Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Don't Minnesota Voters Deserve A Choice? Joe Perske Is NOT A Choice... In Fact, He's Anti-Choice


Hard to imagine, but MN-06 is likely to wind up with someone WORSE than Bachmann!

Drowning in scandal and extremism-- and facing a rematch with Jim Graves, the Democrat who nearly beat her last year-- Bachmann was uncharacteristically wise to announce her retirement from Congress. The Republicans are finding some other lunatic-- probably right-wing lobbyist Tom Emmer-- to represent Minnesota's 6th CD. Although the DCCC ignored Graves last year, they were as stunned by his success as Bachmann was and they promised to help him next year. Not counting outside money, Bachmann spent $11,946,232 on her reelection campaign, an incredible $66.65 for every vote. Graves spent $2,279,384 or $13.03 per vote. She beat him 180,131 to 175,923 and of the 8 counties that make up the district, he beat her in Benton and Stearns and tied her in Anoka and Washington.

Tom Emmer, who was defeated in his run for governor last year, is as extremist in his politics as Bachmann. He espouses the Confederate nullification doctrine, doesn't think corporations should pay any taxes at all, opposes a minimum wage and decided to make his gubernatorial run a jihad against waiters and waitresses. Of course he's a loud homophobic bigot, anti-Choice, actually in favor of school bullying and is a serial drunk driver who keeps trying to make drunk driving a less serious crime. The man is sick-- and that helps explain why he lost his bid for the governorship, despite being heavily financed to the tune of several million dollars by crooked corporations like Best Buy and Target.

Once Bachmann pulled out of the race, the DCCC's interest in helping Graves instantly evaporated and he withdrew as well. Although there's a possibility of an actual Democrat jumping in, it looks like the worst of all options, Sartell's conservative first-term mayor, Joe Perske, will be the Democratic candidate. There's no reason for any progressive to consider voting for him, regardless of how terrible Emmer is.
Perske acknowledged he’s "not an articulate politician" but says that might not be a problem for many 6th District voters.

"I change my own oil. I cut my own coupons. I don’t know how many congressmen do that," Perske said. "I represent the working class of Central Minnesota."

Perske says he considers himself a "Blue Dog," or centrist, Democrat because he says he’s against abortion rights and supports Second Amendment rights. Still, he says he’s not a Republican because they aren’t offering solutions to create livable wage jobs or improve education or health care access.
Perske can't win. You need an actual Democrat to beat a Republican, not an apologetic semi-Republican. Good time to watch this Grayson video about what a real Democrat is:


It took 4 votes at the convention, but Perske won the DFL endorsement, which means, in effect, the district will stay in Republican hands for at least another two years, probably much longer.

Labels: , , , , ,


At 9:46 AM, Blogger Toni Rask said...

While I agree that Perske is not a traditional candidate, if a centrist democrat such as Graves couldn't hack it in the backwards thinking 6th district we need someone who can at least be a moderate if he wants any chance of winning Wright and Sherburne counties.

At 2:58 PM, Blogger DFL Delegate said...

As a delegate, I have asked both candidates, Jim Read and Joe Perske, regarding their views on pro-life and being anti-choice. I conclude that Jim and Joe both have similar views.

Since Jim is not questioned here on this blog, I'll address Joe's response. Joe admits he is not pro-abortion, in fact his religion makes those issues difficult for him and he said that won't change. But. . .and this is important, the right for families and their doctors to make those decisions among themselves is very important and must be preserved. If the language of what legislation comes before him hints at removing the rights of families and their doctors to not have access to contraceptives or that abortion is made illegal in any way he's against it. He stated (paraphrased) "We can't send women to jail for abortions. That's an issue between them, their families and their doctors."

I conclude that neither candidate is anti-choice. And that's an important difference from anti-abortion. One is a value and the other affects civil rights.

Regarding a rumor whether Joe went to Washington to attend an anti-choice or abortion rally he stated he only went once to Washington to attend an Area Planning Org (APO) Convention with other mayors from other states to discuss projects and budgeting in their cities.

When watching Alan Grayson's video, a man of character who speaks the truth without leaning on rumors or hearsay, those who see it must remember he does not address a democrat running as a democrat. Alan addresses Republicans running as a Democrat to get their issues voted in in both parties as a strategy which is deceitful. There is no law that candidates can't have religious values as long as church and state remain separate.

Joe and Jim both have things to bring to the table as longstanding democrats. They both want to preserve the rights of women in our district. And we alone in CD6 must decide who is not the choice to run against Tom Emmer. Because your blog may influence unfairly candidates without proof, please considering changing the tone on your blog and hold to the standards of Alan Grayson, who speaks without presumptious or misleading information.

A DFL Delegate from CD6

At 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait, what??? Perske "want(s) to preserve the rights of women in our district"!?? Say what now? This is exactly what people don't like about politics, candidates and supporters changing their positions to suit the audience. Perske frequently and proudly refers to himself as a "Pro-Life" democrat. In his kickoff speech, he said "this election is about the unborn child", every pro-lifers favorite code phrase for "I'm with you". Now when he gets heat over it in a progressive blog, you're going to try to convince people he's pro-choice?!? Really? Because he's been out on the trail trying to sell himself as the "moderate" Democrat, but the only thing he's ever said publicly that sets him apart from other more progressive dems IS his stance on abortion. If you're going to call yourself a "conservative democrat", you need to own up to it. If Perske really is willing to stand up for preserving women's rights, he's going to seriously piss off a lot of people who have been supporting him BECAUSE he tells them he's the pro-life candidate in the race. And "DFL Delegate", your comments about Grayson are way off too. He is talking about actual conservative Democrats who run as Democrats and are in many cases even supported by the DCCC.

At 5:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL, they actually endorsed this guy. Well, as a 6th district resident and voter, its 3rd party for me. No chance of me voting for Perske under any circumstance. Put a fork in him. He is done. He has no chance of winning. None whatsoever.

At 5:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm curious how much influence one congressman will have on whether abortion remains legal in the United States or whether congress will have much at all to say about abortion one way or the other. I have looked Joe Perske in the eye and asked him how he really feels about the abortion issue. He had a three word answer. No, it wasn't "I am anti-abortion", it wasn't "I am anti-choice". It was "I am torn". Oh sure, all of this stuff is nice and black and white. I guess candidates for public office aren't allowed to have doubts about anything. They have to be perfect. They have to fit. They have to be easy to shop for. We all get to choose our candidates from 2 or 3 neatly packaged choices just like choosing between the 75-25, 85-15 or the 93-7 ground beef. Cut and dried. So, now are we going to submit our candidates to rigid litmus tests just like the Tea Party does to Republican candidates? I thought we were better than that. Consider this. There are some people who are better suited for issues activism instead of electoral politics. These are people who are devoted to their issue and can't concentrate on much else, because their issue is the most important thing to them. These people are great on the board of a non profit but lousy on a political campaign. Frankly, to be kind of an a-hole, it's easy to be one thing to all people but it's impossible to be all things to all people, like politicians are expected to be. As a politician no matter what your position is on anything you are going to piss off a group of people. The goal of the issues activist is to get their point across, no matter what. The goal of the politician is to get elected so he can accomplish something. Those are kind of different goals. So when you subject your judgement of one to the criteria of the other no wonder it's hard for anyone to support either candidates or special interests. Another danger of using one issue as a yardstick to measure a candidate is the unsettling fact that the candidate who passes your litmus test may suck at everything else important to you. And the candidate who fails your test may be right on all the other issues important to the people. Unfortunately you wont see that until it's too late because your eyes are clouded with your individual issue. TBH I don't really have a problem with people giving up on Joe because he doesn't fit into their box of what a progressive should be. Well, actually I do have a problem with them. But if you look at the structure of that last sentence you will see that it's MY problem, not anyone else's, so I will live with it and just go about my business. A lot of the disagreements about this stuff stem from the fact that we only have two major parties. This tends to shine a dualistic light on all political issues and policy positions. I think we all know things aren't that simple. If we had five or six parties like many other countries, where no party gets a majority of votes, and politicians have to compromise just to have a government in the first place, maybe people could find a political home they were more comfortable with. And they would also be more inclined to see compromise as a good thing. Let me try an analogy here. Do you remain celibate because none of your potential partners are perfect? Oh sure, one bad trait can cross them off your list, but what if you only had pick of three different women. Would you remain celibate and let your blood line pass out of existence or would you weigh all the factors and choose the best one to carry on with your progeny, regardless of her imperfections. It's not a perfect analogy but our form of government depends on us making important, if imperfect, decisions, so it's not as ridiculous as it might sound on the surface. I'm way behind on my real work. Hope everyone has a pleasant day doing meaningful things.

At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an involved long time DFL activist I was rather surprised by this blog and some of the comments. Jim & Joe are very similar in their political views. Jim hedged his position on abortion and has actually using the phrase, "I am not in favor of criminalizing abortion", that Joe had used in a early meeting in the process. Joe is very clear; He and his wife would not be able to abort & thus is Pro - life. He is not trying to foist his personal moral and ethical views on others.
As for him being a "GOP lite" candidate and not a true progressive; Look at his history. Joe is an outsider to the process. So what. He was doing real things, like trying to find ways to replace the lost jobs and wages, for real people. Same with his wife, Jan. Who, BTW is a special ed. teacher in the St Cloud schools.
I could go on for a while about what Joe brings to this election. I won't. I will say that as a labor, pro-choice progressive, populist that I am not alone in supporting Joe. He has supporters across the spectrum of what is supposed to be the party of inclusion.
I also would have supported Jim, but Joe is endorsed.
A better vetting needed to be done before painting Perske with this brush.
I have no respect at all of attack anonymous comments.
I am from East Bethel. My name is Brian. Mt cell is 612 759 4117 and will take any calls from anyone who A) Does not block their phone number & B) can be civil.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my views & Joe can win this thing.

At 12:03 PM, Blogger DFL Delegate said...

In the blog above someone wrote:
"There is no reason for any progressive to consider voting for him (Perske), regardless of how terrible Emmer is."

What? You mean you think progressives should vote for Emmer then? I think ignoring voting for whoever runs for this seat is foolish. As a progressive, there's enough reason in the problems with Emmer and enough reasons in the person who Perske is to vote for this important seat and to do so for Perkse. We don't need another person who represents Minnesota to the nation on the same level as Michelle Bachmann did. Emmer is a reason to vote for Perske and Perske is a reason to vote! Get out and vote!
Not anonymous - Lynne Cason


Post a Comment

<< Home