Unlike Gov. Dayton, Local GOP Activists 'Got Nuthin''
Fridley's DFL representatives at the state Capitol are not the ones responsible for Minnesota's budget woes, says the letter-writer.
My letter ("Tea Party Influence Will Hurt Fridley," March 8) on the uber-greed of Minnesota’s Tea Party GOP elicited the expected knee-jerk response from Steve Taylor ("Local Legislators' Radical Left-wing Politics at Root of State's Problems," March 9), John Anderson and A.E. King.
Taylor, in the wake of George W. Bush’s Great Recession (the direct cause of which was the greed of Wall Street and big insurance, greed that was rewarded by the Bush Bailout), now tells us that State Sen. Barb Goodwin (DFL-50) and State Reps. Kate Knuth (DFL-50A) and Carolyn Laine (DFL-50B) are the villains responsible for Minnesota’s budget woes.
A very powerful trio, especially when you consider that Goodwin wasn’t even in office. Readers may recall that the Tea Party GOP held the statehouse, a time now known as The Pawlenty Debacle. You know the guy, the out-of-towner who now (and then) would be President—the one who raised taxes on all ordinary, working Minnesotans, calling them fees, and passed the real burden to the counties and cities.
Pawlenty was the almost-always-absent governor who refused to tax the wealthy fairly and left the state so much worse off when he left office than it was when he entered simply because he failed to take the steps needed to raise revenue as well as manage expenditures.
As for Anderson’s comments, if he wants to put as much distance between himself and his fellow travelers in the Tea Party that’s his choice. The problem with that is the Tea Party now is the GOP—or is it the GOP is now the Tea Party? They’ve yet to figure that one out even in Washington, let alone Minnesota. But one can understand the evident embarrassment Anderson must feel—he seems to think of himself as a decent sort.
And I’m surprised that Mr. King has recommended I take matters up with God. I wasn’t aware she ever listened to liberals, socialists or statists – maybe the prospect of having to someday undo the damage being done by the Taylors, Andersons and Kings of today’s Right is causing some concern?
What did not at all surprise me about the responses was the fact that nothing was offered in the way of how anything the Tea Party GOP was proposing in the Legislature was going to help the people of Fridley. And surely one of these three should have been able respond to my simple question: what would Jesus cut?
When it comes to Minnesota’s Tea Party GOP, do not look for any meaningful legislation to benefit Fridley voters. All they have to offer is politics—no realistic policy. When you ask them about any solid solutions that will lead to jobs or educational opportunity or repairing the state’s infrastructure they respond with the empty rhetoric of Taylor, Anderson and King. It’s all they have to offer. Unlike Governor Dayton, they’ve got nuthin!
— John Haluska, Fridley
Editor's note: The letter-writer has served as campaign manager for state Rep. Carolyn Laine (DFL-50A). Fridley Patch welcomes your letters and opinions on topics of local interest. Email me at chris.steller@patch.com.
How do you think Fridley fares with representatives of various parties?
Tell us in the comments.
In This article
-
-
John Anderson
Joined Patch Saturday, December 18, 2010 -
A. E. King
Joined Patch Tuesday, March 8, 2011
A. E. King
9:53 am on Sunday, March 13, 2011
I am a nobody who writes a few letters to editors, and for Mr. Haluska to put me into a box and slap on any label of any political stripe is the height of electronic arrogance. I might as well say--but do not--that Mr. Haluska's comments fit the typical knee-jerk liberal rant to a T. What good does he expect to accomplish pretending he can be certain that the comments of people he does not know come out of reactionary adherence to a one-size-fits-all party line?
People vary. I believe Jesus would (does) laugh and cry at Mr. Haluska's insistence that it is the government's job to provide the majority of assistance for people in need. Jesus was not very interested in government actions, seeming concerned largely with the actions of individuals, though especially in relation to the vulnerable. We are called to a very high level of charity--but it's not charity when the resources are routed through the government and taken from us by threat of force.
Along with those beliefs, I agree Pawlenty was a fairly weak governor, that Wall Street did play a large role in the boom preceding our crackup (along with greedy individuals, foolish government regulators, and above all, the Federal Reserve banking system), that large corporations often have a pernicious influence, and that G. W. Bush deserves much blame for many ills.
Don't put people in boxes, Mr. Haluska. We might begin to think the liberal viewpoint is not so tolerant and accepting as its adherents claim.
John Haluska
10:51 am on Sunday, March 13, 2011
Mr. King,
Mr. King,
You cannot participate in a public forum such as this and expect to have what you say go unchallenged, nor can you express an intolerant position and not expect that intolerance to be pointed out for what it is.
John Haluska
Fridley MN
John Haluska
Fridley MN
A. E. King
2:26 pm on Monday, March 14, 2011
If you refer to the belief that marriage only happens when a man and a woman commit to each other for life, neither I, nor the MN GOP, nor the Greeks of 2,000 years ago, nor the Chinese of 5,000 years ago made that up. You can say you disagree, but saying it's intolerant suggests that it's outside the range of natural human variation of opinion. Nonsense. It's been held by the vast majority of the world's population across time and history, and continues so to be held today.
It would be intolerant if I tried to bar you from advancing that idea, or called you a monster for holding it. I do neither. Simply arguing the idea is wrong is not intolerant.
If you're referring to the numbers I referenced on the costs of education, I can't imagine how you'd connect that with intolerance.
Be precise, Mr. Haluska. I didn't ask that you not challenge my arguments, but that you not disparage and dismiss comments as coming from an assumed (and impermissible) point of view, as if it's impossible that those who disagree with you might be capable of independent thought. You don't know me (as proven by your assumption that I'm male) and you can't predict my other opinions based on those I state here.
So far, you have called my comments "knee-jerk" and "intolerant." That is only dismissive name-calling. Tackle my premises, tackle my facts, tackle my logic, but don't pretend that broad-brush labels for what you assume my opinions are is challenging anything I've said.
John Haluska
4:43 pm on Monday, March 14, 2011
Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms. King, whatever you may be,
At the risk of incurring the wrath of our publisher who wants this forum to be focused on Fridley issues, let me try to respond. I was wrong to make any assumption as to your gender and apologize for doing so. As for the balance of what you offered, I do support your right to both hold and profess those positions. However, I find the comment on marriage a clear statement of support for the intolerant position the GOP/Tea Party has taken on gay marriage and your support of the GOP/Tea Party doctrine on state involvement in things like care for the elderly, education, help for the poor, medical care, etc. to be incomprehensible, especially coming from someone who seems to be saying they are a Christian. And that you actually also seem to be saying that these beliefs of yours carry a divine endorsement is something you share with the rank and file of the GOP/Tea Party, according to all reports, and something I would say most Minnesotans would not accept as being true.
John Haluska
Fridley