The head of the Minnesota Gambling Control Board said that a solicitation for funds on the national website of the Barack Obama presidential campaign may constitute a raffle, which is a violation of Minnesota gambling laws.

Tom Barrett, executive director of the board, said he will ask the state Department of Public Safety to look into the matter.

The Obama campaign said Monday night that the solicitation does not constitute a raffle. "We are not conducting a raffle of any kind," said Nick Kimball, a spokesman for the Obama campaign in Minnesota.

The Obama website, which is soliciting funds of up to $2,300, says anyone who makes a contribution to the Obama campaign of $5 or more between now and July 31 "could be one of 10 supporters chosen to meet Barack backstage" in Denver.

It further says that the 10 selected supporters can bring a guest and will be flown to Denver to spend two days at the Democratic Party national convention, including hearing Obama's speech on Aug. 28.

Barrett said his office regulates only charitable gambling. The state Gambling Board website specifically states that one cannot conduct a raffle as a fundraiser for a political campaign. Only nonprofit charities may conduct raffles.

He said three elements make a drawing a form of gambling under state law: if it costs money to participate, if it involves "the luck of the draw" in which no skill is involved and if one wins something of value.

According to Rasmussen Reports, Congressional approval rates hit yet another all time low....a whopping 9% (HT Ed Morrissey).

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

This all time low is (in large part) fueled by Congressional inaction on the rising cost of fuel and goods. As the pocketbooks of average Americans are stretched thinner still, all Congress can do is blow hot air.

Democrats in Congress promised to make energy policy a high priority when they returned after the Independence Day break. Instead, they have quietly scrubbed the schedule of any votes on their energy bill, afraid Republicans will make them vote on increased domestic oil production and force them to choose between popular sentiment for drilling and their environmentalist allies. Their strategy? Well, the Hill chooses a good quote:

“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.

This lead one cartoonist to inspiration.

Into this atmosphere, Senatorial candidate Al Franken introduced his energy policy (as reported by Gary Gross).

In the short term, Franken would look to a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, with the money going to alternative energy research and in tax breaks to low-income and middle-income families struggling with energy bills, probably by adding more money to the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program.

He’d also end government subsidies to oil companies. And he wants to study the effect of speculation on oil futures trading, which some say are driving prices up.

Now Democrats keep talking about getting rid of the speculators, but they always completely miss the one sure fire way to end speculation....INCREASE SUPPLY! If the supply of crude oil is increased, the speculators would sell because the product that they are holding is no longer in short supply. That is the very nature of speculative trading.

I mentioned last week that this is the standard energy line, up and down the ticket. No deviation in talking points are allowed by the Masters of the DNC. Meanwhile, Republican candidates all up and down the ticket are talking about different ideas. Some are advocating an all emcompassing multi-pronged plan with increased domestic production of oil and increased nuclear, clean coal and alternative energy development (John McCain) and others are focusing on the drilling alone (Congressman Lynn Westmoreland for examply) and that is what is going to make the difference in this election.

Congressional Democrats are fiddling while Rome burns around them. If the American people are smart, it will be another "out with the incumbents" year and since this year the Democrats have more incumbents, their odds of losing more seats - and thus maybe the majority - are much bigger than they were even two short months ago. Good work guys!

I got a very happy email tonight! True North was credentialed to cover the RNC Convention and yours truly was one of the three bloggers from TN to apply. We all still have to pass security checks, which for me should not be a problem....I had to pass one when the Logical Husband was in the Army and I also got screened during the 2004 election so that the Junior Logician could share a stage with Vice President Cheney.

While I am not yet sure what (or who) I will be covering, I will be sure to post whatever I cover for TN here so that can all keep up on the Convention comings and goings.

The New York Times editorial board went to bed with a virgin and woke up with a … well, a pro, in milder terms, or so they seem to imply in today’s unhappy missive. The editorial castigates Obama for his replacement of just about everything he has professed from January 2007 to May 2008 with his all-new, 50%-more-”centery” agenda that rejects everything that made him attractive to the Left in the first place. And they wonder where it will all stop:

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

At first blush, it appears that the Times is taking the Senator to task here however the Logical Husband pointed out the following...

We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms.

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies” about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

graz (1000+ posts)

Thu Jul-03-08 04:08 PM Response to Reply #4

He's going to be painted as a flip-flopper on the CORE ISSUE of his campaign. What. The. F?

In a second, quickly-scheduled press availability, the Senator insists his position on Iraq has not changed.

“I intend to end this war… That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.”

Though he also says:

“I have always reserved the right to do what’s best for America’s national interest… I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.”

You have to love two distinct policy positions in one presser.

UPDATE #2: Apparently I am not the only one who thinks that "Whiplash" is the appropriate term for Obama's changes. When it's that obvious....

"The people who voted wouldn't have filled Edwards Stadium" — the football stadium at Brigham Young University — said Cannon. He added that now that he is free from elective politics he will be talking more candidly about what is going on in Utah and America.

"Clearly there are some out there who hate me. And every stinking one of them voted" on Tuesday, Cannon joked. Many who supported him "went to the lake" on vacation. Cannon said he had the best voter ID program of all his campaigns this year. "But for whatever reason, people didn't vote."

While not anticipating he will run for office again, Cannon said he will keep his campaign account going, if only to try to bring "more reasonable people" into Utah GOP politics.
"I'm going to make a serious effort to use the Internet" and other means to get grass-roots Republicans more involved in GOP mass meetings — "to stand against the bulwark" of the "harsh, boorish people" who are now being elected delegates and other party leaders.

Eric Black and MinnPost have been the source of most of the coverage into the various scandals in the MN Attorney General's office. Black's coverage has been quite fair, factual and devoid of any personal preference toward either side in the story. In todays story, Black can't help letting a little snark in - and honestly I don't blame him.

As a matter of written policy, Mr. Hatch doesn't speak to me and he extended the same courtesy to my esteemed MinnPost colleague G.R. Anderson who covered the Monday meeting at which Legislative Auditor James Nobles presented the results of his recent review of the attorney general's office and some of the alleged improprieties.

As you may recall, former AG Hatch does not deign to talk to mere bloggers - even those with a career as storied as Mr. Black. After all, we all know bloggers have an agenda....unlike former AG Hatch.....

But Mr. Hatch's media relations policies do allow him to publicly impugn the motives of those who question his conduct and possibly to do so without necessarily limiting himself to the facts of the matter.

To be precise: Rep. Simon did ask some questions of Nobles at the Monday meeting about whether everything under Mr. Hatch was always done strictly according to Hoyle.

And Mr. Hatch, in explaining things to MPR's excellent Tim Pugmire, did say that Rep. Simon was motivated by revenge because he "lost his job in the attorney general's office."

I may not agree with Rep. Simon's stands on most issues however I have it on very good authority (from someone who works with him) that this is not Rep. Simon's MO. If anything, he is in a better position as a legislator than a mere assistant AG. That is not to say that this kind of "hit" isn't former AG Hatch's MO. As my dear friend Gary pointed out earlier today, not only is former AG Hatch very adept at playing political hardball - he thrives on it. This was a pre-emptive strike on a legislator who is just trying to do his job....looking out for the citizens of Minnesota. It is something that maybe the current and former AG's should have kept in mind in their day to day office dealings.

It's just a thought.

The Legislative Audit Commission met yesterday to discuss Legislative Auditor Jim Noble's look into the Attorney Generals office. What started as a look into employer/employee relations has turned into something deeper and potentially more serious for both AG Swanson and former AG Mike Hatch. While the initial reporting on the audit was quick to claim vindication for AG Swanson (which the report really didn't do) because the employer/employee relations weren't in the LA's perview, the report did uncover financial misdealings which ARE under the LA's perview.

Attorney General Lori Swanson and her predecessor, Mike Hatch, have come under question for their role in a court settlement that diverted money to a nonprofit whose political wing endorsed Hatch's bid for governor.

The Minnesota Independent reports on even larger allegations raised.

Workers in the Minnesota Attorney General’s office have alleged under oath that current AG Lori Swanson and her predecessor, Mike Hatch, may have illegally diverted federal monies meant to investigate Medicaid fraud, and that a legal settlement negotiated by Swanson and Hatch financially benefited a nonprofit organization that later endorsed Hatch’s campaign for governor.

Diversion of funds to private political entities by the office that is supposed to protect the state from that...lovely. What is even more lovely is that settlement in question was specifically negotiated to keep the money out of state coffers and routed to an organization that was friendly to then AG Hatch!

The $1 apparently knocked off the Capital One Bank settlement to allow then-Attorney General Mike Hatch to direct the proceeds speaks volumes.

For anyone who missed it, the AG's Office settled a lawsuit against the well-known credit card issuer in 2006 for an oddly precise $749,999. Had the case settled for a dollar more, the money would have gone into the general fund for the Legislature to distribute. Because it fell a hair's breadth beneath the $750,000 threshold, Hatch was able to direct the distribution of two-third of the proceeds to two nonprofits -- $250,000 to the Legal Aid Society (a good cause, but also a politically popular one) and $249,999 to the community action group ACORN (which reportedly later endorsed Hatch in his gubernatorial bid). The other third of the settlement went to the state to cover the costs of investigation.

Emphasis mine. The AG's office - led by then AG Hatch and his chief lieutenant Swanson - used the power of his office to reward political cronies. It confirms what many had suspected about the former AG.

Further investigations into the misuse of federal funds and the Capital One settlement will be part of the next normal annual review of the AG's office, scheduled for early next year. In the meantime, LA Nobles suggested that the legislature provide civil service protection to the AG office employees in lieu of the unionization. This seems like a common sense compromise to a very sticky situation.

Deseret Morning News:

. . . the current 'one size fits all' approach doesn't offer enough incentive. It's time teachers who are worth their weight in gold get paid that gold. Just as it's time for teachers who simply 'phone it in' to be bucked from the horse so true professionals can run the show.

Salt Lake Tribune:
For the first time, Utah school districts are seriously considering how they can distribute bonuses or pay raises to teachers based on how well they do their jobs.

. . . That would benefit not only dedicated, talented teachers but also their students, as mediocre teachers would sharpen their skills in order to earn more money.

. . . [But] there are two myths that must be dispelled before merit systems can be effective. The first is that there are no mediocre or poor teachers in our schools. The second is that, even if there were, there is no way to differentiate between them and the excellent teachers. Both these myths have been used by teacher association leaders to undermine past efforts to adopt effective merit-pay plans.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias.

Leaked minutes of the Joint Operations Command (JOC), which has orchestrated the violence since Mugabe lost a first round of voting in March, revealed that it is willing to wipe out opposition supporters.

A 10,000-strong youth militia loyal to the Zanu-PF has been created to enforce its wishes in case regular army units refuse, according to Zimbabwean human rights agencies.

I would like to comment on John Adams recent letter to the editor (R-E, June 20) regarding my work on tax relief in the Minnesota Legislature.

While I appreciate Mr. Adams participation in the opinion section of the newspaper, he does a disservice to readers when he uses this forum to confuse and mislead.