On the heels of the unscientific poll taken by Chris Truscott, I decided to reveal the results of my own unscientific poll. With only 29 respondents, the poll has a margin of error of, well, a lot!
Here is the political breakdown of those people taking the poll: Given the small number of people that took the poll, the only telling data here to look at how the 26 people professing to be some level of Democrat answered the questions about the match-up between Coleman/Franken or Coleman/Ciresi.
In a Coleman/Ciresi match-up, not only do ALL of the Democrats remain with Ciresi, there appears to be a self proclaimed conservative crossing over to vote for Ciresi.
In a Coleman/Franken match-up, it appears as though around 25% of the people proclaiming to be Democrats cross over and vote for Coleman. Again, though, this data is extremely skewed given that only a small number of people (some of whom are probably the ardent Ciresi supporters from Draft Ciresi) chose to take the poll.
Here are some of the unedited comments from the poll:
I can not support Al Franken because of his attacks on women in the concealed as "satire".
Though I wouldn't be happy about it, I'd be more inclined to vote for Franken. If there were a 3rd party candidate, I'd vote for them over either of these two.
I am a member of NETWORK, a Catholic Social Justice Lobby, and Coleman's voting record is 65% of the time with NETWORK issues. A much better record than many Democratic congress people.
If Mike was as lackluster in the general as he was in the endorsement race, we'd be losing this one with a capital L. BAD IDEA.
At this point, I am in agreement with Truscott that Ciresi will not be jumping back into this race. Furthermore, I don't believe that it would be at all helpful to our chances of winning this seat. As I have said before, a draft Ciresi movement would have been appropriate for the state endorsing convention but now would just further divide the party. As much as I like Ciresi and wish that he were the DFL choice to take on Coleman, it is too late for that. While I have been advised by some very smart friends to get behind Al Franken, I still haven't reached that point but time will tell.
The Draft Ciresi movement has created a Facebook site to try to extend its reach. In addition to this site, there are two names (Sara Shaffer & Tim Halsten) listed as the Administrators. Are these two the founders of this movement? A quick google search provided little information.
If they are going to start using their real names it certainly will add credibility to a movement that has been suspect since its discovery. In other news, Chris Truscott sent off some questions to Mr. Ciresi and hopefully we will get to see those responses soon.
Chris Truscott sent some questions off to the folks over at Draft Ciresi to get some answers to this ongoing mystery. As I have stated before (here, here, and here), I am still cautiously skeptical about this movement. It is not that I wouldn't like to see Mike Ciresi as the candidate to depose Norm Coleman but at this point in the process it seems counter productive.
Here are his questions:
1.) Your site was born this week. Why didn't you launch Draft Ciresi before the DFL state convention? It would seem like pre-convention would've been a good time to build up some momentum.
2.) Why publish anonymously? I routinely criticize Al Franken's campaign under my own name and I've worked for—and collected checks from—other DFL candidates in the past. In my mind, any party that would black-ball dissenters is one I don't want to belong to.
3.) Is anyone on the Draft Ciresi team a former paid staffer or high-level volunteer for the Ciresi campaign?
4.) Would anyone on the Draft Ciresi team vote against Al Franken (for Norm Coleman or Jesse Ventura/Dean Barkley)?
5.) Why Mike Ciresi? His campaign didn't generate a lot of heat during the endorsement race. How can he win a primary? He's 0-for-1 on that front already.
6.) Has any member of your team been in contact with Mike Ciresi since he dropped out of the endorsement race?
7.) Anything else people should know about your group?
I completely agree with Truscott that a pre-convention draft movement would have made the most sense and when I suggested such a movement that is precisely what I meant.
The thing that disturbs me most about the anonymity is that they are not even willing to reveal themselves to other DFLers. I remain anonymous but am more than willing to sign my name to private emails.
You can go read their response in its entirety over at Chris Truscott. Also, I am continuing to collect responses to a survey about this race and if you haven't yet taken that survey you do that here (Click Here to take survey). If I can get enough responses it may give us some answers about the effectiveness of a Ciresi re-entry.
While the anonymous folks over at Draft Ciresi continue to address the concerns of many DFLers (including myself) that they are little more than an arm of Michael Brodkorb's smear machine or of the larger Republican smear machine I sent off an email to Mike Ciresi. My hope was to get some sort of statement on this new website and on whether or not he was considering re-entering the United States Senate race.
Here is my email:
Dear Mr. Ciresi,
My name is *redacted* and have been a longtime supporter of your candidacy for United States Senate. I am also a blogger in Central Minnesota ("Liberal in the Land of Conservative"). Right now there is a new site up devoted to a "Draft Ciresi" movement and although I would support such a movement I am somewhat concerned that it is little more than a Republican front group. Do you have a response for this new movement/site? Also, I am hoping you could provide me with comment about the likelihood of you re-entering this race.
Thank You
*redacted*
In response to this email, Mr. Ciresi indicated to me that he has "no idea who instituted the "Draft Ciresi" website" and that the website is not authorized by him. Also, he indicated that he is keeping his options open and will be making a decision by July 15th.
I continue to have mixed feelings about this entire situation. When I wrote about a "Draft Ciresi" movement it was before the DFL Convention and my hope was that Ciresi would enter the race at the convention to challenge Franken for the nomination. At this point, I don't know that a Ciresi re-entry would work or be healthy for DFL chances to defeat Coleman.
I encourage everyone to take the survey I created (Click Here to take survey) so that some hard data could be displayed showing what the effects of a Ciresi campaign would have on the United States Senate race.
The folks over at the Draft Ciresi Blog were quick to respond to my skepticism this morning about their true intentions. While they gave a rundown of their DFL credentials they did not find me trustworthy enough to reveal their identities. Their belief is that revealing their identities will get them black balled from the DFL. I find that a little hard to believe but who am I to question the feelings of others.
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point and offer them this advice on building the Draft Ciresi movement:
1. Make this movement about why we should draft Ciresi rather than about why we shouldn't choose either Coleman or Franken. Certainly, there is room in the process of touting Ciresi to compare him to the two other candidates but a movement such as this must be about positive inspiration rather than negative attacks.
2. Don't become an unwitting pawn in the games played by one Michael Brodkorb. He and his shock politics have little to do with finding the best candidate and if Ciresi had been the chosen DFL candidate he would be doing exactly the same thing he is attempting to do to Al Franken.
3. Go after Norm Coleman every bit as hard as you go after Al Franken. While Franken isn't perfect, Coleman isn't anything to celebrate either.
I have created a very unscientific poll for readers to determine how sensible a Draft Ciresi movement could be: Click Here to take survey
This morning I opened my inbox to find this link from an anonymous source. The believer in me really wants for this movement to bring Mike Ciresi back to the race to be true and to be growing. However, the cynic in me wonders if this site, operated by some folks who don't reveal their identities, is little more than a Republican creation to attack Al Franken from another angle.
The site makes the claim that Al Franken is NOT their target:
However, in reading through the posts that have been written you soon realize that the focus of the site is most definitely not Norm Coleman. While I remain a believer in some sort of Draft Ciresi movement I remain somewhat suspicious of this particular site and its intentions.
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.
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.
In a matter of days, Minnesotans will go to their local caucuses and make decisions that will affect the direction of our country in the coming years. Those decisions, between old and new, change and stagnation, or between the establishment and the people will define what types of individuals will be making decisions and representing you and I. This blog has been a labor of love over the past 6 months and has yielded what appears to be some influence. Therefore, I make these caucus recommendations:
President of the United States
Democrats must be honest with ourselves and realize that we have had a truly amazing set of choices this election season. Down the line, with the possible exception of curmudgeon Mike Gravel, Democratic choices have been difficult only because we had to choose from the best of the best while the Republicans have spent much of the season wondering if it might be possible to dig up Ronald Reagan and run him as a resurrected human possibly negating the 22nd Amendment. My candidate of immediate choice, Joe Biden, took a quick exit in this contest to regain the White House. Since that time I have either mulled over my choices or completely ignored the field all together. However, it is time to ante up and decide which of the remaining candidates can best bring this country back to a state of "normalcy". That is why I, for one, will be caucusing for Barack Obama on February 5th.
Over the past months I have seen a man develop from a relatively empty candidate with a brilliant knack for oratory to a man that has withstood the Clinton machine and lived to tell the tale. His understanding of issues has been tested and honed in this contest against more experienced candidates and it has served to combine brilliant oratory with the less glamorous knowledge of details.
While my friend Blue Man (and Blue Woman) has clearly chosen Nelson-Pallmeyer and I encourage everyone to check out his reasons (here, here, here, and here), I am throwing my hat into the ring for Mike Ciresi. After researching, reading, and listening to Mr. Ciresi I believe it is he who understands the issues facing myself and other educators across the state. Obviously, education tops my list of issues and tends to dictate my choices in candidates. I have heard the arguments about mandates and the arguments about punishment over praise of failing schools, but it the issue of testing that really drives my opposition to NCLB. When I heard Mike Ciresi describe the utter foolishness in the method by which we test our students I immediately connected with his message. I have been thinking and saying this all along and it boggles the mind that others don't see how useless it is to determine progress in education by comparing one class to another over determining progress on the basis of a class or a student over time. This, coupled with the fact that testing does little to evaluate critical thinking skills, leads me to believe that Mike Ciresi sees what I see.
When you couple that message with the fantastic things Ciresi has done through the Foundation for Children that I have discussed earlier, I simply cannot see myself supporting someone else. That is why I, for one, will be caucusing for Mike Ciresi on February 5th.
This is going to be an amazing election season with many difficult battles ahead of us and I truly believe that nominating these two individuals will benefit Minnesota and the United States. I encourage everyone, whomever they are caucusing for, to attend their caucuses to have their voice heard so that we can elect the best and brightest to a government that hasn't always been filled with the best and brightest.
On a side note: I recently learned that my wife, who I had assumed I had brainwashed enough to give me a second liberal vote, had considered voting for Rudy Giuliani! Obviously, I am still somewhat distraught by this development and would appreciate your thoughts and prayers.
Also, remember that this Monday, February 4th I will be hosting a live chat here to discuss the Presidential race, Minnesota races, and all things politics in the official chat room of Liberal in the Land of Conservative. For details, check out this blog post or shoot me an email. I am hoping for a good turnout and would encourage those of all political stripes to chime in. In fact, I have it on good authority that one of the standard bearers of the conservative movement, Gary Gross, will be joining the conversation.
A reader of my recent post discussing the United States Senate race here in Minnesota sent me a link to the foundation created by the law firm at which Mike Ciresi is the Chairman of the Executive Board.
This foundation, in its 10 year existence, has given out upwards of $9 million dollars in grants and other donations. What warms my heart is the millions of dollars given to various educational institutions throughout the country.
The mission was to create a permanent endowment, income from which would be distributed primarily in Minnesota and the Twin Cities, and provide support primarily in three areas: K-12 education programs, public health concerns and advocacy for social justice initiatives.
There is no way the reader could have known this, but I am what some would refer to as a theatre (note the proper spelling of the word!) geek. The theatre has been my second love for many years and was the source of many friendships throughout my years in college. So, when I read this,
The Minneapolis Public School District has received over $700,000 for the district's Academic Achievement through the Arts Program
and this,
In 2006, four theatres received grants totaling $500,000 to create innovative strategies for addressing issues of social justice and tolerance through the performing arts to youth.
there was an instant sense of gratitude towards this organization and its founders. A good friend of mine spent a significant number of years working at the Mixed Blood Theatre and its mission of social justice is exactly the message we should all support.
I have always been of the mind that theatre and the arts can be a huge benefit in the life of any child. Many kids, not typically served by sports programs, are able to find their voice and passion within the theatre (whether on stage or behind stage). Having created a theatre program at my school and having directed several shows throughout the years, I can honestly say that students benefit in tremendous ways and I thank Mr. Ciresi and his organization for supporting these crucial programs.
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:
Given the small number of people that took the poll, the only telling data here to look at how the 26 people professing to be some level of Democrat answered the questions about the match-up between Coleman/Franken or Coleman/Ciresi.
In a Coleman/Ciresi match-up, not only do ALL of the Democrats remain with Ciresi, there appears to be a self proclaimed conservative crossing over to vote for Ciresi.
In a Coleman/Franken match-up, it appears as though around 25% of the people proclaiming to be Democrats cross over and vote for Coleman. Again, though, this data is extremely skewed given that only a small number of people (some of whom are probably the ardent Ciresi supporters from Draft Ciresi) chose to take the poll.
