Minnesota GOP: Democrats are the Party of NO! Time for a GOP Governor

Dayton’s veto highlights need for Republican governor

Last week, Governor Dayton signed major pieces of legislation into law – including funding for the Democrat-controlled executive branch – while eliminating funding for the Republican- controlled legislative branch. The move was partisan and lacked integrity, but more important, it was likely unconstitutional.

Those who follow politics will know that this was just the latest episode in Dayton’s long history of irrational behavior. From closing his Washington, D.C., office as U.S. Senator, to changing his mind on previously made agreements as Minnesota Governor, this latest episode will come as no surprise to many.

The surprising part is how the Governor’s action sheds a revealing light on the Democrat Party. It shows how the Democrat Party has become the Party of “No.” No to bi-partisanship. No to acting with integrity. And no to positive solutions for all Minnesotans. Dayton’s veto is not the rogue act of one man, but is evident of a systemic shift within the Party and many of its’ politicians.

This legislative session has been a historically productive session. Republican leaders negotiated to provide tax breaks for students, seniors, farmers, and families with children. They negotiated to provide proper funding to repair roads and bridges, while stopping a gas tax increase. They negotiated to lower costs and increase options for those struggling with Obamacare.

When faced with these many positive reforms, Democrats, led by Governor Dayton, said a loud and menacing NO. They chose to use the bully pulpit to try to undo the positive advances.

For this reason, it is crucial to elect a Republican governor in 2018. Without a Republican in that office, we can only expect more of the same from Democrats. More partisan and political behavior. More moves that lack integrity. And more senseless blocking of positive reforms.

Be a part of the solution! Donate today to help us win the Governor's seat next year!

The Betrayal of the Consultant Class

What does it take to win an election?

A lot of candidates learn very quickly about the pressure to get a consultant, a campaign manager etc.

One former candidate told me how campaigner managers and consultants rely on inducing people to run for office--so that they have a job.

It is nothing about winning a seat.

It has nothing to do with making sure that the right values win out not just in an election but for the future of the state.

The consultant wants money.

Who cares if your man wins the race or not?

Look at Ron Murphy and his Right to Rise PAC.

Jeb Bush was flawed goods from Day One. The grassroots voters did not want him.

His views were not in line with the base of voters.

Bush: an old name, an Establishment label, plus a set of views which enraged the base: amnesty and Common Core.

And yet ...

The consultant, the campaign manager Ron Murphy spent over $100 million of donor dollars.

He walked away with $19 million for his services.

The result?

A candidate who was not the good to begin with ruined the chances for better candidates. Warring consultants pitting candidates against one another, and a less desirable candidate--Donald Trump--scoops up all the delegates.

Do we want the right people to win, so that they can start doing the right things once in office?

The consultant class, a lot like the establishment classes in Washington, Sacramento, and other states, is out for their own interests.

When did campaigning, when did running for office, become another cottage industry for a select few, while the good governance of our states and this country fell away?

Now, a challenge to this cynical notion points out: "A consultant cannot stay credible if he backs candidates who lose."

Remember, consultants can fluff people into running for office. One consultant offered to lower his fees for one potential candidate--but there would still be money for him in the end.

Individual donors offer money to a candidate, but that funding also goes to the professional helping with the campaign, too.

So, what are we left with? Inexperienced candidates relying on "experts" with diverse motives, and ulterior agendas?

How else does a candidate get elected if he doesn't have guidance and a strong manger to assist him?

Another question: there is too much focus on getting elected. What about accomplishing what is best for the country? What about ensuring the rule of law and good govermance?

My Prepared Remarks for Pat Jr's Dismissal--April 12, 2016

Because Patrick Furey Jr. chose to resign from the Traffic Commission rather than face removal, the city council removed the item from discussion on the April 12, 2016 agenda.

This is the power that Torrance residents have.

They do not need to settle for corruption, fraud, or nepotism.

Good government is not a privilege, but a right, one which the framers of the Constitution fought for, which we are required to maintain with our vigilance, or attention, our actions.

The fight is not over. We need better leadership, better governance on the city council. The unethical and unlawful actions of Mayor Pat Furey need to be addressed next.

Here are the comments which I would have read if the city council needed to discuss and take action on Patrick Furey Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Evening, Torrance City Council:

Once again, the community at large must ask that you take responsibility for one of the members of the city commissions.

Patrick J. Furey has been fined and admonished three times for unfair political practices.

Let me read from the Daily Breeze editorial:

The Fair Political Practices Commission last month fined the mayor’s campaign, run by his son, a political consultant and volunteer commissioner, and others, $35,000 for hiding illegal contributions. FPPC investigators found that it was Furey Jr., however, who coordinated the contributions from McCormick Ambulance, a company that contracts with the city, and the Torrance firefighters union, to his father’s campaign.

Last year, around this time, Arthur Plourde was removed from a commission for pursuing a personal agenda.

With Patrick Furey Jr, we find professional and moral failings, both of which indicate that he needs to be removed.

The politics in this city is starting to stink, and it seems as though two sets of law are emerging.

We are not going to have two sets of law in this town.

One for those who are well-connected to elected officials, and one set of law for those who are not elected.

Enough is enough.

We have evidence of illegal collusion between the mayor’s campaign McCormick Ambulance and the firefighters’ union.

And one person in the middle of this political travesty is Pat Furey Jr.

He needs to go.

It is shameful and sad that members of the city have to keep putting pressure on this council to have him removed.

For the record, I do not care if one thousand people suddenly write positive thinks about Mayor Pat Furey or his son. And no, we are not political enemies because we expect city servants to behave above reproach.

A professional standing requires professional conduct, and Pat Furey Jr has repeatedly not measured up to that standard.

This city has too many special interests buying influence. The only influence which matters in local government is the local interest, operating within the clear guidelines of the state and federal constitutions, as well as our municipal code.

Regardless of whether Pat Jr. conduct on the traffic commission has been mediocre or exemplary, he needs to be removed.

Thank you.

My Comments to Torrance City Council--April 12, 2016

Good Evening Torrance City Council.

My name is Arthur Schaper, long-time resident, life-long citizen.

I have not wanted to share these concerns about one member of this city council, but I will choose to speak my mind at this time.

Councilmember Tim Goodrich ran on a platform of “back to basics” for the city of Torrance.

To his credit, in spite of our ideological differences, he interviewed me—as did every other councilmember, when I sought a commission assignment.

Now, I will speak to the ideological differences, and how a clear disconnect from the needs and role of the city of Torrance with what I would call a “Big Green Agenda”.

I do not see how the pursuit of Community Choice Aggregation is a move back to basics.

I have spoken against that wasteful, unnecessary program.

I also do not see why seeking a letter of concurrence to have a proper replacement on the California Air Quality Management Board has any bearing on the day-to-day actions of this city.

I now see electric car chargers, resting empty. I don’t see anyone using them.

I have heard residents complain about the new street sweeping program, and how more people are getting parking tickets. Were these policies designed to comply with onerous federal laws?

Or were they designed as a fastidious measure to put more power in the hands of the city council at the expense of everyone else?

There has been a lot of talk in this city about whether individuals can rent out their homes through Airbnb, and then discussions about moratoriums, followed by more steps in a complicated process whether individual homeowners will be permitted to remodel their homes in certain parts of the city.

Cities are for citizens, and city councils are designed to meet those needs.

They are not here to serve as foils for a long-term, protracted, yet out of touch illiberal agenda.

Who does not care about clean water or clean air? Who does not want safe streets and secure homes, and a thriving community which does not pollute our environment?

But the strictures, the limits on people’s private property must stop.

And I am tired of seeing my city and my city council used as a spring for liberal agendas which do not benefit the city of Torrance, or the state of California.

And no, I will not be standing in front of anyone’s jeep to protest or profess my views.

And no, there is nothing foolish about speaking one’s mind, exercising one’s Freedom of Speech and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thank you.