Blink

"Blink and you might miss it," is how the saying goes. People use variations of this saying for all types of reasons. For travelers: "That town is so small, if you blink, you'll miss it." Empty nesters: "Childhood goes so fast, if you blink, you'll miss it."

Friendly Neighborhood Republican: "Freedom and liberty were changed before our eyes, but America blinked."

And we missed it, or so it seems. Missed what? The beginning of the end to our liberty. The blatant actions of a tyrannical government. The consequences of a government run amok with power.

While America was busily distracted by Arizona immigration law, President Obama signed into law one of the most frightening pieces of legislation I've ever seen. And we blinked.

It's time, America, to open our eyes to what is really happening here. Conservatives, Tea Party Members, Libertarians and other freedom-loving Americans have been concerned about the rise of socialism in America since Barack Obama was elected president.

What is contained in the new Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection law makes socialism seem like a beach party.

Obama called the "reforms" contained in the bill "the strongest consumer protections in history," after signing the bill in the Ronald Regan Building (a slap in the face to Regan-loving conservatives).

Obama added that the recent recession was caused by a breakdown in the financial system that cannot be allowed to happen again. "I proposed a set of reforms to empower consumers and investors, to bring the shadowy deals that caused this crisis into the light of day, and to put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all," Obama said. "Today, thanks to a lot of people in this room, those reforms will become the law of the land."

There is such irony in those words. The people in the room included senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who created the law. Barney Frank's fabulous Fannie/Freddie debacle is blamed by many for the bulk of our current financial woes. It strikes me funny, in a very creepy way, to credit him for creating a law that Obama says will bring "shadowy deals that caused this crisis into the light of day...," when those shadowy deals were created by Barney Frank in the first place. And isn't it convenient that in the new law, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from any scrutiny. Hmmmm...

So America prattles on about Arizona immigration laws, amnesty, and the Mosque at Ground Zero. These are important issues, but they are a distraction from the real monster lurking around the corner.

Buried in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection law are some little "gems" that should be of interest to all freedom-loving Americans. Let's talk about a few of the ones contained in this new law, which some have called the most sweeping piece of financial legislation since the Great Depression.

First, at the last minute, in the middle of the night, Congress added to the bill a $19 billion tax on the most successful financial institutions to pay for the implementation of the new regulatory powers contained in the law.

The tax can hit any financial firm with more than $50 billion in assets (excluding banks that have deposit insurance, and Fannie and Freddie or any government-sponsored enterprise) and hedge funds that manage more than $10 billion.

This will take $19 billion out of financial firms that supply capital to growing companies, and it will punish the firms attracting the most capital because of their above-average performance. Who suffers here? The growing companies, of course.

Typical liberalism here: let's punish the successful to pay for our whims, without thinking it through enough to realize that by punishing the successful, we're really punishing the little guy that relies on the big, successful firm to survive. When will these people get it?

Secondly, hidden in the bill are job-killing, employer-crippling diversity mandates. Former chief economist at the Department of Labor, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, explains it well in this article she wrote for the Washington Examiner. In a nutshell, government agencies that deal in finance will be required to prove they meet standards for race, gender and ethnic diversity. Not only the government agencies, but private-sector contractors who work with them. This requires the creation of more than 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in key government agencies. This is considered by many to be unconstitutional and in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment's equal protection policy.

But with an administration whose motto seems to be: "Constitution, Schmonstitution," the unconstitutional status of the bill certainly wasn't a problem for Obama, who happily signed this 2,319 page monstrosity into law.

The third gem hidden in the law is the power given to unions and activist organizations to install their representatives on the boards of directors of every major American corporation.

"This legislation includes provisions totally unrelated to the financial crisis which may disrupt Americas fragile economic recovery" said John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable.

Gem number four hidden in the gigantic law is that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will no longer be compelled to present documents or records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The FOIA, enacted in 1966, was intended to give the public access to government records. The FOIA gave power to the people of the United States by allowing them to ask for, and receive government records, with only nine exemptions. Disallowing the FOIA to have access to SEC records is a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to hide information from the American people. One wonders what they are cooking up that the SEC will need to hide.

At least this portion of the law has caused enough of an uproar that several bi-partisan bills have been created to amend it.

One can only hope they are successful in their quest for true transparency, a term this administration throws about freely, but clearly doesn't understand--or doesn't care--about its real meaning.

These are only some of the items included in this law that should be of interest to all Americans. Our freedoms are being chipped away, new regulations threaten to cripple America's financial industry, and $19 billion in taxes are hidden in a law happily signed by the president.

It's fascinating how much damage can be done in the blink of an eye.

Arlington

It's been exactly one month since our family traveled to Arlington, Virginia, to inter the ashes of my father-in-law, John, at Arlington National Cemetery.

John was Marine Captain of the U.S.S Missouri in the Pacific Theater of WWII. He was in Tokyo Harbor when the peace treaty was signed by the Japanese on the deck of the Missouri, though he was on land that day securing the harbor and missed the ceremony. After the war, he moved his wife and daughter to Minnesota and began working in the family insurance business.

John and his wife had the horrible misfortune of losing three of their daughters, all at separate times. The first daughter died while John was serving active duty, and she was buried at Arlington. The other two are buried there as well. We went to bring John's remains to rest next to his three daughters.

I'm writing about this on the Fourth of July because a funeral with full military honors conducted at Arlington National Cemetery is truly a thing to behold, a true testament to love of our country and the honor it is to serve her. This is the day we celebrate our Independence, and without people like John, we might not be celebrating at all. When one is at Arlington and beholds the vista of grave after grave covering rolling green hills as far as the eye can see, it drives home the enormity of the sacrifice our service men and women have given and the insoluble link between what they gave and the freedom we enjoy today in the United States of America.

There was a very large turnout for John's interment. Many of us came from Minnesota, and there was a large contingent of east-coast relatives. A granddaughter and her boyfriend came from Thailand for the service. A grandson came from Colorado with his wife and new daughter, born two days before John passed away.

On the day of the interment, we all gathered in a meeting room in a large marble-floored building to mingle with one another and talk about John. His widow was taken to another room to meet with the officiant for the service. On the tables peppered throughout the family reception room were photo albums of the cemetery--a view of things that would take hours to see in person.

Then we gathered for the procession to the grave site. We were in ours cars and drove up behind a horse-drawn caisson carrying a coffin draped in the U.S. flag flanked by a number of Honor Guard servicemen. Two of the Honor Guard, with precision and care that one would use if he were carrying a box containing the most important substance on earth, transferred the box of John's ashes to the larger flag-draped coffin being carried by the caisson. There was a small door in the back of the coffin, which they opened to place John's ashes inside.

This was when one of the most moving things occurred, at least in my opinion. From our car, we could see that as we drove through the winding roads to the grave site, there were people obviously dressed as tourists who stopped, stood at attention, took off their hats if they had them, and put their hands over their hearts. They had no idea who John was, but they gave him the respect he deserved because they knew by the trappings of the service that John had served his country. In what capacity these tourists didn't know, but they honored him anyway. I found that touching beyond words, and I'll always remember looking out of my backseat window and seeing these people stopped and standing at attention in respect for John. It gave me hope for America's future to see these civilians being so respectful. To be honest, the entire service gave me hope.

The grave site is also the grave site of John's three daughters. Their headstones were there. I had never seen them before; my son, on a choir trip to D.C., had very kindly been allowed to find his aunts' graves, on which he placed a guitar pick to let them know he had been there.

We gathered around the grave site, and there were about 15 chairs in three rows. The widow, John's brother and some of John's children sat in the front row, and I sat in the second row because of my walking and standing difficulties. Everyone else stood behind and around the chairs.

The service was officiated by a military pastor dressed in white. He was perfect in content and tone, and made us all feel proud of the man we called father, husband, grandfather, brother, and great-grandfather. We prayed and sang "Amazing Grace." Then came the military rituals.

I don't recall in which order they were done, but I do recall every one of them very well. The 21-gun salute, with gun shots so loud it was kind of startling. I haven't been around guns much in my life, and I was surprised by how loud they are in person. The servicemen with the guns were somewhat away from us, on a gradually sloping hill. Then there was "Taps." If you can go to a military funeral without crying, you will only make it until "Taps." The trumpet, played by a serviceman on another hill, was so haunting and quiet and alone. It is the military equivalent of bagpipes at an Irish funeral. It's impossible to have a dry eye.

Then came two parts I will never forget. The folding of the flag, during which six Honor Guard officers meticulously, with every move practiced to a science, folded the flag that had draped John's casket, into a perfect triangle. I cannot explain how regimented and controlled their movements were as they folded the flag with the utmost care. A neighbor sent me an e-mail the other day containing the meaning behind the 13 traditional folds made in the American flag. I think it is important for us to know that every fold can have deep meaning. I urge you to take a moment to look at this link to help you understand that, though there are no "official" flag-folding symbols, everything done at this kind of military funeral has meaning behind it.

Then, one of the Honor Guard took the flag, got down on one knee in front of John's widow, and presented it to her. He removed his pristine white glove and shook her hand, and told her how it represents the country's thanks for his service. Another Honor Guard member approached her, got down on one knee and presented her with a pouch containing the spent shells from the gun salute. He removed his white glove and shook her hand. Then came the last Honor Guard member, who got down on his knee, removed his glove, and took her hand while he thanked her for her service to our country, by being a military wife and raising children alone for a while (John didn't meet his daughter until six months after her birth) and all the other sacrifices a military wife makes.

What struck me most about these three young men--beautiful in their military dress uniforms, with rows of medals across their chests--was their eyes. I was sitting directly behind John's widow, so I saw how each man looked into her eyes as he spoke to her. Sincerity and reverence were just glowing from their eyes as they spoke to her, and I truly believed that it was an honor for them to be participating in the interment of the remains of a WWII Marine Captain. Sadly, we are losing our WWII heroes at a very fast pace now. The "greatest generation" is dwindling.

I came away from the service with this thought: Sometimes it seems, especially as a conservative blogger and columnist, that the country is extremely divided, and it is in danger of being lost. While those things still exist and are absolutely true, being at the service made me also believe we are still a great country, and there is still respect, honor and sacrifice going on for her sake. We are still steeped in tradition, ritual and reverence in honor of those who fought for liberty.

My daughter commented that it was awe inspiring to see the grave markers of all the people who were lost fighting for our liberty. I told her this: They were not lost. Their lives were given. For the most part, these fighting men and women give their lives--they don't lose them--for freedom. It is a gift they have given to our country, the ultimate sacrifice.

And they are not lost today. We carry these individuals in our hearts and our memories, and they will live on forever; in John's case, as a member of America's greatest generation. He will never be forgotten.

America Speaking Out.com: A new way to listen to conservatives or a new way for liberals to bash them?

There is a new website in the internet galaxy, and it's AmericaSpeakingOut.com. There is a video on the home page that explains what the site is about. It was developed by House Republicans as an effort to gather the ideas of fellow Republicans about the direction in which to lead our country.

On the site, you can post an idea and people can vote either thumbs up or down. You can list your own tags for your idea, and there are currently too many categories to count. They range from the normal (liberty, taxes, spending, constitution, second amendment) to the ridiculous (chipmunks, cheese, toaster, ha-ha, donuts and rent-a-boy).

It was a sincere effort by Congress to listen to the American people. Yes, it was developed by Republicans for Republicans, but they do encourage people from all political belief systems to participate in a "respectful" way.

Well you can ask, but, as Mick Jaggar said, you can't always get what you want.

This is what they are getting: (All grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors are from the original posts.)

In the pro-life forum:

Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?

In the 20th Century as women's roles in the work place increased so has the suffrage of women. Despite all of this, those pigs in congress feel content to ignore this terrible, terrible injustice. It is time to end this vicious cycle and outlaw women's suffrage. Make your voice heard america.

the sanctity of life should be protected. Before an abortion, the patient should be forced to name the baby, knit the baby pajamas, and make a mixed tape for the baby,

In a forum entitled "Borders:"

We need to do what the Soviet Union did in Berlin, along the US/Mexican boarder. We can make it into a video game like teh movie Gamer. We can set up machine guns and have gamers shoot them down as they run towards the boarder.

We need a righteous example set for the illegals which trespass against us. The Bible advocates the crucifixion of any foreigners which violate the Christian, God-bestowed borders of the USA. Remember your Corinthians!

In the Unemployment forum:

Why not institute on site brothels for our military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq? I'm certain we could find plenty of willing, and attractive, patriotic women to fill this much needed role. Remember America, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!

In a forum entitled "Oil Spill"

We need to make the enviro-whackos trying to create a panic over the golf oil spill to shut the he!l up! OIL IS A NATURAL SUBSTANCE!!! You cook with it (vegatable oil), clean with it (lemon oil), put it on your skin (oil of olay), etcetera. GOD put it there for us to use, and anyone saying that a NATURAL SUBSTANCE is bad for NATURE either is severly misguided or diliberately lying to promote thier own SOCIALIST agenda.

In the Family Values forum:

Sarah Palin and Levis Johnson need to get back together for the sakes of Truck and Tractor.

And the piece de resistance, the Xenu forum:

Xenu respects the life of all children, except John Travolta's. There are ten posts under this heading that are just as vile.

When I first visited the site, the trolling by liberals and the stupid, offensive posts were much, much more prolific. It looks like the moderator has been taking some things down. I hope they continue to do that because their, in my opinion, honest effort to communicate with the American people appeared to be failing because immature, leftist nut jobs couldn't leave the site alone.

One liberal wrote that this site was the most fun to troll, and there is a facebook page devoted entirely to Stupid things Posted on America Speaking Out, which I originally thought would contain some of the things like I posted here, but they were posting and making fun of actual Republican and conservative ideas.

So if you are conservative and want to post an idea, I say go for it. And vote on other people's ideas. But if you are a liberal, or progressive or whatever, if you go to the site, be a grown up and only post serious, helpful ideas. There were a few good posts from the left, and I really appreciated them.

As for the site, I hope this works out for the Congressional Republicans. It was an interesting idea and, I hope, a successful one.

StarTribune needs to check its headlines for accuracy

Saturday's headline in the StarTribune read, "Hopefuls for governor seek $6 billion solution: Gubernatorial candidates float ideas like taxing the rich, cutting human services, and putting slots at horse-racing tracks."

The headline should have read, "Gubernatorial hopefuls seek solution to $6 billion deficit: Democrat and Independent gubernatorial candidates float ideas like taxing the rich, cutting human services, and putting slots at horse-racing tracks." I didn't like the "seek $6 billion solution," because when first reading it, it implies the candidates are seeking to spend $6 billion as a solution to something. The headline is not only inaccurate but unclear.

This selection from the article details what I believe to be a sloppy job of reporting what Republican candidate Tom Emmer proposes:

Emmer, the Republican-endorsed candidate for governor, has not offered details on his plan to balance the state budget.

On the campaign trail, Emmer said a state government reduction of 20 percent "would be easy." He says the cuts would be the result of an overhaul of state government, rather than across-the-board slashing.

"We will start taking apart those things and do what people expect and deserve," he said.

Emmer said his budget plan will take shape soon based on talks with Minnesotans. His priorities include maintaining roads and bridges and providing general education.

A steady refusal to raise taxes characterized his budget philosophy in the Legislature. Emmer voted against the latest budget compromise, which included $3 billion in cuts and shifts negotiated by fellow Republican Pawlenty.

Emmer said he agreed with the spending priorities mostly, but the deal "missed the opportunity to do significant structural reform."

As far as the above excerpt goes, I think Emmer's wanting to talk to Minnesotans on the campaign trail before he produces a final budget plan is admirable. He is going into this with the absolute correct attitude: the governor of Minnesota works for the people of Minnesota. The people need to have a say in what the budget should include.

To say "Emmer hasn't offered details on his plan to balance the state budget" is just lazy. On Emmer's official website, Emmer for Governor, he offers this under the heading, "Government Spending:"

As governor, I will stop the spend-and-tax cycle by calling first and foremost for a balancing of the budget. I will not accept a spending bill until the deficit no longer exists. I will not support tax increases that place the burden for excessive spending on taxpayers. I will drastically reduce the size of government through elimination of duplicative programs and services within state agencies, and the employees who provide them.

We must define what government does, and then we must prioritize.

We can invest in our priorities by making smart choices. We must reduce the size of government by eliminating excessive and unnecessary bureaucracies, and spending will reduce naturally.

This is just a portion of what is included in the "Government Spending" tab on Emmer's website. Does the StarTribune not allow its reporters to use information the candidate himself put on his website and maybe, I don't know, contact the candidate or the candidate's staff for clarification? This seems easy enough to me.

The article's subhead: "Gubernatorial candidates float ideas like taxing the rich, cutting human services and putting slots at horse-racing tracks," only includes ideas from the Democrat and Independent candidates. Taxing the rich comes from Mark Dayton and every other DFL candidate. DFL endorsed candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher says she's against it, but then says she's for it:

She said she won't be limited by seemingly simplistic campaign pledges, such as no-tax promises or balancing the bulk of the budget on the backs of high earners. She opposes both ideas as ironclad approaches.

The next sentence, however, reads:

Creating a new top-tier income tax rate for couples with a taxable income of more than $250,000 is a top priority.

So let's see, she won't be limited by "simplistic campaign pledges" such as "balancing the bulk of the budget on the backs of high earners," but creating a higher tax bracket for high-earning couples is a "top priority." Hmmmmmmm.

"Cutting human services" came from DFLer Matt Entenza, and "putting slots at horse racing tracks" comes from Indepencence Party candidate, Tom Horner. None of these ideas is from a Republican.

So, the article's headline ignores the Republican candidate but doesn't say so. I think that's inaccurate. Then it lists potentially controversial ideas some of the candidates have come up with, and leaves it up to the reader, who may only look at the headline and not read every word of the article, to infer which idea came from whom.

I think the editor who writes the headlines should pay more attention to detail. Clearly nobody was really paying attention when this article was written, unless they intended to make Margaret Anderson Kelliher look like a hypocrite.

"Clifford the Big Red Dog" has Democrat view of presidency down pat

I was watching "Clifford the Big Red Dog," a cartoon series based on the books by Norman Bridwell, with my two-year-old granddaughter this morning, and political enlightenment was bestowed upon me by the characters in the story. You never know where knowledge is going to come from, do you?

Anyway, the children in the story were discussing what they wanted to be when they grew up. One character, who is particularly narcissisitic, said she wanted to be the president of the United States when she grew up. Cut to the fantasy.

In her fantasy, she was dressed in a blue business suit with her hair pulled back to look professional. She was still a child. She was speaking behind a podium addressing a crowd of people and journalists.

She said, (I'm paraphrasing), "I declare that every Friday will be Chocolate Chip Cookie Day!" The crowd cheers.

"I declare that there will be fountains of free lemonade in every park!" Again, the crowd roars and cheers.

"And, I declare that I'm having a great big party so all of you can come and have your picture taken with me!" The crowd goes wild.

That last bit was so Obamaesque that it was funny, but the rest of it really struck me.

There is no thought to who will pay for the cookies and lemonade, or the people who serve them. What about the massive uptake in the need for cookie ingredients like chocolate chips and sugar? Would there be enough supply, and what effect would it have on staple ingredients for families like flour and eggs. Where would we get enough lemons to make all that lemonade? Could we do it in the United States, or would we have to import them? Again, we'd be using sugar, so between the cookies and the lemonade, the demand for sugar would soar. Could the sugar cane growers and processing plants keep up with the supply? Jobs would be created, so that would be an upside...

Clearly Clifford's friend is presenting a child's view of what it is to be the president. It's not unlike when a child runs for class president and makes promises that sound great to the voters, but are impossible to fulfill (e.g. I'll have the lunch ladies serve cake every day). Sadly, though, this thought process isn't confined to children. It's rampant among Democrats.

Cause and effect thinking is what is always missing from ideas to give free things to the people. And it can cripple a country, as we are witnessing in Greece as I write this.

There is a website called "if I were president" and it compiles submissions from people answering that question. The answers range from scary (I'd cut one finger off of every driver caught without using a headset while talking on the phone and driving, for EACH offense. 10 offenses = NO fingers!), to practical (lower taxes, allow failing companies to fail, keep government out of our personal lives, and look out for the country's best interests), to admirable (I would remember that I am a servant of the people, not a dictator manipulated by everyone in town who has an agenda).

But so many of the answers are dictatorial in nature, including increasing pay for all teachers and eliminating taxes. There is a lot of giving going on in the answers--giving free health care to everyone (which many people mistakenly think the recently-signed health care law provides), providing vegan meal choices to all school children, etc.

There is little acknowledgement that the president of the United States isn't supposed to sit in the White House making declarations; the congress passes the bills and the president signs them into law. Clearly who is president makes an enormous difference; but he is not king, he is an elected official in a representative republic.

When President Clinton was in office, he was instrumental in getting 100,000 more police "on the streets" all across the country. He still brags about that one. The problem with it was that there was an expiration date. After a certain amount of time, the money for the program ran out and it was unfunded. The states were then stuck with all of these police personnel and no money to pay them. It's a perfect example of an idea that sounds good (we need more police, and that will reduce crime), enacting a "solution" without thinking it through, and having the consequences cause a huge mess. This happens all too often when Democrats are left in charge.

I really think Democrats believe the presidency is like Clifford the Big Red Dog's friend's fantasy. And even more frightening, I think our current president believes it too. Like the voter who uttered the now-famous quote that with Obama as president she won't have to worry about paying her mortgage or putting gas in her car, there are people who believe he has almost super-human powers because he's president. This childish view of the presidency is common.

It's the voters on the left who believed this and voted for Obama, and it's the Democrat leaders who keep promising things they never wind up doing. They've been promising to help the poor for decades, and they have made no strides in that area whatsoever. But they keep on promising. And the voters keep on voting.

And America keeps on living with the consequences of the immature who cannot grasp cause and effect thinking, but have the power to vote. Like Clifford's friend, America needs to grow up.

Check out my interview with Neal McCluskey from the Cato Institute on Examiner.com

Photo of Neal McCluskey by Tom Conlin

I was honored to be asked by VOICES of Conservative Women to interview their keynote speaker for their Education Policy event last Thursday evening. I conducted the interview for my column on Examiner.com: Hennepin County Conservative Examiner.

Neal McCluskey is the author of Feds in the Classroom, How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples and Compromises American Education.

Check out the interview at Examiner.com.

What?

FNR hit the Huffington Post. How in the hell did that happen? I feel the sudden need for a shower...

Friendly Neighborhood Republican's endorsement goes to...

A lot of thought went into this decision, even more than what I wrote about here regarding Emmer and Seifert's campaign styles and their personal and professional differences and similarities. I listened to each candidate's KTLK-FM interviews. I scoured their websites. I read every piece of mail they sent to me. I listened to and read what others thought, and I interviewed former gubernatorial candidate Senator David Hann about why he thinks Marty Seifert is the man for the job. I also spoke to a representative from Tom Emmer's campaign. I did my research.

In the end it came down to two things: experience and campaign style.

Friendly Neighborhood Republican endorses Tom Emmer as the Republican candidate for governor of Minnesota.

I asked Emmer's representative, Chris Van Guilder, what he considers to be the biggest difference between the two candidates. His answer that the two men formed their experience in two different walks of life lead to one of the most influential pieces of research in this journey.

Comparing the two men's backgrounds (mostly as detailed on their own campaign websites) clearly showed that Emmer has much more life experience outside of government on which to base his decisions and actions. He is older has held positions in the private sector much longer than Seifert. When compared, Emmer stood out as the candidate with the kind of life experience to lead the state of Minnesota.

The other influential piece was campaign style. For Seifert to go negative didn't sit well with many people, including me. DUI is a very serious issue. I lost a cousin to a drunk driver, and I've seen the devastation that ripped through the family afterward. But I thought Emmer's response was appropriate. If the incidents had been more recent, it would have made a difference to me. I don't excuse what Emmer did so long ago; but I ask you, would you want to be judged by the mistakes you made when you were 19 years old? It seemed desperate to bring it up. It was as if Seifert put his personal victory over the potential victory of the party. I still think Seifert is a good man, but this campaign strategy was a mistake.

That, combined with the obvious gap in experience between the two candidates, sealed the deal for Emmer. I'm also thrilled with Emmer's choice of running mate, Annette Meeks, as his lieutenant governor.

Who knows what will happen Friday night at the Republican Convention? But now I know what I wish will happen.

No matter what, I wish for all of us to unite behind our newly endorsed Republican candidate for governor. We have two good candidates, and we must all choose one.

There is nothing to be gained by fighting amongst ourselves. Whoever is ultimately chosen must be supported by us all, or we risk losing the governor's office to a Democrat.

Preventing that is worth fighting for.

Who will FNR endorse: Does campaign style matter?

We have seen over the last weeks and months two very different campaign styles coming from the Emmer and Seifert organizations. Does campaign style matter?

Well, I suppose that depends on what you're ultimately asking. Does campaign style effect voter opinion? Also, is the candidate responsible for everything his campaign, which may consist of many people, does?

Does campaign style reflect voter opinion?

This is a difficult one to answer. Let's take a look at some past campaigns. In Coleman vs. Franken, the campaign styles were all over the place. Well, at least on the Coleman side. Franken started out going for the jugular even before officially declaring his candidacy with his vitriolic "rally" at the State Capitol Rotunda, coincidently (if memory serves) on the same day Norm Coleman officially threw his hat into the race. Coleman ran attack ads almost from the beginning, but really, who could blame him. Al Franken? Come on, that's just a opponent bubbling over with fodder. People were very critical of the "mean-spirited" campaign. Anyway, after Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement, Coleman had a change of heart and announced he would stop attacking Franken and only be positive. We all know what happened after that. I don't think Coleman could unring the bell once the negative attacks were out there. And I think people thought his turn around was disingenuous.

In the Democrat primary prior to the Obama vs. McCain presidential election, Hillary Clinton, in a desperate attempt to discredit Obama, an opponent whom her camp had deeply underestimated, claimed Obama hadn't been born in the United States and therefore couldn't even run for president under our current law that requires a U.S. president to have been born in the U.S. This issue is now associated with the extreme right wing, and its believers are called "birthers." Many don't realize, however, that Hillary Clinton actually dug up this little gem as part of a nasty campaign against Obama for the Democrat endorsement. We can all see how well that worked out for Madam Secretary Clinton.

In the campaign for the Republican gubernatorial endorsement between Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert, there has been a lot of talk from Emmer supporters about the negative tone of Seifert's campaign. This came to a head last week when Seifert's campaign sent a letter to delegates about Emmer's DUI arrests 20 and 30 years ago. Emmer's supporters were incensed. They pointed out one of Seiferts own personal code of ethics, which reads: "Any Seifert for Governor campaign employee or member of the Seifert for Governor team that engages in negative campaign ads of a personal nature against any opponent of either party will be fired or removed from the campaign should those charges be proven." I wonder if this will backfire on Rep. Seifert as it did in the prior examples?

Is the candidate responsible for everything his campaign, which may consist of many people, does?

In my opinion, the answer is yes. I don't believe in moral relativism, I believe in moral absolutes. One of those absolutes is that anything done in your name by someone you hired or who represents you, is ultimately your responsibility.

As Truman said, "the buck stops here." People in power must believe that. To be an effective leader in any capacity, one must take responsibility for what is done in his name.

So, in the above examples, Coleman, Clinton and Seifert would all be responsible for what their campaigns did whether it came right from their mouths or not. The only one who took responsibility for it was Coleman, but he didn't reap any political rewards for it.

Will the delegates hold Seifert to this standard when they are deciding whom to endorse on Friday? We'll see.

next: Who will FNR endorse? The decision.

Who will FNR Endorse: Learning about Tom Emmer

I'm impressed with Tom Emmer's gubernatorial campaign. On April 22 I wrote the first in the series, Who will get the Friendly Neighborhood Republican's endorsement for governor: Emmer or Seifert, and I asked for anyone with any information on either candidate to contact me. Last night, the Emmer campaign did just that.

Looking at the how the two candidates feel abut the issues could lead one to believe they are incredibly alike. So when the Emmer campaign represenative called, I was able to ask my most important question, which is: "What is the biggest difference between the two candidates?"

The gentleman I spoke with, Chris Van Guilder, was happy to answer that question and just speak with me about the campaign in general.

So, what is the biggest difference between Emmer and Seifert? According to the Emmer campaign, it's that the two men formed their experience in two different walks of life. Tom Emmer's experience is life experience. At age 49, he's the elder of the two men. He's spent years as a small business owner, and five years in the legislature.

Marty Seifert, on the other hand is 38-years-old--quite young for a gubernatorial candidate. He was first elected to the Minnesota legislature in 1996, just one year after graduating from college. He has served in the legislature since then.

The Emmer campaign's position is that nearly all of Seifert's experience is from "within," while Emmer's experience was gained overwhelmingly from a life lived outside of government.

The two men's biographies included in their official websites could not be more different.

Seifert's bio focuses mainly on his childhood growing up on a farm in Springfield, Minnesota, and his college years. The biography lists 11 years of private sector experience: five years as a school teacher and six years as a school counselor before taking an unpaid leave of absence in 2006. It mentions that he co-owns a business, Seifert Properties, LLC with his wife, but not for how long or what exactly the business is.

Emmer's biography, on the other hand, is quite extensive before it even begins to speak about his legislative career. He is the father of seven children, very active as a volunteer in his community, and an award-winning trial lawyer. He received his Juris Doctor from William Mitchell College of Law in 1988 and is licensed to practice law in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota. The biography details a long and distinguished career practicing law, and lists articles he authored and cases he defended.

When the biographies turn to their legislative careers, they seem quite different as well. Seifert was first elected in 1996 and, his bio reads, has been re-elected by large margins every two years since, always winning re-election by over 20 points. It also points out that he has had strong bi-partisan support from Independents and moderate/conservative Democrats.

Emmer's highlights the fact that he has served as chair, co-chair or a member of nine legislative committees and lists some of the legislation he has written, including truancy reform and stringent penalties and alternative treatment options for the "worst of the worst convicted sex offenders."

If one were to look at their respective biographies as the only consideration for who would make the better governor, Emmer would win. Van Guilder said, "Tom's job is to negotiate outcomes. That's his training," adding that it's an excellent skillset to have as governor.

If you want to listen to the radio interview Rep. Emmer had yesterday with Chris Baker of KTLK-FM, click here. Yesterday's blog post about getting to know Seifert focused on this set of interviews, but only on Seifert's portion. I urge you to listen to Emmer's portion as well.

During the interview, Emmer displayed his sense of humor when he described working on legislative projects such as native earthworms and warning labels on bags of mulch instead of working to balance the budget. He had a very down-to-earth persona as he spoke about Minnesota's having the best health care institution in the world (the Mayo Clinic), getting down to the real business of the people instead of pet projects, and pondering why some Americans feel success is a bad thing. It had the feeling of having a chat with a neighbor, rather than listening to a politician's prepared set of talking points.

Detailing Emmer's KTLK-FM interview on this blog isn't as important as it once was because I decided to focus on the information that came in from his campaign last night.

Thanks to the Emmer campaign for calling to talk to a little blogger from Eden Prairie about their candidate. It shows they are really plugged in to what people are saying about Emmer, and it shows an admirable committment to winning. I'm still comparing, but today's lesson in getting to know Tom Emmer has been quite valuable.

next: Campaign style--does it matter?