The Sherburne Citizen has an article about local caucus activities that took place on February 5th. In amongst the review of the evening (which appears to be a winner for the local DFL) was a snippet about the introduction of Steve Andrews to local residents.
Andrews, seeking the seat currently held by Mark Olson, says he is running on the issues of property tax relief, education, health care, transportation and growth. As a hunter and a fisherman, he said, he is interested in preserving natural resources.
"The state has dropped the property tax ball," Andrews said. "Shifting the burden from St. Paul to local government is not working. Schools need adequate set funding they can count on every year. Now education funding is a roller coaster. It's like managing the budget for your own home. You need to know what your income is going to be to be able to make good decisions."
Early childhood education provides a good return on the investment, Andrews said.
"I will support that. We need to spend smart dollars," he said. "I also believe in supporting higher education. College aid is gone or underfunded. Every dollar we spend on educating our young people is an investment in our future."
"Affordable healthcare is a critical need. Every family is just one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy, Andrews said. "That is not acceptable."
Transportation needs, highlighted by the bridge collapse on 35W, are another are of major concern for Andrews.
"Nobody likes to spend money on these things but it is like maintenance on your house. You need to spend money to protect your investment. We need other forms of transportation too, like the Northstar commuter train.
"If my vision and your vision are compatible, with strong ideas and strong ideals, I ask you to stand by me tonight I will stand by you and work hard for you and do it with integrity," Andrews promised.
Steve Andrews has the potential and from the sound of things, the message, to unseat Mark Olson and provide common sense representation for the people of House District 16B.
In related news, there was also an article reviewing local Republican caucuses. After reading the article, I was intrigued by this passage:
In related news, there was also an article reviewing local Republican caucuses. After reading the article, I was intrigued by this passage:
Discussion was especially lively at the Becker City caucus, with a number of attendees expressing displeasure with sitting U.S. Senator Norm Coleman's recent voting record. One member of the audience drew applause when he noted that Coleman seemed to him "more liberal than conservative" in recent months and "I'm not sure I can support him." In his remarks during the caucus, Swanson noted that Coleman had earned the displeasure of the state party organization as well, saying that "the turnout tonight says that we, as grass-roots activists, want our party back." Other comments included references to state party chairman Ron Carey's endorsement of Gov. Huckabee prior to the caucuses, after having urged party members to refrain from endorsements until after the vote.
Immigration reform, opposition to global warming-related legislation and Sen. McCain's proposed "carbon tax" on fossil fuel usage were among the topics of resolutions put forward by the individual caucuses. The large turnout at the Becker Township caucus also discussed ongoing opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, and the role of religious organizations in politics.
First, are these people really still concerned about issues of gay marriage and civil unions over those of health care, education, or the economy? Really? Given that states such as Massachusetts have allowed gay marriage for upwards of 6 years and the state hasn't been smoten by the Lord, shouldn't we be worrying about issues THAT REALLY MATTER! I think we have established that gay marriage is not the harbinger of the second coming it has been made out to be by those who play the divisive politics game. Also, the role of religious organizations in politics? Oh to be a fly on the wall to hear what they meant by that cryptic remark.
Second, is anybody a little concerned about the fact that the discussion of displeasure completely left out the 800 pound gorilla in the room? Either these people chose to completely ignore the fact that their chosen representative in the State Legislature is a convicted abuser or the writer simply chose to not mention it. While it would be a shame if it was the latter, the former leaves one with the sense that the people calling themselves Republicans in 16B really ought to be deciding what value to crusade against. Can you really be a credible "values voter" and deny marriage to others while electing a man who defiles the very thing you purport to defend?
Second, is anybody a little concerned about the fact that the discussion of displeasure completely left out the 800 pound gorilla in the room? Either these people chose to completely ignore the fact that their chosen representative in the State Legislature is a convicted abuser or the writer simply chose to not mention it. While it would be a shame if it was the latter, the former leaves one with the sense that the people calling themselves Republicans in 16B really ought to be deciding what value to crusade against. Can you really be a credible "values voter" and deny marriage to others while electing a man who defiles the very thing you purport to defend?
