Recent Posts

Search: doug wardlow

Doug Wardlow is a tenther

by Eric Ferguson on September 12, 2012 · 1 comment

UPDATE: there’s video

Following up on my post the other day about the speech where State Rep. Doug Wardlow displayed his bizarre notions of history and math, and questionable grasp of current events for that matter, I took a look at the bills he authored during his time in the State House. I discovered he’s not merely conservative or extreme or reactionary. He’s a tenther.

Tentherism is essentially the modern form of nullification, not always as extreme, but sometimes, the same thing. It’s the doctrine that states can ignore federal laws they disagree with based on an erroneous reading of the tenth amendment, or at least based on a convenient forgetting of other parts of the Constitution.

I discovered this in one of his two bills prohibiting health insurance exchanges under federal law. Yes, two bills making obedience of federal law illegal. For a lawyer, he seems oddly ignorant of the supremacy of federal law.

No American Health Benefit Exchange within the meaning of that term in the federal Affordable Care Act shall be created, operate, or exist in this state.

Subd. 3. Statement of public policy. (a) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related to that choice, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Minnesota hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Minnesota regarding the right of all persons residing in the state in choosing the mode of securing health care services, which is consistent with the constitutionally recognized inalienable right of liberty, whereas every person within the state of Minnesota is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.

States can choose not to set up their own exchanges, in which case the federal government will set up an exchange for residents of that state. However, Wardlow isn’t trying to prohibit the state exchange so that we’ll use the federal one instead. He’s actually trying to prohibit the exchange from operating here, thereby nullifying the federal law. John C. Calhoun would be pleased.

This is the other bill prohibiting exchanges, but it’s briefer, lacking the provocative nonsense about the ninth and tenth amendments.

Where Wardlow is coming from is a belief that has become common among the far right that the Constitution gives the government only those powers specifically enumerated. Like the doctrine of states’ rights, it’s a doctrine of convenience, held only by those who disagree with federal actions at the moment and easily forgotten when they agree with the federal government. The legal basis appears to be nothing at all, since the Constitution enumerates very little, no matter how much Wardlow et al think it’s the same as a statute book. The powers of the federal government are defined broadly, which is the point of a constitution. It’s the framework for a government, not the specifics. Yes, the powers not given to the federal government stay with the states, but the powers given to the federal government are broad. That was the point. The framers learned from the Articles of Confederation and realized we need a strong federal government, thus why they designed it that way.

Apparently, the framers not only didn’t enumerate the power of the federal government to regulate health insurance, they didn’t realize how obsessive 21st century conservatives would become over such regulation. My guess is Wardlow tried twice to nullify federal law out of jealousy that his ideological kin in the US House got to repeal it 33 times. Do they think if they repeal it enough times, they don’t need the Senate or the president? Could be, since they clearly can’t get a handle on this governing stuff.

In case anyone thinks it’s not ideological blindness motivating Wardlow, but a true dedication to individual rights, let this disabuse you: he had a bill effectively ending class actions by requiring each individual to prove fraud. So if someone commits a million dollars of fraud, that’s a big deal, right? However, if that fraudster harmed a million people, that’s a dollar from each victim. As big a deal as it should be to defraud people of a million dollars, it’s not worth it for any of those victims to go to court for their one dollar, thus the thief gets away it — unless there’s a class action — which Wardlow wants to prevent. So, if you want to make a bunch of money dishonestly, or save a bunch by being negligent, or just get away with causing a lot of harm, just make sure that instead of harming one person a lot, harm lots of people a tiny bit, and Wardlow will protect you by taking away the victims’ right to sue as a class. Does the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” ring any bells Rep. Wardlow?

But hey, at least Wardlow protects the victims’ right to be denied health insurance!

UPDATE: Big E posted video of Wardlow arguing for one of his nullification bills in April last year.

{ 1 comment }


In this video of State Rep. Doug Wardlow (R-51B, Eagan) speaking at some unnamed location, he has some — interesting — notions to express, like a positively David Bartonesque take on history. At the three minute mark, he starts expounding on ancient Rome. Rome is to ancient history what World War II is to wars. By that I mean World War II is the only war sort of familiar to many people, so all wars are like World War II. Rome is the only kind of familiar ancient empire, so whatever is happening today, it’s just like ancient Rome. Whatever you don’t like, that how Rome fell. So it’s a comparison used by many who know not much about it, into which category I fear Rep. Wardlow belongs. He went on about how Rome prospered when it had a free market, but then it got caught up in trying to sustain a welfare state and debasing its currency and regulating business, and down it went. Um, maybe, but sometimes history is bit more complex than is found in the free market fundamentalist’s handbook, which apparently doesn’t mention Rome conquered a bunch of people and took their stuff. No need for a treatise on ancient Roman history, just making the point that he left out some inconvenient facts, like where the welfare state came from. Why did the people need satisfying with “bread and circuses”? Funny thing that happens when there’s a huge slave population and every wealthy person buys workers instead of employing them: no jobs for the free people who need to work for a living. Strange how conquest and slavery got left out of Wardlow’s, well, we can hardly call it analysis.

Was history all he has ill-informed notions about? Anything more contemporary? Plenty, right after the jump.

Start at 8:40, and he compared the debt ceiling crisis that had just concluded shortly before the video was recorded with the equally recent state government shutdown, which is accurate. They certainly did come from the same place. Less accurately, he said of the crises caused by Republican refusal to compromise, “These were two major skirmishes in the larger battle of ideas”. This is like describing talks between a hostage taker and hostage negotiator as just a “battle of ideas”. For both the congressional Republicans and Wardlow’s fellow legislative Republicans, threatening to cause a lot destruction if they don’t get everything they want is just a debate tactic. Their strength comes from being willing to metaphorically shoot the hostage, not from better arguments.

If there’s any doubt he believes compromise is wrong, keep the video playing, because the next thing he says is that compromise is just a way of enacting a big government agenda. He called arguments for fairness and balance “sophistry”. So compromising with those with whom you disagree is necessarily a loser for Wardlow and his caucus? No wonder they’re so inherently unable to compromise. Wardlow is basically a smart guy, but he hasn’t the maturity to realize compromising is just what grown ups do and how democracies function.

At 17:45, Wardlow went back to the bizarre versions of history. Speaking of the American colonists, he said, “They resisted the absolutism that was sweeping over England in the 18th century.” He got wackier in a moment, but let’s just clear that up first. George I became king in 1714 and turned over much of his power to the cabinet, effectively inventing the constitutional monarchy, which arrangement was continued by George II and George III — yes, that George III. For all his failings, absolutism wasn’t one of them. In other words, Wardlow had it backwards. That wasn’t the only bit of British history he got wrong, but let’s move on the most stupefyingly ignorant thing arguably in the whole video.

The very next words he spoke need to be quoted just to show I’m not mischaracterizing his statement:

And they fought a war of independence in the United States, here, in America, to guarantee that the sacred light of liberty would shine forth and light the path to prosperity for future generations of Americans, even though it would not do so any longer in England.

And a few seconds later, in case there’s doubt that’s what he meant to say,

… and having witnessed the slow erosion of English liberties, and finally the sweeping away of English liberties, in the old country…

Yes, if you ask Rep. Wardlow, liberty was “snuffed out in England” and it’s been a bastion of tyranny where democracy has never been known. Other than following a path of political development very much like our own and becoming one of the earliest democracies just like us. Other than that, you know, Queen Elizabeth II is the absolute dictator. Apparently.

And just for one more reassurance I’m not misunderstanding him, at 20:09 he said, “It [America] is the last truly free society on Earth” Well, that must come as news to the British. And the Canadians. And the French and, well, pretty much every other country in what we call “the free world”, a phrase Rep. Wardlow must find dreadfully confusing.

At 22:50 he said the unfunded liabilities of the federal government are $100 trillion, more than all the money in the world. This seems to be a common talking point among conservatives given I found it multiple places. I can’t be sure of the origin, but it might be a speech by a president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, “Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon.” Infinite? He’s projecting literally forever? Yes, I’m using “literally” correctly. It hasn’t occurred to a banker, or to the people who turned his bizarre statement into a talking point, how impossible it is? Maybe they don’t get what “infinite” means. It’s like asking, “How much is X divided by everything in existence?” There has to be some amount of time, and since infinity seems really really long, let’s just shorten to 100 trillion years. Over 100 trillion years, our unfunded liability of $100 trillion is just a dollar a year. I think we can handle that, though I suspect any intelligent life still around to pay it off will be less concerned with unfunded government liabilities and more concerned with the overdue end of the universe. Absurd? No more than Wardlow’s silly talking point.

Even if it were a century, that’s $1 trillion/year, and they did figure in inflation. How they calculated that for infinity I don’t know, but game of them to try. So figuring $1 trillion not in current dollars but inflated dollars, still not that much per year, though that’s not the comparison Wardlow made. He compared a liability stretching into infinity against all the money in the world at the moment. Not all the money in the world over infinity or even over a century, but right now. That’s like refusing to get a mortgage because the amount you pay over 30 years is more than your income this year. That’s not how it works. I can only guess Wardlow knows as little about math and he does about history. Yet he sounds so sure, proving again that certainty and accuracy have no relationship.

Don’t come away thinking there was nothing Wardlow has a grasp on. He seems to have the use of strawman arguments figured out. At 29:30 he said:

Some of our friends on the other side of the debate seem to believe that that Americans aspire simply to be the most comfortable people that ever lived. People who are able to sate their desires at the expense of our very humanity, and the prosperity of future generations.

Who believes that? Did I miss the legislative debates where DFLers stood up to say “Let’s sate our current desires and to hell with the prosperity of future generations.”? Or maybe that’s just how Wardlow honestly comprehends arguments in support of building for the future and against deliberately blowing up the economy.

Really, MNGOP, isn’t it a bit embarrassing that this is what passes for intellectual heft among your current elected officials? DFLers, his challenger is Laurie Halverson. Send her some help.

UPDATE: h/t Mr Math
Bill Prendergast attended an event that appears to be where Wardlow was speaking and he wrote about being the lone liberal blogger.



    If anyone has a spare couple of hours this weekend, and a strong stomach, they may be able to find out just how extreme Doug Wardlow (R-38B) really is. Doug will be the very special keynote speaker for the “56 Clubs” annual cruise.

You too can cruise on the Tea Party Express!!

     The cruise will offer “a very American presentation from a very special guest!!!” Tea Party freshman, Doug Wardlow, is that three exclamation point guest. What does the group believe in, and does Doug agree on some of their more controversial ideas?

     The 56’ers are there to educate and inform us.** They offer such scholarly workshops as, “Separation of Church and State-The Myth.” Pretty radical and extreme stuff, even though they explicitly claim not to be extremists. Has Doug attended this seminar? We’d like to know. Does Doug believe that the separation of church and state, long settled, is myth to be revisited?

     You can also partake in some of their wonderful film screenings. You can watch, “Not Evil, Just Wrong”, about how global climate change is a big fat myth. What this has to do with the 56’ers supposed non-political, single issue advocacy of the constitution, I am not sure. I wonder if we could screen “Not Evil, Just Wrong” with Doug Wardlow while on a luxury cruise and listening to how we need to have a re-union of church and state. We used to have a state religion. Then our founders overthrew King George.

     With the 56’ers, you could screen “A More Perfect Union.” The movie was produce by the National Center for Constitutional Studies. The groups founder has made the apparently non-extremist claims that slave children were more free than non-slave children. The FBI even wrote a nice memo about NCCS’ founder.

One 1962 FBI memo notes, “During the past year or so, Skousen has affiliated himself with the extreme right-wing ‘professional communists’ who are promoting their own anticommunism for obvious financial purposes.”

   These are types of groups that produce movies the 56’ers screen. Are these the ideas that keynote speaker Wardlow endorses? How close is Wardlow with the 56’ers?  

**They are not there to inform us on grammar or the English language, both of which they have only a fleeting grasp. I am sure their understanding of the constitution is more scholarly.


Image Hosted by ImageShack.usOn Monday Laurie Halverson filed paperwork declaring her intention to run for the state house seat currently held by everyone’s favorite dyed-in-the-wool tea-partier, Doug Wardlow.

For those of you unfamiliar with Rep. Wardlow, he is one of the many freshman swept into office in the great GOP wave of 2010, defeating Mike Obermulluer 52-48, to reclaim his father’s former seat. Back in June of this year, during the limbo period after the legislative session ended and the shutdown began, Alec attended a forum that Wardlow was on and got to see him in action firsthand.

This was Wardlow’s position on negotiating for those who don’t remember:

When negotiating, you cannot compromise your principles with your opponent, because if you compromise they won’t negotiate with you because you don’t have a principled base to compromise from.

When I updated the Senate hPVI numbers earlier this year I noted that Senate district 38 was the one that had moved the most in the Democratic direction, going from R+6 to R+2. Assuming it doesn’t change too much in redistricting, something we really can’t be sure of, it should be a very winnable race.

That’s why it’s nice to see a strong DFL candidate get into the race, from the Eagan Patch:

Halverson since 2006 has served on the Eagan Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, and has been an active leader for the Eagan Foundation, according to a news release. She graduated from the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul with a degree in political science, and has a Master of Public Affairs from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, the release states.

Doug Wardlow is one of the more vulnerable of the GOP freshman class and having a credible challenger running against him makes it that much better of an investment of time and money for anyone looking for races to help with next year.


Rep. Doug Wardlow (R-Eagan) goes full tenther last night introducing an amendment to the Health and Human Services bill.  His amendment excempts Minnesota from the federal health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, that past a year ago.  Tea Partiers like Wardlow claim the 10th Amendment gives states the right to declare federal laws null and void if they don’t like them.

Unfortunately, teabaggers have a poor grasp of the Constitution and always always always ignore the parts of it they don’t like.  They ignore the fact that in the 10th Amendment the framers avoided the word “expressly” when describing the limitations of federal laws.

Teabaggers always always always ignore Article I, Section 8:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

The crazy, it hurts.  Make it stop.


2018 DFL State Convention Day 3

by Eric Ferguson on June 3, 2018 · 4 comments

This is the day 3 live blog. Day 1 (US Senate, secretary of state, and my explanation of convention procedures for newbies) is here, and day 2 (governor and AG) is here.

The convention hall as seen from visitor and alternate seating.

The convention hall as seen from visitor and alternate seating.

And it’s auditor day, and maybe the lieutenant governor endorsement. The filing deadline is Tuesday, so Erin Murphy will have to announce quickly if she hasn’t already. I’m not there today and trying to tune in to the livestream, but so far it isn’t working. While we’re waiting, I’d like to handicap the auditor race: no idea. No information to go on at all. When I mentioned it to anybody, no one was even thinking about it with governor sucking up all the attention. Might be well to remember that governors Mark Dayton and Arne Carlson held the state auditor position. Rebecca Otto didn’t get endorsed, but being auditor made her an immediate serious candidate for governor or whatever else she should choose to run for. So even aside from the actual job, it matters.


CD2 is the place to watch tonight. This is the year of defending against Tea Party, not traditional Republicans. Even the challenging judicial candidates are Tea Party extremists. Tea Party candidates are backed by big corporate dollars for corporations to make even more outrageous profits.  The Citizens-United supreme-court case allowed unlimited amounts of corporate money to be spent on elections, resulting in huge third party literature mailings with most outrageous of lies.

Regaining control of the state senate and the state house rests in suburbs. In 2010, the Democrats stayed home from voting. This year the CD2 Democrats came back with a strong will and a significant amount of help from “flying” squads, help from other areas.

The most targeted race in CD2 is the Jim Carlson for State Senate race. Jim Carlson was a great senator who advocated for practical government, civil rights, protecting the quality of our environment and putting people above corporations. Jim was edged out by less than a thousand votes in the last Republican-wave election. The Eagan-Burnsville senate race has always been dead even between DFL and Republican bases. Redistricting gave it a slight DFL edge . Future stories will tell the detailed hard-fought campaign with spending of a half million dollars and an extraordinary volunteer effort. Only Edina’s senate race has had higher dollar expenditures for a local race. This is crazy spending for local races. Also the two house races are closely hooked to the success of this senate race, with the two great pick-up opportunities of Sandy Masin and Laurie Halverson. This one senate district of 51 could determine the fate of control of the state legislature. Voters received inches of literature. And I am not exaggerating about the inches.

Now here is what is really exciting. The senate districts that are not 51 had some awesome candidates running races below the radar. In some cases, the Republicans did not even bother to campaign. I personally know that some of these candidates are awesome door-to-door persuaders. They relentlessly worked every day, even with the smallest base of volunteers. I would not be surprised if these races have some upset surprises.

Even in the constitutional amendments, the suburbs and particularly Eagan-Burnsville may be the deciding factor. The senate candidate, Jim Carlson is strong advocate of “No” for both amendments, so that was a second or third persuasion for the Jim Carlson door-knockers. There are an extraordinary number of vote-no signs in Eagan-Burnsville, including Catholics voting-no signs.  

SD51 SD20B SD58A SD56B
Jim Carlson- 54% David Bly – 57% Colin Lee – 41% Will Morgan – 52%
Ted Daley – 46% Brian Wermerskirchen – 43% Mary Liz Holberg – 60% Roz Peterson- 48%
% reporting – 16% % reporting – 100% % reporting – 100% % reporting –  73%

Sandy Masin – 54% Laurie Halverson – 0% Roberta Gibbons – 47% Jeff Wilfahrt – 47%
Diane Anderson – 47% Doug Wardlow – 0% Tara Mack – 53% Anna Wills – 54%
% reporting – 36% % reporting – 0% % reporting – 69% % reporting – 92%

In the 2010 Republican-wave election, the old CD2 lost all 14 DFL legislators. Redistricting brought 3 DFL legislative seats. With high DFL turnout for Obama and depressed GOP turnout because lack of excitement over Romney, there is the possibility of again picking up 14 legislative seats. In fact, I am counting on Kevin Dahl as a pick up already.

1AM Update – The SD51 numbers have been remarkably slow to publish. David Bly and Will Morgan are great pick ups.  


I sometimes write about how the national religious right is influencing Minnesota’s legislative agenda. Very often, I write about how the national religious right amounts to “a third national party”–usually operating within the GOP, but in fact recruiting and promoting its “own” political candidates (Michele Bachmann’s an example.)

Here are some items from the “legislative scorecards” distributed by the Minnesota Family Council (MFC.) The MFC is a state-level operation allied with the national religious right; for example, James Dobson’s Family Research Council.

Look at the names of Minnesota legislators, and how they are “rated” for voters by the MFC…

Steve Drazkowski (-R)  Score: 100

(That’s a very good score, by MFC standards. That score means that in 2011, Rep. Drazkowski voted “the right way” on major issues of concern to conservative evangelical Christians.)

Kathy Lohmer (-R) Score: 100

(Rep. Lohmer is my representative in Stillwater, district 56A. She used to work for Bachmann campaigns.)

You can check out how your Minnesota legislators rate with state’s religious right by consulting the link at the bottom of this diary.

Matt Dean (-R) Score: 100

Yeah… Dean’s the Minnesota House Majority leader…

…and it looks like he’s passed this test with flying colors… this “sectarian religion in politics test” that the Minnesota Family Council and Family Research Council do for elected officials…

…but (just today) it was announced that incumbent Republican Representative Matt Dean will be battling incumbent Republican Representative Carol McFarlane for the GOP nomination in the district. Who will ultimately get the nomination?

Let’s look at Rep. MacFarlane’s “conservative evangelical scorecard” from MFC:

Carol McFarlane (-R)  Score: 80

Uh-oh, Rep. MacFarlane. You’re that much less “conservative evangelical” than Matt Dean… not gonna help, if you’re trying to get that GOP endorsement again…

Here’s some more names and scores for Minnesota politicians…

Doug Wardlow (-R) Score: 100

How do you get that enviable “100” rating from conservative evangelical activists?

Well, in the case of Minnesota House Representatives, the scorers look at how the all the representatives voted on five issues. If a legislator ‘voted the right way’ on all five issues–that legislator gets a ‘100’ from these conservative evangelical political activists.

What are the five issues they looked at?

1. Minnesota Constitutional Marriage Amendment – Place a state constitutional marriage amendment, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, on the 2012 ballot for Minnesota voters to vote on.

2. Prohibit Abortions after 20 Weeks – Prohibit abortions after 20 weeks, except when mother’s life is at risk or serious risk of permanent bodily impairment, which is when the unborn child can begin feeling pain.

3. Stop Taxpayer Funding of Abortion – Stop taxpayer funding of abortion in state-sponsored health programs.

4. Prohibit Taxpayer Funding of Human Cloning – Prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to support human cloning.

5. Stop Expansion of State Regulation of Preschool Programs – Drop efforts to expand state regulation and control of private day care and childcare and other early childhood programs.

By the way: these conservative evangelicals we’re talking about…they don’t rate the votes on these issues as “pro-” or “anti-” Christian votes. They rate the legislators’ votes as “pro-” or “anti-” family.
(Yes, they do. If your legislator voted against going forward with the “no gay marriage” amendment–these conservative evangelicals activists are telling Minnesota evangelicals that your legislator voted “against families.” Even if he or she has a family.)

Now: I’m not saying that every legislator who gets a high rating from MFC is a creature of the national or local religious right. That doesn’t follow logically.

And if you’ll look at the scorecards, you’ll see that some Dems are getting points from the religious right for “voting the right way,” too.

But I am saying: that these scorecards do suggest which Minnesota politicians may be creatures of the national religious right. For example:

Michele Bachmann  Score: 100

Here–a high score from the national and state religious right does coincide with the fact that a Minnesota politician was groomed to be the state puppet of the national religious right. (The scorecards are just indicators, no more.)

You’ll find the legislative scorecards at Minnesota Family Council’s website, at the “Media”/”Action Alerts/Legislative Scorecards” series of links. (They’re pdf files.)

There’s are two “2011 Legislative Scorecards.” One rates the full Minnesota House Representatives, the other rates the full Minnesota State Senate.

There’s another legislative scorecard for legislators in the federal government. The Minnesota Family Council didn’t that scorecard; it was provided to them by James Dobson’s Family Research Council (FRC.)

The information I’m pointing you to today is by no means “a big scoop.” The MFC and FRC have been identifying “pro-Christian” and “anti-Christian” legislators and politicians to their voters for a long time.

Professional political media in Minnesota know that the national religious right has been doing that. And Minnesota’s media professionals know that these ratings have an impact in Minnesota districts where evangelical activists are strong. They probably even know that the national religious right intervenes directly in our state elections (organizing, GOTV, activism within the Republican Party regarding candidate selections, etc.) The national religious right intervenes in our elections, to ‘make sure the GOP selects the correct candidates for Minnesotans,’ to ‘make sure the elections come out right.’

The Minnesota political media almost certainly know all that; it’s documented in out-of-state reporting on the national religious right.

The problem is that the Minnesota media just don’t like to write about it. They probably should. Because the election support delivered by the national Christian right to Minnesota legislators–influences and even explains how the national religious right influences Minnesota’s daily political and legislative agenda.

(For example, Republican Senate candidate Pete Hegseth–challenging Democrat Amy Klobuchar–received a fellowship from the Family Research Council. FRC leader Tony Perkins bragged about Hegseth working for them. When I tried to access FRC published documents relating to Hegseth’s stint with FRC–I found they’d been removed.)

(Minnesota political reporters really should report that aspect of Hegseth’s political ideology when they doing pieces on him.)

I mean: Minnesotans really should be told that these out-of-state guys have so much daily say in the agenda and composition of our state legislature–right?


Hat tip to Jacob G and MPRNews for the update on the Dean/McFarlane competition.


Some Info on the Legislative Maps

by TonyAngelo on February 22, 2012 · 3 comments

Here is a breakdown of the incumbent pairings and open seats.

Senate Incumbant Pairings
D v D 2
R v R 4
D v R 2
Open seats 8
Total 16

House Incumbant Pairings
D v D 6
R v R 6
D v R 3
Open seats 15
Total 30

Senators paired:

District Name Party Previous

05 John J. Carlson R 04
05 Tom Saxhaug DFL 03

08 Bill G. Ingebrigtsen R 11
08 Gretchen Hoffman R 10

17 Gary W. Kubly DFL 20
17 Joe Gimse R 13

23 Julie A. Rosen R 24
23 Al DeKruif R 25

31 Michelle Benson R 49
31 Michael J. Jungbauer R 48

39 Ted Lillie R 56
39 Ray Vandeveer R 52

61 Ken Kelash DFL 63
61 D. Scott Dibble DFL 60

66 John Marty DFL 54
66 Mary Jo McGuire DFL 66

Find more detail below the fold…
Representatives paired:

04B Paul Marquart DFL 09B
04B Kent Eken DFL 02A

05A Larry Howes R 04B
05A John Persell DFL 04A

05B Carolyn McElfatrick R 03B
05B Tom Anzelc DFL 03A

08B Mary Franson R 11B
08B Mark Murdock R 10B

11B Roger Crawford R 08B
11B Bill Hilty DFL 08A

17A Lyle Koenen DFL 20B
17A Andrew Falk DFL 20A

18B Glenn Gruenhagen R 25A
18B Ron Shimanski R 18A

23B Paul Torkelson R 21B
23B Tony Cornish R 24B

35B Branden Petersen R 49B
35B Peggy Scott R 49A

38B Carol McFarlane R 53B
38B Matt Dean R 52B

39A Bob Dettmer R 52A
39A Bob Barrett R 17B

41A Tom Tillberry DFL 51B
41A Kate Knuth DFL 50B

61A Frank Hornstein DFL 60B
61A Marion Greene DFL 60A

63B Jean Wagenius DFL 62B
63B Linda Slocum DFL 63B

66A Alice Hausman DFL 66B
66A Mindy Greiling DFL 54A

Full Senate List

District Name Party Previous

01 LeRoy A. Stumpf DFL 01
02 Rod Skoe DFL 02
03 Tomas M. Bakk DFL 06
04 Keith Langseth DFL 09
05 John J. Carlson R 04
05 Tom Saxhaug DFL 03
06 David J. Tomassoni DFL 05
07 Roger J. Reinert DFL 07
08 Bill G. Ingebrigtsen R 11
08 Gretchen Hoffman R 10
10 Paul Gazelka R 12
11 Tony Lourey DFL 08
13 Michelle L. Fischbach R 14
14 John Pederson R 15
15 Dave Brown R 16
16 Gary Dahms R 21
17 Gary W. Kubly DFL 20
17 Joe Gimse R 13
18 Scott Newman R 18
19 Kathy Sheran DFL 23
21 John Howe R 28
22 Doug Magnus R 22
23 Julie A. Rosen R 24
23 Al DeKruif R 25
24 Mike Parry R 26
25 David H. Senjem R 29
26 Carla Nelson R 30
27 Dan Sparks DFL 27
28 Jeremy R. Miller R 31
29 Amy Koch R 19
31 Michelle Benson R 49
31 Michael J. Jungbauer R 48
32 Sean Nienow R 17
33 Gen Olson R 33
34 Warren Limmer R 32
36 Benjamin Kruse R 47
37 Pam Wolf R 51
38 Roger C. Chamberlain R 53
39 Ted Lillie R 56
39 Ray Vandeveer R 52
40 Chris Eaton DFL 46
41 Barbara J. Goodwin DFL 50
43 Charles W. Wiger DFL 55
44 Terri E. Bonoff DFL 43
45 Ann H. Rest DFL 45
46 Ron Latz DFL 44
47 Julianne E. Ortman R 34
48 David W. Hann R 42
49 Geoff Michel R 41
51 Ted Daley R 38
52 James P. Metzen DFL 39
54 Katie Sieben DFL 57
55 Claire A. Robling R 35
56 Dan Hall R 40
57 Chris Gerlach R 37
58 Dave Thompson R 36
59 Linda I. Higgins DFL 58
60 Kari Dziedzic DFL 59
61 Ken Kelash DFL 63
61 D. Scott Dibble DFL 60
62 Jeff Hayden DFL 61
63 Patricia Torres Ray DFL 62
64 Richard J. Cohen DFL 64
65 Sandra L. Pappas DFL 65
66 John Marty DFL 54
66 Mary Jo McGuire DFL 66
67 John M. Harrington DFL 67

Full House List

District Name Party Previous

01A Dan Fabian R 01A
01B Debra Kiel R 01B
02A David Hancock R 02B
03A David Dill DFL 06A
03B Mary Murphy DFL 06B
04A Morrie Lanning R 09A
04B Paul Marquart DFL 09B
04B Kent Eken DFL 02A
05A Larry Howes R 04B
05A John Persell DFL 04A
05B Carolyn McElfatrick R 03B
05B Tom Anzelc DFL 03A
06A Carly Melin DFL 05B
06B Tom Rukavina DFL 05A
07A Thomas Huntley DFL 07A
07B Kerry Gauthier DFL 07B
08A Bud Nornes R 10A
08B Mary Franson R 11B
08B Mark Murdock R 10B
09B Mike LeMieur R 12B
10A John Ward DFL 12A
11B Roger Crawford R 08B
11B Bill Hilty DFL 08A
12A Torrey Westrom R 11A
12B Paul Anderson R 13A
13A Larry Hosch DFL 14B
13B Tim O’Driscoll R 14A
14A Steve Gottwalt R 15A
14B King Banaian R 15B
15A Sondra Erickson R 16A
16A Chris Swedzinski R 21A
17A Lyle Koenen DFL 20B
17A Andrew Falk DFL 20A
17B Bruce Vogel R 13B
18A Dean Urdahl R 18B
18B Glenn Gruenhagen R 25A
18B Ron Shimanski R 18A
19A Terry Morrow DFL 23A
19B Kathy Brynaert DFL 23B
20A Kelby Woodard R 25B
21A Tim Kelly DFL 28A
21B Steve Drazkowski R 28B
22A Joe Schomacker R 22A
22B Rod Hamilton R 22B
23A Bob Gunther R 24A
23B Paul Torkelson R 21B
23B Tony Cornish R 24B
24A Kory Kath DFL 26A
24B Patti Fritz DFL 26B
25A Duane Quam R 29A
25B Kim Norton DFL 29B
26A Tina Liebling DFL 30A
26B Mike Benson R 30B
27A Rich Murray R 27A
27B Jeanne Poppe DFL 27B
28A Gene Pelowski, Jr DFL 31A
28B Greg Davids R 31B
29A Joe McDonald R 19B
29B Bruce Anderson R 19A
30A Mary Kiffmeyer R 16B
31A Kurt Daudt R 17A
31B Tom Hackbarth R 48A
33A Connie Doepke R 33B
33B Steve Smith R 33A
34A Joyce Peppin R 32A
34B Kurt Zellers R 32B
35A Jim Abeler R 48B
35B Branden Petersen R 49B
35B Peggy Scott R 49A
36A Denise Dittrich DFL 47A
36B Melissa Hortman DFL 47B
37B Tim Sanders R 51A
38A Linda Runbeck R 53A
38B Carol McFarlane R 53B
38B Matt Dean R 52B
39A Bob Dettmer R 52A
39A Bob Barrett R 17B
39B Kathy Lohmer R 56A
40A Michael V. Nelson DFL 46A
40B Debra Hilstrom DFL 46B
41A Tom Tillberry DFL 51B
41A Kate Knuth DFL 50B
41B Carolyn Laine DFL 50A
42B Bev Scalze DFL 54B
43B Leon Lillie DFL 55A
44A Sarah Anderson R 43A
44B John Benson DFL 43B
45A Lyndon Carlson, Sr. DFL 45B
45B Sandra Peterson DFL 45A
46A Ryan Winkler DFL 44B
46B Steve Simon DFL 44A
47A Ernie Leidiger R 34A
47B Joe Hoppe R 34B
48A Kirk Stensrud R 42A
48B Jenifer Loon R 42B
49A Keith Downey R 41A
49B Pat Mazorol R 41B
50B Ann Lenczewski DFL 40B
51A Diane Anderson R 38A
51B Doug Wardlow R 38B
52A Rick Hansen DFL 39A
52B Joe Atkins DFL 39B
53A Nora Slawik DFL 55B
53B Andrea Kieffer R 56B
54A John Kriesel R 57A
54B Denny McNamara R 57B
55A Michael Beard R 35A
55B Mark Buesgens R 35B
56A Pam Myhra R 40A
56B Mary Liz Holberg R 36A
57A Tara Mack R 37A
57B Kurt Bills R 37B
58B Pat Garofalo R 36B
59A Joe Mullery DFL 58A
59B Bobby Joe Champion DFL 58B
60A Diane Loeffler DFL 59A
60B Phyllis Kahn DFL 59B
61A Frank Hornstein DFL 60B
61A Marion Greene DFL 60A
61B Paul Thissen DFL 63A
62A Karen Clark DFL 61A
62B Susan Allen DFL 61B
63A Jim Davnie DFL 62A
63B Jean Wagenius DFL 62B
63B Linda Slocum DFL 63B
64A Erin Murphy DFL 64A
64B Michael Paymar DFL 64B
65A Rena Moran DFL 65A
65B Carlos Mariani DFL 65B
66A Alice Hausman DFL 66B
66A Mindy Greiling DFL 54A
66B John Lesch DFL 66A
67A Tim Mahoney DFL 67A
67B Sheldon Johnson DFL 67B


This is from a while ago, but I’m hitting it some more.

In testimony before Minnesota Senate and House committees…religious leaders and representatives from religious right organizations cited single-parent families and a skyrocketing divorce rate as reasons to protect marriage from being redefined to include same-sex couples by “activist judges” and “handfuls of legislators.” And GOP members rebuffed efforts by DFLers to include a ban on divorces in a proposed ban on gay marriage. However, a number of the legislators who say they want to protect marriage appear to have been divorced.

The article goes on to list seven conservative legislators;  the more “high-profile” among them include Tony Cornish, Doug Wardlow, and Tom Hackbarth. It would be interesting to ask them, what it is about gay marriage, that was responsible for bursting asunder the holy bonds of their sacred unions.

The hypocrisy on the right is so thorough, so endemic, that I don’t need to add another mini-rant, here.  When one is abiding by right-wing doctrine, which is grounded in neither fact nor reason, massive disconnects between words and actions are, perhaps, pretty much inevitable.