With the DFL Convention fast approaching and Al Franken being beaten down from both the left and right of the political spectrum, one has to wonder if this isn't the perfect opportunity for a Draft Ciresi movement.
While some see Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer as the alternative to Franken, I have yet to fully embrace his candidacy for a variety of reasons. Chief amongst those reasons is that he could very well be more liberal than myself and the pragmatist deep inside me wonders if he could compete against the faux moderate in Norm Coleman. Don't get me wrong, Nelson-Pallmeyer has a wonderful story to tell and he never ceases to inspire with his stump speech but I cannot help but believe that his message will not play well in Northern Minnesota and onto the Range.
Mike Ciresi offers a third path in this United States Senate race. In all of my analysis of this three way contest, I have found Ciresi and Nelson-Pallmeyer to be excellent candidates on the issues progressives care most about. The difference is, though, that Ciresi provides a much more mainstream progressivism than that of Nelson-Pallmeyer.
I stand by my previous statements that a Franken candidacy will lead me to cast a vote for someone outside of the Democratic Party but urge the delegates attending the state convention to rethink this endorsement and draft Ciresi so that it doesn't come to that.
I was at the 6th District DFL Convention yesterday chronicling events with my video camera. One of those events were the speeches given by the two candidates seeking the DFL endorsement to run against Norm Coleman this fall. While Franken has been garnering much of the support across the state, it seemed to me that he was significantly underrepresented yesterday. There appeared to be more people sporting Nelson-Pallmeyer apparel than Franken apparel.
You can read my previous analysis of these candidates here.
Al Franken spoke first and discussed the "new progressive majority" he and others are building in Congress. It is interesting to note that many DFL "progressives" have found Franken to be less than progressive. To be honest, this was a lackluster speech given to a crowd that was not particularly attentive. His money quote, however, was that it is time to send Norm Coleman home to Brooklyn.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer told a story about going to India and seeing the plight of the people while he and the other visitors were ushered into a luxury hotel. This speech, like many of his speeches, was a call to action for people across the district and across the state. Nelson-Pallmeyer has an uphill climb to beat Al Franken but he represents an inspiring voice in the Democratic Party.
Over in Senate District 14, the DFL endorsed Larry Hosch and Rob Jacobs for the Minnesota House of Representatives. For Jacobs, it took two ballots to achieve the required amount of support for the endorsement while Hosch cruised to a unanimous endorsement. Having met both these men, I can say with no uncertainty that they are fantastic choices and would serve the area well.
On the delegate front, I wasn't able to get hard numbers from District 14 but it appears as though Tinklenberg and Franken cleaned up much in the same way that they did in Senate District 15.
In Senate District 15, the DFL endorsed Larry Haws and Joanne Dorsher (both unanimously) for the Minnesota House of Representatives. I am hoping, in the next month or so, to do some more detailed reporting on the Dorsher campaign. She has a difficult road ahead to unseat Steve Gottwalt but after a brief conversation, it seems as though she is ready for that challenge.
Larry Schumacher has a nice article up on the events of the day. He also took some video of the day which you can view here. Although only here can you find speeches by the candidates in their entirety. Take that Larry! :)
There were some wonderful speeches given by various Democratic candidates throughout the day:
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer
Jack gives a great stump speech and really knows how to inspire a crowd. While the challenge ahead of him is almost insurmountable, I become more supportive of his candidacy every time I hear him speak.
Bob Olson
Elwyn Tinklenberg
This is quite possibly the best speech I have heard Mr. Tinklenberg give and if he continues to improve like this our hopes of defeating "The Dimmest Bulb" will grow exponentially.
Tarryl Clark
Larry Haws
The Haws speech was hands down the best speech of the day. He has a "fire in his belly" for service and that bodes well for all of us in House District 15B. On the several occasions that I have been able to speak with Mr. Haws, I have been supremely impressed. With personality and humor he all but dares you not to go along with him. Keep up the great work Larry!
Joanne Dorsher
Unfortunately, due to my own ineptness, I was unable to get the entire speech. However, this small segment highlights the commitment Joanne has to addressing the needs of education.
Today we examine these two candidates on various social issues of concern. While I would argue that these issues should not be the center point of a campaign or of a decision of support, they are still prominent in the progressive canon.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer on Social Issues:
While most candidates lump social issues into one issue category on their campaign pages, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer devotes one link to the issues of the GLBT community and another to issues of choice.
On the GLBT community:
I advocate repeal of sodomy laws and I support efforts to pass federal, state and local legislation to prevent hate crimes and employment discrimination. I will work tirelessly so that GLBT people are not denied custodial, adoptive or foster parenting options, workplace or housing opportunities, domestic partner benefits and equal marriage rights due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
I oppose any efforts to use legal or constitutional means to discriminate against GLBT persons.
As a religious person, I am deeply troubled by the use of religion to justify discrimination, hatred or exclusion of GLBT people, including denial of dignity and civil rights. I have marched proudly with PFLAG families and will use my personal and public voice to encourage a culture of respect and a politics of equality and fairness.
On Choice:
First, when my wife Sara and I lived in Nicaragua for two years in the 1980s, we learned that many Nicaraguan women died as a result of illegal abortions. Criminalizing abortion doesn’t result in fewer abortions but it often results in needless trauma and death.
Second, I believe the number of abortions will drop as we empower and educate women, provide safe and affordable family planning options, reduce the costs of adoption and achieve greater justice in our economy.
Third, I believe the decision of whether or not to have an abortion lies with the mother and not with the state.
Fourth, I believe it is possible for groups who hold different views to find common ground on some aspects of this issue by focusing on policies that would result in fewer abortions. Examples include:
The Bush administration’s refusal to fund United Nations’ family planning programs has resulted in millions of additional abortions worldwide. We need to restore those funds.
The Republican Party’s “abstinence only” approach to sex education has resulted in many unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. We need to fully fund broader sex education efforts.
Economic insecurity is a significant factor for many women as they make reproductive choices. Achieving greater economic justice and providing quality health give families a realistic chance to adequately care for a child that may result from an unexpected pregnancy.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer does not shy away from these often times hot button issues. He tackles them as they should be tackled, with the evidence at hand. The GLBT community deserves to be treated equally and issues of choice, while uncomfortable, are far more sensibly addressed by keeping abortion safe and legal but also by trying to solve the underlying factors that cause women to make this choice. Once those issues are addressed, we can begin to reduce the number of abortions in this country thus making the issue moot.
Al Franken on Social Issues:
Unfortunately, I could find no evidence of Al Franken taking a stance on either the GLBT community or the issues of choice. While I have no problem supporting a 'Pro-Life' candidate, it seems somewhat disingenuous to try to hide ones beliefs on these issues. Perhaps someone out there has some evidence of Franken taking a stand on these issues and can provide that stance in the comments section. However, the purpose of these posts has been to examine the candidates from the information found on their campaign sites and Franken has chosen not to display such information on that site.
The win clearly goes to Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for his straightforward stance on these issues. We have folks in the party who are 'Pro-Life' (from Larry Hosch on the state level to Jim Oberstar in Congress) but what makes them all the same is that they are brave enough to come out and proclaim themselves as such. This gives yet another impression of Franken as a man trying to be everything to everyone.
I have long been an advocate of the brand of 'Pro-Choice' Mr. Nelson-Pallmeyer advocates. We must continue to keep abortion safe and legal while at the same time finding ways (both economic and educational) to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country and even around the world. One of the easiest ways to go about this is to abandon the failed 'abstinence only' failures across the country and begin teaching true sex education.
What do you think?
I encourage anyone who supports one of these three candidates to comment about the positive aspects of their candidates social issue positions. Perhaps I missed some policy statements or other evidence highlighting what your candidate will do in terms of social issues. Also, if you are so inclined, I would be interested in hearing about other issues we can examine.
With Mike Ciresi out of the race for the United States Senate, Blue Man forces me to ask myself who I should support. As I have previously stated, there simply is no way I can bring myself to vote for Al Franken. While some might not be able to understand the reaction I have had to Franken, I posit that they haven't lived near enough to North Dakota. Personal contact counts, and if you screw that up you very likely will not get another chance.
The exit of Ciresi really only means that there is ONE candidate left for me to support, and that candidate is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. After examining his record through the past four Senate Issue Analysis posts, I have all but endorsed him on issues of the environment, Iraq, and health care so the leap to supporting him with my vote is a relatively short one.
Today, I think we need a new “Apollo project” – this time to fundamentally change our energy policy and end our reliance on foreign oil.
The natural resources we have right here in Minnesota – not just corn and soybeans and biomass and wind, but innovation and creativity and brainpower – can lead to amazing breakthroughs if we commit to this undertaking.
This “Apollo project” should provide financial support for research into new forms of renewable energy and development of currently-identified sources to make them more efficient. Of course I’m talking about corn ethanol. But I’m also talking about cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels. I’m talking about solar power. And, especially here in Minnesota, I’m talking about wind power. We live in a windy state!
It’s going to be a huge project, but it will pay off in so many ways:
We’ll dramatically improve our environment.
We’ll finally be taking steps to address global warming.
We’ll make our nation more secure and less dependent on an uncertain global fuel economy.
We’ll revitalize our manufacturing sector. The Ford plant in St. Paul that’s closing down should be making wind turbines, and we should be putting them up all over Minnesota.
We’ll create high-tech, high-paying jobs in conservation and R&D.
Renewable energy is win-win-win-win-win, and we should back it not only with our words, but with our resources. We should also invest in conservation – energy efficiency, light rail, and increased CAFE standards are all part of that.
Franken wants to embark upon an effort similar to the one undertaken in the 1960's as we headed to the moon. While this sounds great, it is short on specifics of cost and how Franken will pay for such a program. The question is, how much is Franken willing to spend on this program to make it a viable solution to the effects oil, gas, and coal have on our environment?
We must fund the initial investment by redirecting subsidies paid to the highly profitable oil and gas companies. The 2005 Energy Bill provided billions of dollars to the largest oil and gas firms in our country. These special interests have a stranglehold on our nation through record prices, record profits and at the same time, an undeserved share of our tax dollars. Subsidies for the rich do nothing to change our dependence on foreign oil or our need for rural revitalization. Investing in local farmers and universities does create positive change.
Minnesota must lead the way. We have the natural resources, the educational facilities and the initiative to lead the nation in this effort – as proven by our leadership in ethanol. Not only can Minnesota lead our nation, we will bring needed dollars back to rural Minnesota to develop a vibrant economy. A strong economy will allow us to improve rural healthcare and education, and provide young people the opportunity to work and raise a family in rural areas.
As your U.S. Senator I will:
Support and encourage strong conservation policies and practices
Invest in clean energy technologies such as wind, solar, ethanol, and biomass.
Bring America to energy independency by 2020 by creating an Apollo-type project. By investing in energy efficiency technology, investing in “green buildings” that are energy efficient, creating tougher mileage standards and investing in alternative fuels to power our automobiles we can reach that goal.
Create a tax system that gives entrepreneurs and businesses incentives to develop clean energy technologies.
Ciresi uses some of the same language as Franken. He institutes the same "Apollo-type project" rhetoric when it comes to investing in renewable energy. Ciresi, though, seems to indicate that he would support a transfer from subsidies to the oil companies to subsidies for our educational research organizations. The Ciresi campaign seems to be less concerned about the environment than they are about creating energy independence.
Our planet is heating up at an accelerated pace, and scientists widely agree that human activities are a major cause. Without urgent action we will experience devastating effects, including coastal flooding, an unprecedented refugee crisis, prolonged droughts and heat waves, and water shortages. While our country is the largest contributor of greenhouse emissions, the Bush administration has refused to join international efforts to address global warming. The economic costs of not acting to address global warming are far greater than the costs of taking bold action now.
We need to enact effective public policies to address global warming and build a renewable energy economy. This includes setting an ambitious national goal to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2030 through conservation, efficiency, better mileage vehicles, mass transit, responsible building codes and carbon taxes. Creating a renewable energy economy will generate millions of high-paying jobs. Federal research and development dollars must be reprioritized away from new weapons systems to renewable energy.
Nelson Pallmeyer takes on a more holistic view of the environment. While he is more general in his rhetoric, he is also more comprehensive. He speaks not just of the environmental needs associated with oil but also of our need to address all aspects of global warming. How he is going to pay for such a program is unclear other than stating that he would transfer money from failed defense programs to programs dealing with global warming.
This particular round appears to go to Mr. Nelson-Pallmeyer for his head on solutions to the larger issue of global warming. While Franken and Ciresi talk about moving towards energy independence and investing in renewable energies, Nelson-Pallmeyer sets a specific goal for the United States to reach. While I continue to have concerns about his method of funding such programs through cuts in defense spending, there is little doubt that he offers the most bold change in terms of solving environmental concerns in the United States and Minnesota. Between Ciresi and Franken, though, you see that Mike Ciresi at the very least has a plan on how he would invest in such programs whereas Al Franken once again seems to play the game of promises without specifics.
What do you think?
I encourage anyone who supports one of these three candidates to comment about the positive aspects of their candidates health care positions. Perhaps I missed some policy statements or other evidence highlighting what your candidate will do in terms of the environment.
Stay Tuned, in the next episode we will examine these three candidates on various social issues such as Choice and the GLBT Community.
I call for the United States to announce immediately its intention to end the occupation of Iraq, with the goal of withdrawing all US troops (and all private contractors) in a period of approximately six months.
The Bush administration never had an exit strategy for Iraq because it does not plan on leaving. The Bush administration invaded and occupies Iraq in pursuit of two principle goals: to establish permanent military bases and to control Iraq’s vast oil supplies. Responsibly ending the occupation depends on rejecting these goals.
Most Iraqis oppose the US occupation and will never agree to the United States having permanent military bases or controlling Iraqi oil. The Bush administration’s recent escalation (surge) does nothing to address Iraqi grievances. We are no closer to a political resolution of conflicts that separate Iraqi factions and the reasons Iraqis are hostile to US forces continue to fester.
Ending the occupation is the essential first step to reconciliation within Iraq. The United Nations, international community and Iraq’s neighbors could help promote Iraq stability and reconciliation but they will not help the United States establish permanent military bases or control Iraqi oil. Their assistance depends on ending the US occupation.
We have a moral and fiscal responsibility to help reconstruct Iraq, to help the more than 4 million Iraqi refugees created by the war and to fully support returning US veterans.
All of our hopes and dreams are held hostage to the Iraq war. The $12 billion per month we spend on the war not only hurts Iraqis, it also cripples domestic efforts to address pressing environmental, health, education and other needs at home. It is shameful that the Bush administration demands hundreds of billions of dollars to continue an unnecessary war while refusing to adequately fund programs for returning vets or health care programs for uninsured US children.
Nelson-Pallmeyer does an excellent job of not only demonstrating the problems we continue to face in Iraq but also connecting those problems with those we are facing here at home. A Republican Party which prides itself on fiscal discipline is willing to spend billions of dollars every single month on venture that has brought us no closer to a stable Iraqi government than we had at the beginning of the occupation. While I am not certain that it is healthy or productive to continually dwell on the failures of this administration, it is abundantly evident that Nelson-Pallmeyer would be a strong voice in the United States Senate for getting us out of Iraq and perhaps using that $12 billion per month the Republicans are willing to spend on domestic priorities.
Al Franken on Iraq:
I say it’s time to leave Iraq. Our troops have served magnificently, but even General Petraeus has stated that military action alone cannot fix Iraq.
It’s been clear for years that this war was a mistake, and that mistake after mistake has been made in the conduct of it. And in my books, on my radio show, and all over this country, I’ve been speaking out for years about this sad, tragic mess. Now it’s time for all of us to come to terms with the truth about the situation there.
There is no reason to believe that the Maliki government is able, or even willing, to meet the political benchmarks necessary to make progress in Iraq: devising a fair plan to share oil revenues among ethnic groups, reversing the disastrous de-Baathification and putting Sunnis back to work, engaging and eliminating sectarian death squads, and starting a reconciliation process to defuse sectarian tensions.
Conversely, there is every reason to believe that the Maliki government just wants us to stay there so that they can consolidate their power. Our troops should not be there to make that happen.
The best way to convince the Iraqi government that we’re leaving is to actually start leaving. I support immediately beginning the process of bringing our troops home. Our withdrawal should not be precipitous, and we should have a national conversation about the best way to complete our disengagement – we should put more thought into how we get out than we did into how we got in. But we should start now.
At the same time, we should be convening a regional conference including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Egypt to come up with a long-term plan for Iraq and ensure that a regional conflict does not arise. Jordan and Syria have over a million Iraqi refugees. Nobody wants Iraq to devolve into utter chaos. It’s inconceivable that the Bush administration hasn’t roused itself to initiate regional diplomacy.
Perhaps it is just me, but Franken seems to have taken a classic political cop out by claiming we should have a national conversation "about the best way to complete our disengagement". Democrats have been discussing the best way to disengage for years now while Republicans simply want to stay the course. So, Franken really ought to either come up with a plan of his own or endorse one of a multitude of plans bouncing around. If we continue to vote for candidates willing to have an endless "conversation" about withdrawal from Iraq, I can guarantee you that we will be there for the 100+ years that the Republicans long for.
Mike Ciresi on Iraq:
As your U.S. Senator I will:
Never send American troops to war unless there is a clear and present danger to our national interests.
Never send American troops to war without a plan and without sufficient equipment and force to win the peace.
Vote to rescind the original war resolution bill.
Support a surge in diplomacy and an international peace conference covering Iraq and the Middle East.
Support a withdrawal plan that gets us our combat troops out within 8 months.
Support a plan to redeploy our troops into training functions and on to the borders of Iraq to interdict people who are coming in from either Iran or Syria.
Require Iraqis to stand-up and defend their own country in this civil war and meet economic and political benchmarks calibrated to our troop redeployment.
Direct our troops to combat terrorism and seek out al-Qaeda.
End our involvement in a war that does nothing to stabilize the Middle East.
At first glance, it appears as though Ciresi has less to say about Iraq than either of his competitors. However, within his brief statement there appears far more detail in what he would do than either statement by Nelson-Pallmeyer or Franken. Ciresi has plotted out a step by step plan that extracts the United States from Iraq while Franken tries to play the fence and Nelson-Pallmeyer talks about the philosophy of the situation.
It is difficult to declare a hands down winner on this issue given that all three are advocating only incrementally different plans that ALL get us out of Iraq. The clear loser in this trio has got to be Franken for his political game of mincing words so that he doesn't have to support immediate withdrawal while at the same time claiming to advocate it. Much like his position on health care, he tries to play the political fence by keeping his words vague and noncommittal.
I am going to give this one a tie between Ciresi and Nelson-Pallmeyer. Ciresi gets the win for his detailed method on which he believes we should proceed while Nelson-Pallmeyer gets the win for his principled stand against this administration's goals for Iraq as well as his forward looking vision of what could be done here at home if and when we stop spending billions per month on a war that most believe was not worth waging.
I encourage anyone who supports one of these three candidates to comment about the positive aspects of their candidates health care positions. Perhaps I missed some policy statements or other evidence highlighting what your candidate will do in terms of Iraq.
Stay Tuned, in the next episode we will examine these three candidates on the environment.
In our second installment of 'An Issue Analysis' of the three main contenders for the DFL nomination to take on Norm Coleman we examine the issue of health care. Health insurance costs have continued to rise at an alarming rate and while it is clear that Republicans such as Norm Coleman have a 'stay the course' mentality, the Democrats in the race to defeat him offer varying degrees of universal care and coverage. In the interest of fairness, we will switch the order of the candidates.
Mike Ciresi on Health Care:
Ciresi comes from a unique position that neither of the other candidates can claim. He, as a business owner, has experienced first hand paying for the health insurance of employees.
As your U.S. Senator I will work to create a system that’s goals are to:
Provide universal coverage
Keep people healthy through preventative health care and early detection and cure of diseases – before they become chronic problems
Keep people affordably insured for their lifetime – from job to job, and through retirement, and forever eliminate the term “pre-existing condition”
Reduce error and waste by making a single, electronic record of a patient’s history accessible to those who need it, when they need it, but with the highest level of security to protect our privacy
Provide everyone with cost-effective medical, prescription and mental health insurance coverage at an affordable price, and which allows people to choose their provider and purchase more options
We will make this cost-effective because we will:
Use the collective buying power of all Americans and their employers to provide quality insurance at an affordable price.
Strengthen existing programs such as Medicare which covers seniors, SCHIP which covers children, and the VA that covers veterans.
Require drug companies to negotiate with Medicare.
Ciresi doesn't go so far as to advocate for a single payer system but does want to make it so that everyone has some sort of coverage. Once again, the only problem I see here is an unwillingness to explain just how such a system will be financed. While some of this may have been explained in other speeches to the public, the casual observer to his site will find him without recommendations on how to finance such a system. The positive in this plan appears to be the improved record keeping system touted by Ciresi to cut down on error and waste.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer on Health Care:
Health care reform depends on a willingness to confront the powerful health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I support a national single payer health care system that will:
Provide universal coverage;
Control costs and end the for-profit health care system;
Focus on prevention;
Offer parity for physical and mental health needs;
Anticipate chronic health care needs;
Respond effectively to public health emergencies; and,
Be funded through progressive taxation.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer one ups both Ciresi and Franken by essentially labeling their methods of universal coverage without deeper reform only half measures. Nelson-Pallmeyer, through fundamentally changing the way we deliver health care, wants to institute single payer universal health coverage. Also, he is brave enough to come out and say that he believes it should be paid through progressive taxation. A recent poll indicates that while Americans are essentially split over single payer healthcare, a significant percentage of people aren't even sure what that would entail. If Nelson-Pallmeyer could take his message to the United States Senate, perhaps he could begin the process of informing those Americans of the benefits of single payer.
Al Franken on Health Care:
We need to go to universal health care.
A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system. But I believe that today’s political environment requires a creative and flexible approach to covering every American. Here’s mine:
I would require every state to cover every one of its citizens, and the federal government to provide funding to fulfill that requirement. Each individual state would be free to offer a variety of options, as long as they add up to universal coverage, giving us 51 laboratories (if you count DC) to figure out which system works best.
I would add one constraint: each state must cover every child 18 and under with a single-payer system similar to Medicare.
And speaking of Medicare, I would fight to make Medicare a true single-payer system. Right now, we overpay insurance companies, who then turn around and cherry-pick only the healthiest seniors to cover. That’s not fair and we should change it.
But universal coverage isn’t enough. We must also address the quality and cost of care. I think we should start with the following measures:
Medicare should be allowed to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower prices on prescription drugs.
Simple, secure, electronic medical records would cut down on errors and streamline care.
We should establish safe staffing levels for nurses – when the people on the front lines of health care tell us that they need reinforcements to maintain their high standards of care, we should listen.
We should pass Paul Wellstone’s bill ensuring full mental health parity.
The essential message out of Franken appears to be that while single payer would be desirable, he is not willing to stake his political career on advocating such a program. It does not speak very highly of Franken to recognize the advantage of single payer but advocate for something that is only a patch to the current system. Additionally, Franken stops short of giving details on how he would pay for such a system.
When it comes to health care, the advantage clearly goes to Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for his ability to recognize and truly advocate the advantages of a single payer health system. While all three of these candidates offer significantly better options than the 'stay the course' options of the Republican Party, Nelson-Pallmeyer offers a road to real change in how we take care of Americans across the country. To top it off, he is brave enough to say that such a system can and should be paid for with taxes that force those that have the ability to pay to pay their fair share.
I encourage anyone who supports one of these three candidates to comment about the positive aspects of their candidates health care positions. Perhaps I missed some policy statements or other evidence highlighting what your candidate will do in terms of reforming health care.
Stay Tuned, in the next episode we will examine these three candidates on Iraq.
Inspired by commentary at MNBlue on the United States Senate race here Minnesota, I thought it was high time we had some comparative analysis of these three DFL contenders on various issues. We begin, then, with the issue of education for our first installment in a series of posts on the issues.
While each of these three candidates herald the public school system and recognize that on the federal level the problems of NCLB and unfunded mandates are the primary cause for concern, they have varying methods of addressing the issues in question.
Al Franken on Education:
In addition to funding issues, I believe that the No Child Left Behind law must be dramatically reformed or scrapped altogether. I'm for accountability, but I'm not for the deeply-flawed NCLB system.
End arbitrary performance standards and replace them with models that measure and reward progress achieved during the school year.
Encourage more flexibility in measuring student achievement. Allow teachers to participate in the evaluation of their students' progress over the course of a year instead of at a single point in time (for instance, by assembling student portfolios).
Franken describes the need to move away from evaluating schools based on the results of one test. However, there is no explanation of how such a student portfolio system would operate and how much flexibility schools across the country would have in implementing this system. Also, there is little discussion of how to effectively evaluate growth from year to year. The Ciresi campaign seems to understand far better, that comprehensive evaluation across grade levels is far more sensible than comparing students in one year to the students the following year.
Stop duplicative testing. My daughter taught third grade in a public school for three years, and she was constantly frustrated by the amount of classroom time that had to be devoted to testing and test preparation. While we need to measure student progress, too many districts have overlapping district, state, and federal tests. We should audit tests at the district, state, and federal level to ensure that this doesn't happen.
This statement is somewhat odd given the previous support for moving away from testing based assessment. The question becomes, what role will testing play in the student assessment proposed by Mr. Franken? If testing is pared down to just one, haven't we essentially moved back to a system of one test determining the "progress" of our students? Franken has essentially adopted the reform platform of Education Minnesota, NEA, and AFT. If that is the case, it makes me wonder how much of it he truly believes versus how much he simply wanted to gain the support of the unions.
Mike Ciresi on Education:
I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed to notice that Ciresi does not have a K-12 education statement on his issues page. While the issues facing higher education are prominently displayed and important, I cannot understand why Ciresi, who has done much through his private foundation, doesn't have an issue statement on K-12 education.
There is some evidence as to his education beliefs in the video section of his campaign website, so we will use those statements in this analysis.
"I would introduce, immediately, a bill to scrap No Child Left Behind."
...
"This bill has left all of our children behind."
Ciresi does much to explain what is wrong with No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, he does not offer solutions on what initiatives or proposals he has to replace the program. Much like Franken, Ciresi touts the need to find another method of evaluating children beyond the punishment system of NCLB. He does, however, tout some of the ways he has involved himself in education. Specifically, through the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation Board and his own private foundation, the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Foundation for Children. While it is important to understand the problem, it is equally important to offer solutions to those problems. Education solutions appears to be a weak point for the Ciresi campaign.
Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer on Education:
Shifting the costs of education from general taxes to property taxes also strains budgets, aggravates inequalities and erodes financial support for public education.
I support increased state and federal funding for k-12 public education. I support a federally funded universal preschool program for 3-5 year-olds to be paid for with reductions in military spending. I also call for ending tax breaks given by the Bush administration to the richest 1% of US families and redirecting those resources to make college and university education affordable to all students.
Nelson Pallmeyer essentially sticks to the topic of funding education and avoids the topic of education reform. While it seems feasible to accomplish the rollback of Bush tax breaks, I simply do not see how he will accomplish reducing military spending. Taking on military spending during a rather contentious time of war v. peace speaks to the willingness of Nelson Pallmeyer to take on the big fights. However, as a realist, I think we need to address extracting ourselves from Iraq before we jump headlong into issues of military spending. At the very least, Nelson Pallmeyer has thought about how he might pay for the programs he supports rather than simply just proposing them. Neither the Franken or Ciresi campaigns appear to offer ways in which they will pay for unfunded mandates or new initiatives.
With respect to education, I am going to have to give the edge to Al Franken. Purely based upon the comprehensive nature of the issue statement on his campaign site, Fanken has the advantage. While I have concerns about the level to which he is simply pandering to the education union and how much he truly believes in the rhetoric found there, it is hard to deny that he is offering the more specific solutions and revisions of NCLB. Ciresi and Nelson-Pallmeyer, though, have an advantage over Franken that they really ought to be highlighting with respect to education. Nelson-Pallmeyer as an educator with experience in the classroom and Ciresi through his education advocacy work should both be using these tools when touting their message.
I encourage anyone who supports one of these three candidates to comment about the positive aspects of their candidates education positions. Perhaps I missed some policy statements or other evidence highlighting what your candidate will do in terms of reforming education.
Stay Tuned, in the next episode we will examine these three candidates on Health Care.
Between writing about the upcoming 6th District race and the race for the Presidency there has been a glaring lack of attention paid by myself to the upcoming United States Senate race here in Minnesota. After some thought and a little research, here are my early perceptions of this important contest to remove wishy washy Norm Coleman from the seat previously held by Senator Wellstone.
The Candidates:
My initial inclination was to support the big name in this race, Al Franken. However, that was before my two brief encounters with the man. The first being at the 2007 Education Minnesota Representative Convention at which a friend and I approached to speak with him as he worked the room of educators. At the time I didn't think much of the fact that he barely looked at us when we spoke and constantly scanned the room. After all, there were lots of people there and as a candidate he was trying to reach as many as possible. Fast forward to last week at the house party of House District 16B candidate Steve Andrews. I found myself speaking with Franken one on one in a far more intimate setting. Literally, in the middle of our conversation, Franken walked away to speak with someone coming down the stairs. Even during our conversation his body language and mannerisms indicated a lack of interest in anything I had to say. Now I can certainly be a boring person, but having had similar incidences occur on two separate occasions tells me that this behavior was not directed at myself but rather was the modus operandi of a man believing he doesn't have to work very hard in order to win the nomination to face Norm Coleman. Therefore, I can not support Mr. Franken for United States Senate! Despite what Education Minnesota says about Al Franken being a "strong supporter of educators" I have seen little in my interactions with him to indicate that he supports me. In fact, if Franken gets the nomination it may be one of the few times that I find someone other than a Democrat to support come November.
I certainly could see myself supporting the candidacy of Mike Ciresi. After perusing his website for issue statements and video I found several things that indicate a candidate in line with my particular viewpoints. The fact that he understands the need for "a surge in diplomacy" to solve the myriad of problems in Iraq and that he is pragmatic in his vow to "support a withdrawal plan that gets us our combat troops out within 8 months" and "a plan to redeploy our troops into training functions and on to the borders of Iraq to interdict people who are coming in from either Iran or Syria."
Beyond the issues associated with dealing with Iraq, I am always on the lookout for a candidate who understands education and can effectively voice the concerns of educators to others within the government. This video indicated to me that Mike Ciresi understands the primary complaints educators have with NCLB. While I don't know that the entire program needs to be scrapped because at a basic level it has sound goals, but Ciresi clearly understands what it is about NCLB that doesn't work. I have claimed all along that testing one group and comparing those scores to an entirely different group does little to prove either progress or failure.
Everything that I have seen and heard from Ciresi has been positive and I would have no problem supporting his candidacy.
I heard Jack Nelson Pallmeyer speak last week at the Steve Andrews event and was impressed with this candidate that I had really never heard anything about. To top it off, he has the support of Blue Man and in my book that is a pretty hefty endorsement. He has spoken with each of these candidates far more than I and anyone who was wise enough to throw their support behind Bob Olson is a reputable source in my book. Pallmeyer has a rock solid liberal stance on nearly every issue I care about and appears to have the passion we need to challenge Norm Coleman and more importantly to once again inspire the electorate ala Paul Wellstone.
On the issue of education, Pallmeyer acknowledges that in order to succeed we must invest more resources on books and teachers than we do on guns and tanks.
I support increased state and federal funding for k-12 public education. I support a federally funded universal preschool program for 3-5 year-olds to be paid for with reductions in military spending. I also call for ending tax breaks given by the Bush administration to the richest 1% of US families and redirecting those resources to make college and university education affordable to all students.
This brings up a problem we should all hope to have when choosing our leaders. That problem is choosing between two or more candidates that are both highly qualified to hold the position and inspirational in their message. I cannot honestly say whom I will support on February 5th but between Ciresi and Pallmeyer we have top notch choices. Hopefully people can see past the veneer of stardom surrounding Franken and see fit to choose between these other two candidates.
Welcome to Liberal in the Land of Conservative!
I, Political Muse, will be your host and my hope is to provide a dash of political commentary, a sprinkle of policy wonkishness, and a double dose of snarkiness to the blogosphere in Minnesota.
If you have any tips on local conservative foolishness or if you want to challenge me to a duel, there are a variety of ways to keep in touch:
With the DFL Convention fast approaching and Al Franken being beaten down from both the left and right of the political spectrum, one has to wonder if this isn't the perfect opportunity for a Draft Ciresi movement.
