6A
July 9, 2010 THISWEEK
Opinion Thisweek Columnist Abiding by endorsement would have served DFL better by Tad Johnson THISWEEK NEWSPAPERS
Four weeks from now, we will know the candidate who will appear on the ballot carrying the banner for the Democrats in the race for governor. Since the endorsing conventions ended, Republicans have been working hard to rally behind their endorsed candidate – Tom Emmer, a state representative from Delano. The Democrats for their part have been stealing most of the headlines from Emmer, but I’m not so sure for good reasons. From the outset of the endorsing process, one that has seemingly worked well for both major parties for many years, former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton and former state Minority Leader Matt Entenza said they would not abide by the party endorsement and run in the Aug. 10 primary. I don’t like the message their decision sent to the delegates –
“Thanks for your service, but all your commitment was all for nothing. … Still, I’d like your vote in the primary.” I understand their rationale for not wanting to be beholden to the party endorsement since the process places the decision in the hands of a few delegates rather than a broader vote of the people. It is logical, but I rather prefer an endorsing convention (as Republican Marty Seifert did this year) because the volunteers who serve as delegates are often much more informed about the choices than those participating in a primary. Dayton and Entenza’s view that the endorsement comes at the hands of the few is also a matter of perspective. Voter turnout for primaries is often low, especially in this year’s non-presidential election cycle. Still, I will grant them that having about 30 percent of likely DFL voters (based on the
2006 election contested primary) is a broader indication of support. I’m sure their decision was not altogether altruistic. Dayton and Entenza have a significant amount of personal cash reserves from which to draw in funding advertising and campaign organization that exceeds what any candidate would have after emerging from this year’s DFL-endorsing process. The DFL-endorsed candidate, Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher, has handled the situation with skill and grace. She has decided to focus on the issues and traveled the state relying on a door-to-door grassroots campaign to build support. Dayton and Entenza have also done their share of on-the-ground campaigning, but they also are relying heavily on a flood of television advertising to boost their fortunes. I hope voters aren’t swayed much by these kinds of commercials and rather focus on the issues.
Other than differing backgrounds and leadership styles, I don’t see fundamental differences among the three DFL choices. Like many people, I view candidates through the lens of how they stand on issues of importance. For a governor, those criteria don’t change from party to party. People look to state government primarily for decisions regarding education, taxation, transportation and health care. In the past two editions of the Dakota County Tribune Business Weekly, the newspaper’s Capitol Commerce pages have featured each of the three candidates. ECM capitol reporter T.W. Budig has done a good job setting forth their perspectives on the issues in the stories, which can be found online at ThisweekLive.com under This Week in Dakota County. Though there are slight differences among the three with regard to the major issues, the trio’s views are in stark contrast to Emmer. My sense is that people who
lean left politically would support any of the three over Emmer. Since that is the case, wouldn’t it make more sense to abide by the party endorsement and rally money and support behind a single candidate as the Republicans have done this year? I like the idea of rewarding hard work and playing by the rules. The endorsement process, though flawed in some ways, is a rule that aims to set forth the two major party candidates early enough so those moderate undecided voters can see them debate each other rather than three of the same kind. Since I like rules, I guess I’ll endure the primary challenge because it is part of the game. DFLers will have to wait until Nov. 2 to find out if they made the right choice on Aug. 10. Tad Johnson is managing editor of Thisweek Newspapers. He is at editor.thisweek@ecm-inc.com.
Letters Property rights are being taken away To the editor: Laura Adelmann’s story exploring the impact of recently enacted water management ordinances in the Vermillion River watershed gave a human face to the controversy over these unpopular regulations and showed how they take away people’s property rights for vague, unsubstantiated public benefits. Shockingly, Dakota County Commissioner Joe Harris was quoted as dismissing the controversy over “so-called property rights,” as though such rights really don’t exist. Harris has made it his mission to enact and oversee this most ambitious confiscation of private property seen in these parts. Instead of taking responsibility for this unprecedented land grab, he attempts to deflect blame to the state and federal government, saying that they are the bad guys who took away property rights. He just happens to be taking advantage of that, so don’t blame him. When did they repeal the Constitution? I remember our Minnesota Legislature responding quite quickly to the overwhelming public demand for stricter limits on the government’s ability to condemn land using eminent domain statutes back in 2006. As a practicing attorney, I have closely studied these laws and concluded that the requirement that landowners give the government a conservation easement over buffer areas without compensation violates the Constitution. This isn’t a liberal/con-
servative issue. I’ve seen liberals and conservatives alike react in exactly the same way when their own land is threatened to be taken. The people who support such takings are generally do so because they think they’ll get something out of it. But after they take your neighbor’s property who will stand with you when the government wants yours? With a county commissioner who doesn’t believe in property rights, nobody’s property is safe. CAROL S. COOPER Farmington
problem is for state government to live within its means, just as the rest of us must do. If Minnesota state government spending had simply kept pace with inflation since 1960, we would now be enjoying a $27 billion surplus instead of a $6 billion “shortfall.” Minnesota does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem and only one of the two political parties (and its candidates) recognize that. We must all pick a side in November – no “compromises.” Pick the right side.
Moderation isn’t right
JERRY EWING Apple Valley
To the editor: Larry Werner’s tribute to moderation (“A moderate Republican reminds us of better days,” July 2) completely misses the mark. There is nothing to be gained from moderation for moderation’s sake. And compromise is almost never the correct solution to any problem. On the biggest problem facing Minnesota government – the budget – moderation and compromise are what caused our current disastrous state of affairs. Specifically, if one side of this “polarized political environment” wants to overspend by some $6 billion, and the other side wants the state to live within its means, what is the common ground on which they can and should agree? It isn’t a question of one side being unwilling to cooperate and “find solutions,” but rather that one side is right and the other is wrong! The correct and only solution to our budget
Can we have our cake and eat it? To the editor: At UMore Park, the University of Minnesota and the city of Rosemount can benefit by carefully studying and strategically accessing two opportunities: strip-mining of gravel deposits followed by development of a green community, and preservation of agricultural research resources (many under study for over 40 years) for continued improvements in food and fiber production for an increasingly hungry world. The key solution to this dilemma is determining how gravel deposits under non-agricultural lands (central and eastern UMore Park, north of County Road 46) can be utilized. As things stand right now, plans to begin mining gravel, and processing gravel and gravel products in a proposed 188-acre industrial operation will result in the eventual obliteration of all agricultural lands.
Letters to the editor policy Thisweek Newspapers welcomes letters to the editor. Submitted letters must be no more than 350 words. All letters must have the author’s phone number and address for verification purposes. Anonymous letters will not be accepted. Letters reflect the opinion of the author only. Thisweek Newspapers reserves the right to edit all letters. Submission of a letter does not guarantee publication.
Thisweek Farmington Lakeville Contact us at: FARMINGTON NEWS: farmington.thisweek@ecm-inc.com LAKEVILLE NEWS: lakeville.thisweek@ecm-inc.com SPORTS: sportswriter.thisweek@ecm-inc.com AD SALES: ads.thisweek@ecm-inc.com PRODUCTION: graphics.thisweek@ecm-inc.com Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Julian Andersen President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Marge Winkelman General Manager/Editor . . . . . . Larry Werner Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . Tad Johnson Assistant Managing Editor . . . . John Gessner Farmington Editor . . . . . . . . . . Kara Hildreth Lakeville Editor . . . . . . . . . . Derrick Williams
www.thisweeklive.com
Thisweekend Editor . . . . . . . . . Andrew Miller Photo Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rick Orndorf Dakota County Reporter . . . Laura Adelmann Sports Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andy Rogers Sales Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mike Jetchick Production Manager . . . . . . . . Ellen Reierson Business Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . Eva Mooney
BURNSVILLE OFFICE 12190 County Road 11 Burnsville, MN 55337 952-894-1111 fax: 952-846-2010 Office Hours: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. M-Th, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Friday
Additionally, from the report on June 17 in Thisweek Apple ValleyRosemount, it is apparent that the Rosemount City Council envisions the development of industrial operations (ancillary to gravel mining) will negatively affect future development of a sustainable community. I have to agree: fast forward this scenario another 15 years, and the west end of UMore Park will be a
thriving gravel pit with associated aggregate, asphalt and other plants, while the central and east end of UMore Park will continue to house abandoned concrete structures, possibly with contaminated soils underneath. Careful study and consideration of the size and accessibility of gravel deposits under the old Gopher Ordnance Works footprint (central and eastern UMore Park) is
needed before permitting the university to begin mining the western edge of UMore Park. This will ensure that the university remains in the leading edge of environmental and social responsibility while fulfilling its Land Grant Mission. ALFREDO DiCOSTANZO Rosemount University of Minnesota professor
Thisweek Columnist
Emmer changes the dynamic of gubernatorial campaign by Don Heinzman THISWEEK NEWSPAPERS
The upcoming election of a Minnesota governor in November has never been more important. It’s not too early to pay attention to what the candidates are saying. The campaign of five major candidates had been rolling along without much fanfare, until Republican-endorsed candidate Rep. Tom Emmer said he favors Minnesota having veto power over federal laws. In an op-ed piece in the StarTribune, Emmer cited an amendment he co-sponsored during the last legislative session, providing that a federal law would not apply in Minnesota unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the governor. Emmer writes that the proposed Health Care Freedom Act would have given Minnesotans the chance to vote if they wanted to opt into the federal health care bill rather than have that choice taken from them. If Emmer had his way by vetoing the health care bill, thousands of uninsured Minnesotans wouldn’t have access to health insurance, those with pre-existing conditions could be denied health care and college students couldn’t have their health care benefits extended on their parents’ insurance policies. Imagine if Emmer’s proposal were to prevail nationwide, each individual state could vote up or down a federal law they didn’t like. Iowa could reject the immigration law. Wisconsin could decide if it wanted to pay a federal tax or not.
South Dakota could reject Social Security and set up its own retirement plan. In that same op-ed page of the StarTribune, David Lillehaug, a DFLer and former U.S. attorney says the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” not withstanding anything in a state’s constitution or laws to the contrary. “When Minnesota became a state in 1858, it signed on to this form of Union,” said Lillehaug. Chances are Emmer’s attempt to assert the state’s supremacy over federal law would be declared unconstitutional. His support of this amendment, however, gives voters an insight into the thinking of the endorsed Republican candidate. The election to determine who will run against Emmer comes up in August. The principal candidates vying for that opportunity are Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the DFL-endorsed candidate, and DFL primary challengers Mark Dayton and Matt Entenza, and Tom Horner the Independence Party candidate. Up to now, Emmer has been quiet and not very specific in his campaign. His support of a measure where the state could reject federal laws has changed the dynamic of the race for governor. Don Heinzman is chairman of the ECM Publishers Inc. Editorial Board. Thisweek Newspapers and the Dakota County Tribune are part of ECM. He is at don. heinzman@ecm-inc.com. Columns reflect the opinion of the author.