Minnesota material on his Facebook page.
Likewise, Parrish has disappeared in press accounts of M4M activity
that Bluestem has found via Google News and Nexis, though he's there
for A Stronger Minnesota. Moreover, eyewitness accounts claim that Parrish wasn't at Teh Gay Will Make Minnesota A Warm Alberta event M4M held Monday night.
Did the deputy director of the group leading the campaign for to
amend Minnesota's constitution leave the coalition just shy of a month
before the polls open--and while absentee balloting is going on?
Mr. Parrish read the post and tweeted back that he is still with M4M and doing fine:
@sallyjos still dpt camp manager, still make 10k month with MFM, and yes we're still winning.thanks for the concern.
That reply should relieve some minds, though it's difficult for Bluestem not to wonder, given the laudable Catholic appreciation for the dignity of work, whether the Archbishop is getting His money's worth for all that dawdling.
Among the interesting expenses:
$3099.60 in "writing services" to Rootsky Books, a ghostwriting and
editing service in Los Angeles; $8000 to Andy Parrish's Midwest Public
Affairs LLC; $6105 to communications consulting to conservative
operative David Strom.
Andy Parrish's firm has been receiving $4000 each month from Lee Byberg's campaign, which is somewhat less successful than M4M both in terms of fundraising and traction (though M4M's sole cause, the marriage discrimination act, is slipping in the polls, while Bybeg is literally singing to the choir).
Parrish joined the Byberg campaign in May with much fanfare. Fargo-Moorhead area Valley View News reported in Taking Aim at Collin Peterson:
Another sign the Republican's have painted a bulls eye on the back of Rep. Collin Peterson.
Lee Byberg, the Republican-endorsed candidate for Minnesota's 7th
Congressional district, will be taking advice from GOP strategist Andy
Parrish. Parrish will carry the title of general consultant.
Andy Parrish is known for his Karl Rove style tactics. He has deep roots in Minnesota politics.
In a news release sent out Tuesday morning, Byberg's campaign included this biography of Byberg.
Over
the past decade, Parrish has served Minnesota from grassroots efforts
to St. Paul, and then on Capitol Hill, as Rep. Michele Bachmann's Chief
of Staff.
In
2006 he ran Bachmann's campaign, guiding an effort that made Bachmann
the first Republican woman to be elected to federal office from
Minnesota. Parrish's leadership of her 2010 re-election campaign earned
him the nickname "Maestro." The campaign produced a record-setting $13.5
million in fundraising for Bachmann, along with 420,000 calls to voters
and 40,000 doors knocked-on in the final five days before her decisive
victory.
"Andy Parrish is a superb campaign strategist, and
I am thrilled that he agreed to guide our campaign strategy," said Lee
Byberg.
Parrish added "There are things about Collin Peterson that he does not want you to know about. Soon every one in the 7th district will learn shocking things about Peterson that they never knew before."
Apparently the operative thought that people in the Seventh didn't know about Peterson's musical group, The Second Amendments, since that seems to be the only thing sent down the sewer lines so far. But the Seventh isn't a district where middling-talent bipartisan congressional cover bands are shocking, merely another burden, like corn smut or soybean aphids.
As one wag tweeted:
SHOCKING BREAKING ZOMG NEWS: @andyparrishmn has exclusive video of Collin Peterson singing poorly. It's a gamechanger folks!
Byberg seems to have resolved to fight cover bands by starting his own mega-choir rather than through more oppo research.
Is Parrish still consulting for Byberg? Inquiring minds have asked Bluestem since our post yesterday. Only the Byberg campaign and Parrish can answer.
Another tipster passed along this rumor circulating in select Republican circles:
. . .Senators Hann, Thompson, & [senate candidate] Downey have discussed that which ever of
them becomes the next Majority Leader (HUGE IF) would name Parrish as
their Chief of Staff. . . .
Bluestem has doubts about this story, since even the Senate Republican caucus surely can learn from the experience of having the deputy state party chair serve as communications head and executive assistant to the Majority Leader.
Having the leader of A Stronger Minnesota political fund serve as a Senate Caucus (whether majority or minority remains unsettled) COS would pose some of the same dog-wagging ethical issues, though the personalities involved would likely set fewer tongues wagging, even with Parrish's prior interest in dwarf and oil wrestling.
Cartoon: Andy Parrish, by Ken Avidor. Just how many contracts does he have to stuff that purse?
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, served as a New Media training and strategy consultant for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party from October 2009 through mid-April 2010. She now serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors.
Recent Comments