This Times Editorial Board editorial is essentially a criticism of the GOP sticking with their convictions, rather than selling out their constituents. Here’s the part that first touched a nerve:

The Legislature’s passage of a $6.6 billion, 10-year statewide transportation bill was never going to be portrayed as a high point in Minnesota history.

But little did we expect it to spur a decidedly low point in party politics for this state.

Low point in party politics? What criteria did the editorialist use in determining this? Is the editorialist saying that believing in & remaining steadfast to a solid set of principles is wrong? Or are they just saying that remaining steadfast to the wrong set of principles is wrong? Furthermore, since when is it wrong to tell government to tighten its belt first instead of imposing a higher tax burden on its citizens?

It’s one thing to to expect the DFL to reflexively increase taxes anytime they don’t want to prioritize their spending. It’s quite another to see Republicans vote for a tax increase that fixes nothing.

The Times’ editorial is a bunch of crap. Here’s more of their manure:

Within hours of the override, it became clear the party expects to punish Heidgerken and the other five House members for breaking ranks with the party and instead voting for what they believed was best for their constituents and all Minnesotans.

TRANSLATION: Minority Leader Seifert showed the Wayward Six that their actions have consequences, especially when they violate the first principle of conservative governance, which is “First, do no harm to the folks.” Let’s also notice that the editorialist said that the Wayward Six were punished for breaking ranks with their party. While that’s what it probably looks like from the outside, what really happened was that Abeler, Erhardt, Heidgerken, Hamilton, Peterson & Tinglestad voted against the will, & benefit, of the people of the state of Minnesota.

Here’s the Times’ parting shot:

The Pioneer Press quoted Pawlenty as follows on this issue: “If you are going to be a team, you know, then there are going to be some team rules and team expectations, and I’ll leave that up to the caucus leaders how they are going to address this further.”

We expected a lot of things in the wake of this transportation bill passing — safer bridges, higher taxes and, yes, some Election Day changes. We didn’t expect our governor and his political party to take such a low road in response to six votes cast for Team Minnesota, for once, instead of Team GOP.

First of all, sticking with your beliefs shouldn’t have to be defended. As long as they’re well thought out & logical, that should be applauded, not criticized. Secondly, the expectation of getting safer roads won’t be realized because this bill doesn’t fund that nearly as much as the GOP alternative does. This bill focuses mostly on transit, though there’s a ton of pork mixed in to buy enough votes.

One thing that this bill will do is change the House’s makeup next November. That’s what happens when a bunch of politicians repeatedly ignore We The People.

Finally, saying that the Wayward Six voted for “Team Minnesota…instead of Team GOP” is laughable. Considering the fact that Minnesota’s taxpayers are hurting from the subprime mortgage crisis & the rising cost of gas & groceries, isn’t it reasonable to expect government to prioritize spending & start making the difficult decisions instead of dumping billions of dollars of taxes on “Teeam Minnesota” to pay for pork & transit?

With all due respect to the Times, this editorial is a joke.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply