Wow, yesterday was one of my best days. I didn’t know the race for MN GOP chair/vice chair would have people so interested. I guess I should have known better, as this weekend the MN GOP will be electing its leaders. The amount of traffic I’m getting shows me there are still people who care, which is great.

On Ron Eibensteiner

Ron needs to go for reasons that are wonderfully expressed by the lovely and intelligent Margaret Martin.

Eibensteiner failed in the 2004 elections in Minnesota by losing 13 seats in the State House. There was a plethora of problems, but the biggest was the top down mentality the entire party had last year. Everyone cared about only one thing, the presidency. Unfortunately, focusing on the presidency didn’t help GOP in Minnesota. Personally, I’m convinced that running good candidates at the bottom, house races and such, helps the top end races more than the top end races help themselves.

Tony Garcia exlains how he thinks of the race here.

Now, who wold I rather have as Chair? Carey or Pulkrabek?

I’m not sure. Ron Carey has been endorsed by three former Party Chairman.

Eva Young notes an issue with Ron Carey.

Pulkrabek was a succesful county commissioner, and he has a strong environmental focus (which is good for a green state like Minnesota). However, I think he’s too small a fish yet. Carey seems the best choice. (Andy from Residual Forces….you should run…).

No matter what, the case against Eibensteiner are strong.

The case for re-electing him are nothing to laugh at. Supporters of his will cite that Minnesota became a swing state under Ron, and that conceal carry was passed, and that Minnesota didn’t raise taxes. It’s hard for Ron to take credit for all of that. Minnesota saw a change after 9-11, and the fallout from the Wellstone memorial was a factor in the 2002 races. The 2004 race was a failure. Getting the state house back into GOP hands happened in 1998, before Ron was chair. Methinks Sviggum had more to do with the success in the state house. So that leaves the 2000 race. 1-3 is good for baseball but it’s a poor record in politics.

On Eric Hoplin

Sam Kinison has some hilarious bits where he just starts screaming. Everytime I think of Hoplin I want to start screaming. (Kinison is hilarious in the Rodney Dangerfield classic “Back to school”).

Luckily, I’m not alone on this.

Bill Gilles
Aaron Solem
Tony Garcia

Plenty of Leftys

These two, Eibensteiner and Hoplin are going to be a PR nightmare for the GOP in 2006. Oppose them.

You’ll have to excuse me, I’m still experimenting with the look of the blog, the Amazon.com associates stuff, ads and the rest. Hopefully I’ll eventually tweak it so it looks cleaner, if that’s possible. Also, hopefully, it won’t be so blegish or something.

And Eric Hoplin sucks.

There, I said it.

Random Link o’ the Day

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/adaccess/browse.html

“Walloper” commented about CFACT’s money source and why from that one should be skeptical of CFACT’s activities. However, from Captain Ed we learn that a full third of scientists are unethical in their research, many of them (15%) adjust their data and methods from pressure from their monetary source.

A third of the scientists in a nationwide survey admitted to violating some of the bedrock rules of scientific research, according to a report by a team of Minnesota researchers.

The survey, of more than 3,200 U.S. scientists, found that hardly anyone admitted to falsifying data outright.

But a surprising 33 percent confessed to other kinds of misconduct — such as claiming credit for someone else’s work, or changing results because of pressure from a study’s sponsor.

Well, go figure.

Just keep saying to yourself “Crichton only writes fiction”

My father wanted to type a reply to this Speed Gibson post.

Powerblogs didn’t allow my dad to comment on the post so I figured I’d post it here and give my dad his first taste of Blog:

Since all money is fungible, especially when it has been sent off to Washington, the ‘trust fund’ has always been a fiction. There is just nothing in any account in the social security office that has any real money that can be used to pay benefits. It is all general fund moneys, because all money that the government has can be made to pay (one way or another) for all obligations of the federal government. That is what ‘fungible’ means! As we reach the point when current income can no longer pay for current benefits, the feds will have to borrow money to pay for old folks like me to live on. When the benefits become an intolerable burden on the working public, something will have to change. The only way people my son’s age will be guaranteed anything at all is to have personal accounts, period. Any other solution is a just a tax increase (either openly or hidden in the small print) just like the bipartisan committee ‘solved’ the problem in the 80’s.

Of course, social security is a big deal for my dad. He makes some great points. Maybe I should write a column about it…