I love you Hillary!!!

You are my sHero.

I am now a registered Republican in a show of defiance, our family ended our lifelong democratic party affliation on Friday and became Republicans.

We will support John McCain in November to help defeat Obama.

Yesterday I received an email from Sen Joe Lieberman asking us Hillary Supporters to vote for John McCain.

HILLARY - this may sound counter-productive to all you believe in, but it is about WOMEN'S RIGHTS and sending a message to the Democratic Party - "No You Can't".

Hillary YOU are my President.

by Nancy in Cali at 6/7/2008 12:39:01 PM

My heart is broken……..i sobbed while she was giving this speech…..i will NOT vote for BO, i can’t!!! i don’t know what i’ll be doing come nov, maybe things will change in august…..i don’t know, it hurts too much to think about right now…..i want to make a difference, i thought that’s what i was doing this election period, the DNC is NOT going to give us a break………i will be here, support and donate and we’ll see what happens……

thanks for all the luv and support hillocrats

Gary Gross tipped me off to a Drudge Report link on the story below.

This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.

By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition, and building workers had quickly covered over the inflammatory title with large sheets of brown paper and blue masking tape.

Later, Mr. Arboleda, who is 27, said in an interview: “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.” ...The interview was abruptly ended as Mr. Arboleda was led off to the Midtown South police precinct for what he called an interrogation.

The individuals we interviewed under oath testified that the events involved in the allegations did occur. The individuals said—as Representative Simon relayed to the commission—that they felt pressured to act inappropriately, and they gave detailed accounts of specific events. However, they also stated that no inappropriate, unethical, or illegal actions resulted from the pressure.
In addition, the individuals we interviewed did not cite direct and specific job-related threats from either former-Attorney General Hatch or Attorney General Swanson in connection to the events in the allegations. Rather, the individuals we interviewed linked the pressure they felt to the fact that attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office work “at the pleasure” of the Attorney General; in other words, they can be dismissed or demoted “at will” rather than “for cause.” In addition, they said it was “well-known” that termination, demotion, or reassignment often fell on an employee who lost favor with the Attorney General. Some of the individuals we interviewed said they thought his or her demotion or reassignment was retaliation for having not followed a directive from either former-Attorney General Hatch or Attorney General Swanson, but acknowledged they could not prove the connection.
The individuals we interviewed also linked the pressure they felt to an office environment that focused on obtaining favorable media attention rather than the methodical legal work required to successfully litigate cases. Several of the individuals we interviewed pointed to cases they thought had merit that were dropped in favor of new cases that would draw media attention.
The individuals we interviewed focused a large share of their criticism and discontent on Mike Hatch, both as Attorney General and during the time he served as a deputy to Attorney General Swanson.2 Indeed, a principal criticism they made of Attorney General Swanson was that she appointed Mr. Hatch to a position in the office after Attorney General Swanson was sworn into office in 2007. This—and Mr. Hatch’s continued influence on the office—was said to be the “tipping point” that caused some current and former employees to voice criticisms and accusations against Attorney General Swanson. Mr. Hatch resigned his position with the office in May 2007.

While the individuals we interviewed provided sworn statements based on first-hand knowledge, their testimony did not establish a basis for further investigation by OLA. OLA has authority to investigate alleged noncompliance with legal requirements related to the use of public funds.

Since there was no mis-use of public funds the OLA can not investigate further.  That does not mean that the individuals involved (ie Ms. Lawler) can't do anything...we will have to wait and see what happens there.

We understand that legislators do not want to become involved in the recent unionization dispute in the Attorney General’s Office. However, the “at will” status of attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office is a separate issue, and we think it should be considered by the appropriate legislative committees.
The status of employees that work for the state’s elected constitutional officials is mixed. All employees in the Governor’s and Lieutenant Governor’s offices are in the unclassified civil service (in other words, they are “at will” employees). In contrast, most employees (60 of 77) in the Secretary of State’s Office are in the classified civil service, and most employees (86 of 110) in the State Auditor’s Office are in the classified civil service. In the Attorney General’s Office, 87 employees (secretaries and administrative staff) are in the classified civil service, and 267 employees (attorneys, legal assistants, investigators, etc.) are in the unclassified civil service.3
Since a state employee’s status as either a classified or unclassified employee is largely determined by law, we think a legislative review of the current status of attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office would be appropriate. The question for the Legislature to consider is whether the legal services provided by the Attorney General’s Office require that all of the attorneys in the office serve “at the pleasure” of the Attorney General.

"You had your shot," said former state representative Fran Bradley, who was chairing the convention. "What happened is the will of the majority and it's time to move on."

That irked Paul supporters who said they were victims of an undemocratic process. "We've been completely shut out of the process," said Lara Witte, a Paul supporter from Savage.

Bo Diddley, who died Monday at age 79 in Florida, was as essential to the creation of rock 'n' roll as Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley and Little Richard, though he seldom got the credit or the accolades that were showered on his better-known peers.

The singer-guitarist was a hard-scrabble visionary from the streets of Chicago's South Side who literally had to fight for everything he got. He created rock 'n' roll's essential rhythm, pioneered an approach to electric-guitar playing that was at least a decade ahead of its time and developed a vocal style and stage persona that influenced everyone from Elvis to Chuck D.

Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said that a Playboy column written by Senate candidate Al Franken eight years ago was offensive and presents a serious political problem for Democratic candidates this year.   McCollum, who had supported Franken rival Mike Ciresi until he dropped out of the race, told The Associated Press on Thursday that she was worried that Minnesota Democratic congressional candidates will be running with a candidate “who has pornographic writings that are indefensible.”

I guess in the end it doesn’t matter much how Al Franken loses this election, but a broadside from two key members of the Minnesota DFL’s Congressional delegation reflects a strange set of priorities. Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison attacked Franken not for his serial tax evasions or his failure to provide workers-comp insurance to his employees, but for a sexually graphic and sophomoric piece of fiction Franken wrote for Playboy eight years ago. Apparently for the DFL, breaking the law doesn’t rise to the level of outrage, but idiotic fantasy is a disqualification:

In 1994, when he realized he couldn't get the endorsement, he threw his support to state Sen. John Marty against his chief rival for the endorsement, Mike Freeman. A Star Tribune article at the time said Hatch believed Marty would be easier to beat in a primary than Mike Freeman. It worked, as far as knocking off Freeman, who kept his pledge to drop out if he lost the endorsement, but Hatch lost in the primary anyway.

In 2006, after Hatch's protégé Lori Swanson had entered the race for the DFL attorney general nomination, Hatch encouraged former state Rep. Bill Luther to get into the primary field. Luther, who had a previous reputation as a relentless fundraiser and campaigner, entered the race but didn't raise much money and didn't campaign very hard. He received just 21 percent of the vote in the three-candidate field. Most DFLers to whom I talked about it subscribe to the belief that this was another clever but devious Hatch trick. Swanson, who was clearly Hatch's chosen successor, was able to win a close primary over DFL endorsee state Sen. Steve Kelley. The widely accepted theory is that Hatch believed if Swanson was the only woman against two men, she could win. If so, it worked. Swanson was nominated with a 42 percent plurality.

Hatch certainly has friends, allies and admirers. (How else, in spite of his critics, could he have handily won both the DFL gubernatorial endorsement and primary in 2006?)

His work ethic is legendary. No one, not even Hatch, denies the temper, but his friends see it as an excess of populist zeal. They believe Hatch has accumulated critics and enemies because he is a tough fighter...Because so many of the sources I interviewed for this series have developed a dim view of Hatch's tenure as attorney general, I sought out someone who had a lot of dealings with Hatch and was an admirer. I was referred to Jim Bernstein, a former Minnesota commerce commissioner.

He said Hatch had been an outstanding AG and he maintained "nothing but the highest admiration" for him. (In the interest of full disclosure, Bernstein pointed out that he has a contract with the attorney general's office.)

Another source, who worked under Hatch as well as Hatch's predecessor, Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III, put it more bluntly: "Mike Hatch is the last person in the world whose **it list I want to be on. Even when he's out of office, just his presence on the planet. He's a very nasty person. I don't have enough interest in the truth being known to risk anything professionally."

The office of attorney general carries with it enormous discretion to mete out benefits and pain. On the plus side, for example, the attorney general can appoint private lawyers to represent state interests. This includes not only the lucrative state bond work that was referred to in the first installment, but also appointments to handle big cases for the state...On the other hand, the attorney general has near-total discretionary power to prosecute, sue or investigate people, companies and organizations.

Many of those who have left the AG's office express a clear concern that Hatch and Swanson (most of these sources believe that Hatch still has enormous influence over Swanson) will sue or investigate their company or organization, even retaliate against the clients of their law firm, in order to punish them.

They speak as if Hatch (and Swanson) is the kind of junkyard brawler who will do whatever is necessary to make them pay. They speak as if the circles of their acquaintance are littered with the ruined lives of those who crossed Mike Hatch.

So I've been pushing them: Tell me the names of those whose lives or careers were destroyed so I can confirm the details...But the actual damage done to the targets of Hatch's wrath seems minor compared to the level of the fear. Many who left the AG's office unhappy and bitter have gone on to bigger and better jobs and lives. In the most famous cases in which threats of retaliation were made, the threats were not fulfilled. There is a serious disconnect between the facts and the fear.

One of my sources, who also testified to Legislative Auditor James Nobles about his experiences in the office, said that even Nobles encouraged him to think hard about whether he wanted his identity to be disclosed in the auditor's report that will soon be published.

He never yelled at her, although she did witness one of Hatch's screaming, cursing, table-pounding tantrums, and was mostly puzzled by it. "The banging and red-faced crap was all pretty unnecessary," she said. "We were all on the same side" on the matter under discussion and everyone was doing the best work they could. She didn't believe that such displays were the best way to motivate the troops.

She was often puzzled by the Hatch team's insistence on the "lazy staff" explanation for the problems of the office. The people who worked in the office were "hardworking, bright, committed and they were treated as if they were just the opposite," Brendmoen said.

After Swanson's election, Hatch informed Brendmoen that she wouldn't be kept on either as spokeswoman or be offered her old investigator's job back. He offered her a demotion with a 25 percent pay cut. She assumes she was supposed to quit over that, but when she indicated she would think about it (because the mother of three couldn't afford to be unemployed), Hatch told her she really needed to leave.

The first call was to her, at work, from a young man claiming to work for Lois Quam, wife of Hatch's political foe, Matt Entenza. The caller asked Brendmoen to write a post for "the family" on a blog that the union organizers have created. Brendmoen took that call to be an effort to trick her into confirming Hatch's and Swanson's theory that Entenza is behind the union movement. (As far as Brendmoen knows, Entenza and Quam have nothing to do with it, and the answers she gave to the caller would not have confirmed the suspicion.)

The next call was a message left for her new boss. The message, claiming to be "on behalf of Matt and Lois," thanked her boss for allowing Brendmoen to spend company time helping her former colleagues with their union drive. This one, she assumes, was designed to undermine her in her new job. She can't say for sure that Hatch and Swanson were behind the calls, but she found them "threatening and unsettling, but also immature and unbecoming."

On Wednesday, after the first installment of this series had been published, I got a call from another former official of the office who was willing to speak for attribution.

Bob Stanich of Minneapolis was an assistant attorney general for 19 years, spanning the Humphrey and early Hatch years...The two big differences between the two administrations was the "climate of fear" that Hatch brought to the office and the increased level of politicization...
Hatch was the kind of boss who wanted things done a certain way, but didn't want to tell you what it was, Stanich said. "You were supposed to guess," he said, and if you guessed wrong, it could easily blow up in your face. That management style makes everyone jumpy.

This parting anecdote comes from a former department head in the AG's office who was involuntarily transferred out of his supervisory position in late 2006. He was told it was because he wasn't working his staff hard enough. But the woman who took his place told him that she had been sent in to "manage [a particular employee] out of the office." The woman said she was chosen because she had some experience at getting people to leave whom Hatch and Swanson couldn't easily threaten with dismissal.

This particular employee fit that category because he is a former policeman who lost one of his legs, at the knee, in the line of duty. Because of his disability, he has special protection from arbitrary dismissal.

The former cop's injury had been acting up and he had missed a lot of work, although his absences had been approved under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The leaves were unpaid. When the ex-cop was able to work, the quality of his work was excellent. My source concluded that the bosses were concerned that the absences could create an embarrassment for the office.

He was outraged. Scheming to get rid of a disabled person violates civil rights law, he said, "and bear in mind, this office is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws."

I mentioned yesterday, that the Mengler Report (on AG Swanson's office) was released. For those that have been in a cave for the last few months, AG Lori Swanson hired Thomas Mengler (Dean of Law at St. Thomas University) to investigate the charges of ethics violations in the AG office that had been raised by Amy Lawler (among others).

The Star Tribune touts the report saying it had "cleared" AG Swanson of the charges, but is that really the case? If you actually read the report, the answer is not nearly as clear as the Star Tribune would have you believe. The 3 page Executive Summary goes to great pains to specify that the report only covers one of the charges raised by Ms. Lawler. On that one charge, Mr. Mengler states that he could not find proof that there were ethical violations and that Ms. Lawler was wrong for disclosing "confidential communications" and doing so "diminished the ability of the AG's office" to represent the people of Minnesota . However, it is how Mr. Mengler addresses the other issues that I find to be of greatest interest. Mr. Megler goes out of his way to indicate that he is offering no opinion on any other charges that have been raised by Ms. Lawler and others...that these other charges were "beyond the parameters" of his investigation.

The remaining 16 pages detail out who was interviewed and when and details of the findings. To be sure, Mr. Mengler raises doubt about some of Ms. Lawler's claims, but he does not address any of the other claims that were raised by named and anonymous sources in the Minn Post series of reports. It is apparent that there is much, much more to be said about this story in the days and weeks ahead.

While I certainly meant this to be a series, I never expected it to be a DAILY series....

Today's lesson comes to us from the great state of Florida where they have found a way to make health insurance affordable for the 3.8 million Floridians who do not have access to insurance.

But the Florida reform, which both houses of the legislature approved unanimously, renounces Mr. Obama's favored remedy: It nudges the government out of the health-care marketplace. Insurance companies will be permitted to sell stripped-down, no-frills policies exempted from the more than 50 mandates that Florida otherwise imposes, including for acupuncture and chiropractics. The new plans will be designed to cost as little as $150 a month, or less.

Emphasis mine. The Florida Legislature has figured out something that the Minnesota Legislature needs to figure out. Mandates make things cost more! It's really that simple!

Mr. Crist observed that state regulations increase the cost of health coverage, and thus rightly decided to do away with at least some of them. It's hard to believe, but this qualifies as a revelation in the policy world of health insurance. The new benefit packages will be introduced sometime next year and include minimum coverage for primary care and catastrophic expenses for major illness.

Of course, the defenders of government interference are not happy with this development.

Critics are already saying that, without mandates, the plan won't guarantee quality of care. That's purportedly why the states have imposed more than 1,900 specific-coverage obligations.

However, the WSJ writers give that objection the slashing it so richly deserves.

These government rules are imposed without regard for how much they will cost and who will bear the burden. In practice, the costs are disproportionately carried by lower- and middle-income workers, who already on average have more limited insurance coverage as part of their compensation, or none at all. When prices rise because of mandates, the less affluent are often forced to make an all-or-nothing choice between "Cadillac coverage," which involves just about everything, or going uninsured. In other words, they're prohibited from buying the lower-cost options that might be better suited to their needs.

A great example is from the Logical Household. No one in the Logical Household will EVER need treatment for Tay Sachs Disease or Sickle Cell Anemia. However, because of Minnesota state mandates, our insurance company is required to provide it to us! Now if we were to adopt a Jewish or African American child, that coverage would indeed be necessary, but as free people we should be ALLOWED to make that decision for ourselves! Not have the government decide it for us.

The people of Florida should be proud that their legislature took the biggest step to date in making insurance affordable to those who need it. Will the Minnesota Legislature be the next to make this bold decision? We can only hope!

As I stated in my previous post, Former AG Mike Hatch did send a written response to Eric Black's request for an interview. MinnPost has it posted here, I wanted to pull a couple of exertps out for your review.

I had misinterpreted my secretary's message, and thought that you were with the Rochester Post. I checked around about you and your blog last night. While I am sure that your blog will not publish the report of Dean Mengler, his report raises significant issues not only about Ms. Lawler but also, based on my review of your blog last evening, your own objectivity. At any rate, it is my policy not to interview with bloggers. While I should stop right here, I feel chagrined in having agreed to a telephone interview with the Rochester Post, finding out that in fact you represent a blog called the Minnesota Post, and having raised your expectations of an interview.

So we shouldn't expect to see Mike Hatch granting interviews to Minnesota Monitor anytime soon? It should also be noted that the Former AG's initial accusation (that MinnPost won't publish the Mengler report) was incorrect - they not only published it, they tied it to the string of articles on the subject so that both sides of the story COULD be told! Well, you know what they say about assumptions, don't you...

It was not after I left office, when a small cabal of attorneys attempted to organize a union in the Attorney General office, was any issue raised about my management style. As Attorney General I faced budgetary pressures which resulted in the reduction of the office from 250 attorneys to approximately 160 attorneys. I recognize that, having laid off over 75 attorneys, there are people very bitter with me. This is inevitable. Your cabal of union attorneys, however, does not speak for the Attorney Generals staff. Indeed, over the years I found that the vast majority of attorneys I served with are talented, hardworking, and mission-driven. Most importantly, we got the job done for the people of Minnesota.

The union organizing committee, however, is so weak that it has to resort to anonymity in an effort to give CPR to their comatose effort. Instead of putting their names by their accusations, they hide in the cloak of anonymity looking for any scribner to serve as their hand maiden.

Emphasis mine. Can you really imagine if Joe Business Owner had tried to use this defense if he had been accused of union busting? This is a rhetorical question as I do know the answer....they get taken to court by organizations like the Attorney General's office or the NLRB! Also as much as it pains me (as a card-carrying member of the "vast right wing conspiracy") to do this but I simply must come to the defense of Mr. Black (not that he needs it mind you). Eric Black is not just "any scribner". Black is a 30 year veteran of reporting (mostly politics) for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

This letter is a look at the hubris that lies at the root of the matter. It all comes back to this quote from the main story...

A long-serving attorney, still in the office, said that, under both Hatch and Swanson, "it's a cult-like atmosphere. They demand blind obedience. Nobody's criticism is tolerated."

Nobody's criticism.....not even a 30 year veteran of Minnesota political reporting...is to be tolerated...