Search
Archives
Categories

Thank God that Lindsey Graham isn’t doing the negotiating on DACA for the Republicans. Thank God that President Trump is the negotiator, instead. First, according to Ed Henry, “the White House is planning on taking a hard line” on DACA negotiations. Henry also reported that ICE is stepping up enforcement activities at businesses like 7-11s in an attempt to put greater pressure on Democrats to negotiate a better deal for the White House. But I digress. Back to Sen. Graham.

Sen. Graham is stuck in a Gang of Eight rut. Tuesday, Sen. Graham implored President Trump to “close this deal.” Next, Sen. Graham explains his plan, saying “So here’s what I would suggest to you. Phase one: To expect my friends on the other side to go comprehensive for us, and DACA for them, is not going to happen. I’m telling my friends on the other side, DACA and nothing else is not going to happen. The sweet spot is DACA-plus, more than the DACA kids. And making down payments on border security. Moving slowly but surely towards a merit-based immigration system, to be followed by Phase Two.”

With all due respect to Sen. Graham, in this instance, slow and steady lets too many illegal immigrants into the U.S. It doesn’t win a race. With this administration putting pressure on Democrats and with the Democrats’ special interests freaking out, don’t be surprised if President Trump’s pressure isn’t a game-changer.

Last week, Rep. Martha McSally, (R-AZ), made things exceptionally clear that the Democrats’ clean DACA bill was essentially dead and buried:

This wasn’t communicated in gentle speak. Rep. McSally laid down the law on immigration. Don’t be surprised if McSally’s star doesn’t rise during the DACA negotiations. Footnote: If that happens, the likelihood that she replaces Jeff Flake as Arizona’s junior senator would increase significantly.

The Democrats are facing tons of pressure from immigration special interest groups, though they’ve been pressuring Democrats to hold to a hard line on DACA. Now that ICE is stepping up raids, don’t be surprised if these special interest organizations don’t experience a change of heart.

William McGurn’s column, titled “Wanted: An Honest FBI”, perfectly puts on display the difference between how Republicans see law enforcement and how Democrats talk about law enforcement.

McGurn’s column starts by talking about James Kallstrom. Kallstrom is described as coming “up through the FBI ranks, eventually becoming an assistant director and heading the bureau’s largest field office in New York. Over his career Mr. Kallstrom is credited with revolutionizing the bureau’s electronic surveillance, as well as leading big cases ranging from the probe into the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 to mob investigations such as the one that helped send the “Teflon Don”—Gambino crime boss John Gotti —to prison.”

In McGurn’s article, Kallstrom said that he doesn’t recognize the FBI he worked in for 28 years. Kallstrom said that “99% of FBI agents are dedicated professionals. But the leadership in Washington has harmed the bureau’s reputation.” That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have expressed clearly that they’re upset with the political leadership within the FBI and the DOJ. By comparison, Democrats have branded officers on the streets as racists:

Picture that. Gov. Dayton said that the police officer that shot Philando Castile wouldn’t have shot him if he was white. First, that’s insulting to that officer’s professionalism, training and willingness to put himself in harm’s way. Second, notice that Gov. Dayton didn’t question the police chief. He criticized an officer on the street. How disgusting.

The problem started, [Kallstrom] suggests, when Mr. Comey allowed then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ensure the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails would go nowhere. He rattles off a list of irregularities disturbing to any investigator: the reluctance to go to a grand jury for subpoenas, the immunity deals granted Clinton associates, the farce of an FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton that had a dozen people in the room, including Cheryl Mills, who was permitted to attend as counsel when she was a potential co-conspirator, etc.

While the Justice Department, not the FBI, makes these decisions, Mr. Kallstrom says Mr. Comey did have an option: “That was the moment he should have held a press conference, to announce his resignation—and then explain to the American people why he would not stay and preside over a sham investigation.”

Let’s be perfectly clear. There’s nothing right about not impanelling a grand jury and not insisting that materials be turned over.

Kallstrom is right. The Lynch-Comey investigation was a sham from start to finish. The political leadership of the FBI is compromised by its partisanship. Republicans have taken great pains to not question the rank-and-file investigators. They’ve focused on the top brass.

By comparison, Democrats have frequently questioned whether rank-and-file police officers are racists. If Democrats can’t stop thinking of rank-and-file police officers as racist, then we’re at a tipping point.

Appearing on Fox News’ Outnumbered, David Asman started off the show by saying that he thinks Democrats don’t want a DACA deal because they don’t want to give President Trump a political victory. That’s an opinion I hold because the Democrats’ Resistance Movement has been their strategy since President Trump’s inauguration. The proof is plentiful that Democrats have deployed obstructionism since President Trump’s inauguration. They’ve used every Senate rule to slow the confirmations of President Trump’s Cabinet secretaries.

Further, Democrats unanimously voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts even though many so-called moderates said there were parts of the tax cuts that they really liked. Despite liking major parts of the Trump/GOP tax cuts, every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against helping their constituents in the hopes of retaking the House of Representatives.

Multiple Senate Democrats oppose the building of Trump’s wall, saying that it doesn’t work. There’s tons of proof that it does. It’s in ICE’s official reports. It’s in FBI reports, too. The statistics speak for themselves. It isn’t that the Wall doesn’t work. It’s that the special interests that fund the Democrats’ campaigns insist that Democrats not vote for anything that would improve border security.

Here’s the dirty truth: Democrats would much rather do what their special interest allies instruct them to do rather than make life better for DACA recipients. Here’s another dirty little truth: Democrats don’t want a merit-based immigration system. Asman explains why we need to implement a merit-based immigration system immediately in this video:

Nothing that Asman said in describing his sister-in-law interests the Democrats. Why would they want self-sufficient immigrants with a history of creating small businesses to move to the United State? Democrats have shown that they prefer people who can’t stand on their own or that need government programs. If you don’t think that’s the truth, explain why Democrats insist on increasing the number of refugees entering from terrorist-infested nations.

Finally, Democrats want to create the storyline that Republicans shut down the government. Democrats are playing with fire this time. They’re saying no to increasing military spending, something that won’t play well this November. Think about this: Democrats don’t want to secure the Tex-Mex border. Democrats don’t want to rebuild the military, either. Democrats oppose stopping drug cartel-related crime, too.

Perhaps Democrats would like to explain something that they’re for that the American people want. And when I say that they should explain what they’re for, I’m talking about actually voting for it, not just saying that they’re for it. Words don’t mean much without actions.

Spoken like a true cookie cutter Democrat, last Friday night, newly minted U.S. Senator Tina Smith said that she’s opposed to building the wall, saying that “the wall is just a dumb idea”, adding that “most people don’t think it’s a good idea.” It’s good to know that Democrats think it’s smart to set national security policy based on public opinion rather than on what works.

I’d love hearing Democrats explain why they’re opposed to the wall after people read this article about El Paso. In the article, it says “Tell that to the residents of El Paso, Texas. Federal data show a far-less imposing wall than the one Trump envisions — a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration — already has dramatically curtailed both illegal border crossings and crime in Texas’ sixth-largest city, which borders the high-crime Mexican city of Juarez. In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data reviewed by me. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.”

In other words, a wall has already significantly reduced illegal border crossings in El Paso. That isn’t the only benefit of building the wall:

And crime abated with the reduced human traffic from Juarez, considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to drug-cartel violence, helping El Paso become one of the safest large cities in America.

Let’s summarize. The wall in El Paso dramatically reduced illegal border crossings and it helped reduce drug-related crime, too. Let’s hear Democrats explain their opposition to something that dramatically reduces illegal border crossings and drug-related crimes.

Before 2010, federal data show the border city was mired in violent crime and drug smuggling, thanks in large part to illicit activities spilling over from the Mexican side. Once the fence went up, however, things changed almost overnight. El Paso since then has consistently topped rankings for cities of 500,000 residents or more with low crime rates, based on FBI-collected statistics.

Democrats opposed to the wall need to explain why they’re opposed to stopping violent crime and drug smuggling.

Another core promise made by Trump to justify constructing a massive wall spanning from Texas to California is that it will slow the flow of drugs coming across the border from Mexico. “We need the wall for security. We need the wall for safety,” Trump said last week while answering questions about the sweeping new GOP immigration bill. “We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in.”
On that score, El Paso already has exceeded expectations.

Drug smuggling along that border entry point has also fallen dramatically. In fact, since the fence was completed, the volume of marijuana and cocaine coming through El Paso and seized by Border Patrol agents has been cut in half. The year before the wall was fully built in 2010, the volume of illegal drugs confiscated by the feds along the El Paso border hit 87,725 pounds. The year after, the amount of drug seizures plummeted to 43,783 pounds. Last year, they dropped even further to a total of 34,329, according to Border Patrol reports obtained by The Post.

Obama, Schumer and Feinstein all voted for building a wall in 2006:

I don’t doubt that Democrats will insist that things have changed since 2006. That’s true. Since then, large portions of the wall have been built. The FBI and ICE have had time to accumulate crime data. Since those sections of walls were built, illegal crossings have dropped, illegal drug confiscation has significantly increased and crime has dropped.

In other words, we now have proof that walls work. This isn’t theory anymore.

As a long-suffering Vikings fan, it’s time for them to end the drought and hoist the Lombardi Trophy. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving team. On Sunday, Case Keenum, the player who started the season as the Vikings’ backup quarterback, connected with Stefon Diggs to produce the greatest memory in Twin sports history since Dan Gladden raced home in the bottom of the tenth inning of Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.

The stories are eerily similar, though there are some dissimilarities. For instance, the Twins started the season with a 2-9 record. The Vikings got off to a slow start at 2-2 before starting on an 8-game winning streak. In early April of 1991, Twins fans were skeptical that the Twins could be a .500 team. Thoughts of winning a World Series championship weren’t just distant. With the fans, they didn’t exist. With the Vikings’ defense, there was reason for optimism for the team, although winning a Super Bowl championship in their home stadium wasn’t common.

The similarities start when the Twins took off on a 15-game win streak that ended in Baltimore and the Vikings ran off an 8-game win streak that ended in Carolina. Another similarity was that the teams had great defenses and a couple superstars that played like superstars. Most importantly, Tom Kelly and Mike Zimmer both preached the importance of playing seamless, complimentary ball.

That meant different contributors each night. With the Twins, that meant contributions from Mike Pagliarulo and Scott Leius at third, Chuck Knoblauch at second and Shane Mack in the outfield. With the Vikings, it’s meant unexpected but welcome contributions from safety Andrew Sendejo, defensive linemen like Shamar Stephen, Tom Johnson and offensive linemen like Rashod Hill and Jeremiah Sirles and breakout seasons by Case Keenum and Adam Thielen.

In his 1991 article titled “A Series to Savor“, Steve Rushin wrote this:

For it was only 24 hours earlier that Minnesota centerfielder Kirby Puckett had virtually single-handedly forced a seventh game by assembling what has to rank among the most outrageous all-around performances the World Series has ever seen. Puckett punctuated his night by hitting a home run in the bottom of the 11th inning off Atlanta’s Charlie Liebrandt. The solo shot gave the Twins a 4-3 win and gave Puckett’s teammates the same “chill-bump feeling” Braves manager Bobby Cox confessed to having had in Atlanta, where the Braves had swept Games 3, 4 and 5 earlier in the week to take a three games to two lead into Minneapolis.

Hrbek was reduced to a 10-year-old when the Series was tied last Saturday night; Sunday morning would be Christmas Day. “Guys will be staring at the ceiling tonight,” he said following Game 6. “They won’t even know if their wives are next to ’em. I know I won’t. She won’t want to hear that, but….”

Minnesota hitting coach Terry Crowley was reduced to a doddering man in long underwear that same evening, pacing a small circle in the clubhouse, head down and muttering to no one, “It’s unbelievable. Unbelievable.”

And Twins manager Tom Kelly fairly shed his skin in the aftermath of that game, wriggling from the hard exterior he has worn throughout his career and revealing himself to be, like the rest of us, both awed and addled by all he had witnessed. “This is storybook,” Kelly said. “Who’s got the script? Who is writing this? Can you imagine this?

I’ve now had 2 such moments of watching Minnesota sports that simply can’t be adequately described. They can’t be explained. They must be experienced.

It isn’t understatement to say that Stefon Diggs’ reception and run to the end zone will be seen as a transcendent moment. It’s almost to that point already. Here’s Diggs’ electric play:

Here’s Gene Larkin’s magical moment:

With Democrats insisting that they won’t vote to fund government unless there’s also a ‘clean DACA bill’, I’d recommend that President Trump’s speechwriters put together a speech that politically cuts the Democrats’ legs off. That speech must spell out several things, starting with funding the military but also including the fact that any negotiations must include the top priorities for both parties. Specifically, it must say that a DACA fix is available only if it includes funding for President Trump’s wall. Period. It must also include a funding increase for the military. Here’s what that speech would say if I wrote it:

My fellow Americans, American politics has been broken since before I got to DC. A prime example of this was a moment of bipartisan insanity that eventually got called sequestration. When Congress passed sequestration, they voted to cut military spending unless they spent additional money on domestic programs. Often, those programs were used to buy votes.

When I got elected, the American people voted for someone who wanted to drain the bipartisan swamp. That’s my goal today. It’s been my goal since the day I got here. Now, the bipartisan swamp is trying to maintain the status quo by insisting that I sign a clean DACA fix. While that sounds good, the truth is that it would hurt American workers because a clean DACA bill wouldn’t fix chain migration, build the wall or end the visa lottery. It’s important that we have all 3 of those things.

Let’s make this perfectly clear. I won’t sign a clean DACA fix. Further, I’m insisting that Democrats vote with Republicans to pass another continuing resolution. This time, though, I want it to include a significant increase in military spending. Considering how hollowed out the military became thanks to sequestration, it’s unforgivable not to fix the problem that’s been created. Once we fix the military’s funding crisis, then we’ll sit down with leaders of both parties who are willing to negotiate in good faith. The foundation for those good faith negotiations are simple.

First, the wall is an essential tool in preventing drug smuggling and human trafficking. It isn’t the only tool but it’s an important tool. Second, not fixing chain migration simply means that the illegal immigrants already here would be able to bring their relatives to the United States simply because they’re relatives. I’m trying to change the immigration system to a merit-based system. It’s impossible to co-maintain a merit-based system and a chain migration-based system. They’re incompatible with each other. Third, we must end the Diversity Visa Lottery because its goal is to “ensure plenty of diversity in US immigration, so only individuals from countries underrepresented in US immigration are allowed to apply.”

My goal is to make sure that immigration helps strengthen the US economy. Wherever there are talented people who will help the American economy grow, we should consider their applications. To Washington, that doesn’t make sense. Throughout the rest of the nation, it’s the only system that makes sense.

Bringing me another rehash of the same policies that have been discussed before, whether it’s from the Gang of Eight bill or from the recent Gang of Six proposal, will be immediately rejected. As a negotiator, I understand giving on something I don’t like to get something I really want. Thus far, Democrats have said they won’t budge on funding the wall in exchange for the DACA fix.

I’m here to tell DACA recipients something important. Namely, I’m willing to sign a bill that gives DACA recipients piece of mind if it includes funding for the Wall and if it ends chain migration. The minute a bill that contains those things reaches my desk is the minute I’ll sign it.

Let me finish by summarizing my proposals. First, Congress must pass a clean CR that includes a funding increase for the military and that funds the government for the rest of this year by this Friday. Second, I will sign a DACA fix bill that includes funding for the Wall and that ends chain migration. Third, I won’t sign a rehash legislation that’s been the centerpiece of the Gang of Eight or Gang of Six bills because I want to sign something that puts America first.

Thank you and may God bless America.

It’s imperative that President Trump’s next speech does 3 things. It’s imperative that President Trump insists on a clean CR that increases military spending and that funds the government for the rest of the year. Further, it’s imperative that President Trump’s next speech calls out the Democrats for not negotiating in good faith on the military and on DACA. Finally, it’s imperative that President Trump’s next speech defines what he’ll sign in terms of DACA and why he’s insisting on those things.

If President Trump’s next speech happens this week and lays out those things, he will change the conversation. In fact, I’d argue that that speech would put Democrats on the defensive. Finally, it’s time to start hyping the theme that Sen. Durbin isn’t a trustworthy person:

Sunday’s game between the visiting New Orleans Saints and the hosting Minnesota Vikings is an instant classic. We don’t need to wait for history to render its verdict. We don’t need to analyze or overanalyze this clash between the Saints and Vikings. To Vikings’ fans who’ve endured the Super Bowl losses and the heartbreaking finishes in 1998 and 2015, Sunday’s game isn’t just redemption. It’s the game that The Curse was broken.

It’s crazy to say this but the Vikings’ offense, though it didn’t play fantastic, outplayed the Vikings’ defense Sunday. As a result, the Vikings will meet Philadelphia in next Sunday’s NFC Championship Game to determine which team will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. If the Vikings win next Sunday, they’ll become the first time to play in the Super Bowl played in their home stadium because the Super Bowl will be held in US Bank Stadium.

But I digress.

Case Keenum threw an ill-advised pass down the sidelines that was intercepted. That Saints turned that interception into their second touchdown. The momentum swing was felt throughout Vikings Nation. When the Saints finally took the lead with 3:01 left in the game, Vikings Nation was worried. They felt better when Keenum engineered a drive that put the Vikings up 23-21 but there was too much time left for Drew Brees to work his magic. When Will Lutz kicked the go-ahead field goal with 25 seconds left in the game, Vikings Nation again thought the worst. After a false start penalty, the Vikings got a timely catch by Stefon Diggs with 17 seconds left. Because he was tackled in the field of play, the Vikings had to use their final timeout. After 2 incomplete passes, this happened:

The minute Stefon Diggs sprinted into the end zone, Vikings fans attending the Minnesota Timberwolves basketball game erupted with joy:

Nobody brings it home like Paul Allen, the Vikings’ radio play-by-play announcer:

Needless to say, the moment left Diggs speechless:

Everson Griffen, the captain of the Vikings’ defense, was speechless, too:

I’ve been a Minnesota sports fan since 1966, when I saw my first Twins game at Metropolitan Stadium. The only moments that surpass Diggs’ touchdown were Kirby Puckett’s walk off home run against the Braves’ Charlie Liebrandt in the 11th inning of Game 6 of the 1991 World Series and Gene Larkin’s pinch-hit single in the bottom of the 10th inning of Game 7 of the 1991 World Series.

Historical footnote: Jack Buck was the play-by-play announcer for those games. Sunday night, his son Joe Buck was the play-by-play announcer for the Vikings game. How cool is that? Vikings fans will remember where they were when Stefon Diggs broke the tackle, then raced to the end zone for the game-winning touchdown. Wow! What a game.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Salena Zito’s column asks a brilliant question. First, she made the observation that “Few focused on who wasn’t there and why they weren’t. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Importantly, three people in states that went heavily for Trump in 2016, Indiana’s Sen. Joe Donnelly, West Virginia’s Sen. Joe Manchin, and Missouri’s Sen. Claire McCaskill, were all absent. Two less vulnerable incumbent Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Pennsylvania’s Sen. Bob Casey were also not there.”

Then she made a statement that said “They have made the bet to pick their donors in California and New York over their voters back home.” Democrats don’t have a message but they’re well-financed. Republicans stumbled early but they’ve put together a solid list of accomplishments. Meanwhile, the RNC has been kicking the DNC’s behind in fundraising ever since Ronna McDaniel took over.

None of these so-called ‘moderate’ Democrats voted for the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Then they weren’t anywhere to be found to negotiate a DACA fix. That begs this question: what identifies them as moderates?

If anyone of those senators get caught near Trump, all of those donors would ditch them in a minute. They’re basically asking McCaskill and Manchin and Donnelly to do an act of levitation. Win without doing the things your voters would like you to do.

The question is will the voters hold them accountable? They’re gambling they won’t be held accountable. They’re gambling that Trump is so polarizing that there are no Trump voters available to them on a positive scale. They’re thinking they’re going to have to obliterate their opponent, tear their opponent to shreds.

Yet think about the margins here. Trump won Indiana and Missouri by more than 18 points. He won North Dakota and West Virginia by 30-some points. He won Ohio by 9 points. It’s not like you only need a few Trump voters to stay home, they would need a lot of them, like a third of them, to stay home. And that is just not going to happen.

A quick look around the room speaks volumes:

Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill and Brown better hope that voters didn’t notice that they didn’t support any part of President Trump’s agenda. If they notice, that fivesome is history.

Michigan’s Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s statement about the tax cuts in Michigan is the perfect example of that risk. When tax reform passed late last year, Stabenow issued a statement that read:

“I’ve said from the beginning that we need tax reform that makes the tax system simpler, puts more money in your pocket, closes tax loopholes that send jobs overseas and supports small businesses and farms across Michigan. Unfortunately that isn’t at all what this republican bill does.”

Ten days later, Fiat Chrysler announced that they would invest more than $1 billion to modernize the company’s Warren Truck Plant in Detroit, adding 2,500 jobs and moving production of its Ram trucks from Mexico. They also announced they would be giving $2,000 bonuses to their hourly U.S. workers. The company credited the moves to the new tax law.

The Democrats have been on the wrong side of the tax cuts from the start. As these bonuses, pay raises and other positive announcements get factored in, how will Democrats defend their unanimous vote against the Trump/GOP tax cuts?

The pundits talk about how the President’s party usually does poorly in a new president’s first term. I certainly cant dispute that that’s the history. What’s disputable, though, is that that pattern will apply this time. I see information that indicates it might not.

Ladies and gentlemen, Tina Smith gave us proof that she’s a typical Metrocrat when she was interviewed by Almanac’s Eric Eskola and Cathy Wurzer. During the interview, Cathy Wurzer asked Smith if she thought the Senate was close to a DACA deal. Sen. Smith replied that she thought there was a good chance of senators coming together on a deal on DACA. Then Eskola essentially asked why Democrats weren’t willing to trade funding for President Trump’s wall for protection of DACA-protected illegals.

That’s when Sen. Smith said “Well, you know the wall is just a dumb idea. To try to pay for a big wall is just — most people don’t think it’s a good idea. At the same time, we have to have really strong border security and so I hope that a compromise can be reached that makes sense so that we can have strong border security.” Eskola jumped in, saying “That’s a compromise — wall- DACA”. Sen. Smith then countered, saying “I don’t think a wall is — I think a wall is — what? $18,000,000,000? I think we need to focus on border security and not the idea of tons and tons of cement, which doesn’t really work.”

There’s reason to question Sen. Smith’s commitment to border security. She recently participated in a DACA rally that featured her and Keith Ellison.

At the rally, Smith told the crowd of about 200 people “Minnesota Dreamers are American in every way except their immigration status. They work hard to improve our communities and to make our state better, not just for themselves and their families but for all of us. So the notion that we would turn our backs on Dreamers now … it’s just disgraceful.”

In other words, Sen. Smith thinks that there’s no problem admitting lots of illegal immigrants into Minnesota. On Almanac, Smith talked repeatedly about needing to secure the border. At this rally, Smith talked about how DREAMers were “American in every way except their immigration status.”

Which is it, Sen. Smith? If DREAMers are “American in every way except their immigration status”, why do we need tight security at the border? If we need tight security on the border, how can DREAMers be “American in every way except their immigration status”? It’s apparent that Sen. Smith is already adept at talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Smith’s interview is the first segment of Friday night’s show:

It’s understatement to say that it didn’t help improve her trustworthy rating.

Technorati: , , , ,

There’s no question whether the metro DFL is the dominant wing of the DFL. They’ve essentially told rural DFL legislators that they’re valued as long as they keep their mouths shut and follow metro DFL’s orders. The vast majority of DFL gubernatorial candidates are Metrocrats. Tim Walz is the only one that doesn’t fit that description because he’s from southern Minnesota. Unfortunately, he’s had a recent change of heart and is sounding like an anti-mining, NRA-hating Metrocrat. But I digress.

The point of this article is to highlight what the Metrocrat DFL stands for. Scott Dibble’s op-ed offers great insight into the Metro DFL’s priorities. In the op-ed, Sen. Dibble wrote “Folks might know that I come from the front lines of movement building — organizing and fighting for social justice and an economy that works for everyone. Those fundamental democratic values are under attack in our country, from President Trump’s mass deportation and promotion of bigotry, to Congress’s tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy, not to mention the Republican leadership back home pushing our state back into deficits after years of surplus. The daily onslaught can be overwhelming.”

Let’s be blunt. Sen. Dibble has made it clear that he thinks that the tax cuts that are helping middle class families are anti-American and betray “fundamental democratic values.” Sen. Dibble mentioned being a social justice warrior. The Urban Dictionary’s definition of social justice warrior is “a person who uses the fight for civil rights as an excuse to be rude, condescending, and sometimes violent for the purpose of relieving their frustrations or validating their sense of unwarranted moral superiority. The behaviors of Social justice warriors usually have a negative impact on the civil rights movement, turning away potential allies and fueling the resurgence of bigoted groups that scoop up people who have been burned or turned off by social justice warriors.”

In his op-ed, Sen. Dibble wrote glowingly about Jamie Long, who is apparently running for Paul Thissen’s open House seat. Here’s what Sen. Dibble wrote about Long:

As a young activist at Carleton College, Jamie founded a student environmental group. Among their achievements were pressuring the college to install a wind turbine and the creation of a Responsible Investment Committee so the college’s wealth would not support injustice. He took his organizing to Washington, D.C., working on climate and clean water advocacy with the Natural Resources Defense Council while attending law school.

Jamie brought his organizing skill and his passion for justice back to Minnesota five years ago. He channeled that energy and ability into running Congressman Keith Ellison’s Minnesota office, helping build community power to propel a comprehensive progressive legislative agenda.

If there’s anyone who’s more progressive than Mr. Long, it might take time to find, then identify, that person. Frankly, I’m not sure that person exists.

What I’m certain of, though, is that the Metrocrats’ priorities aren’t rural Minnesota’s priorities. I’m certain that rural Minnesota didn’t put a high priority on the “passage of the historic law granting the freedom to marry to all Minnesotans,” aka gay marriage. That doesn’t that rural Minnesota residents hate gays. It just means that issue wasn’t high on their priorities list. With the Metrocrats, it was a high priority: