“… we often find … [that] … many residents remain uninformed about local issues. Many don’t know their ward or council member, and ranked choice voting still confuses them. The Minneapolis DFL could strengthen its reputation by helping voters understand these basics instead of focusing its energy on controlling endorsements.”
Bravo Terry. I hope these concluding remarks don’t get lost in the rest of your (thorough, compassionate, useful) piece.
When Mpls residents lack awareness of their current Council Members, and their CM’s positions and votes on local issues that directly impact their daily lives, at the time of local elections, they all too often they are guided by who is “DFL-endorsed”.
And this is why the Mpls DFL, which has been captured by the DSA, wants to control “DFL endorsement”. They know that this confluence of imperfect political factors gives their DSA candidates an edge.
So bravo for continuing to educate the electorate on issues and candidates.
I kind of think that a city council should live in Minneapolis and that an exception should not be allowed. It kind of shows how off center they really are these days.
The DFL really started encouraging not following laws perceived to be wrong for several years ago and there seems to be no real need to repeal them because they are obvious. Unfortunately this has created an increase in crime because everyone has their own idea of which laws are wrong. It is not surprising that the DSA does not want to accept the repeal of the Mayoral endorsement because they see it as unjust, therefore it is. There is no reason to listen because again, they are right.
Terry my friend. You brought up one point that the Republicans suggested to combat violence with firearms. Setting that aside for now I am curious your thoughts on the rest of their proposals. This is not verbatim but here you go
House Republicans School Safety Agenda
* Expanding school safety funding for private schools.
* School security grants including Safe Haven In Every Local District (SHIELD) Act HF 15. (Link below)
* Flexibility for school funding streams to be used for safety improvements.
* Making School Resource Officers available for all schools.
* Boost funding for Mental Health treatment needs.
* Plus mandatory sentences for those who commit repeat gun crimes and straw purchasers who enable violent crime.
The concern I have with fortification is that there is no shortage of soft targets. We fortify schools, they’ll go after malls. We fortify malls, they’ll go after soccer games. We fortify soccer fields, they’ll go after Chuck E. Cheese. Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. Fortification sounds good on paper. But I am skeptical it would work in practice.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. There are too many potential targets, and guarding them all is impossible. And in the case of Midtown Manhattan, he shot the security guard on his way into the building.
I'm with Paul on this. Would like to hear more from you.
My 'take' - The Governor is about to call a Special Session to "work on" responsive legislation after the mass shooting. The DFLers are going to propose various flavors of Gun Control, NONE of which will pass. It will not pass, NOT because of the DFL/GOP balance in the two Houses - it will not pass because there are outstate DFLers (abandoned in the last two decades by the Metro DFLers) who are hanging onto their seats by their fingernails, and will vote "no" on most gun control measures because, in their Districts, to do otherwise is political suicide. I'm not even going to guess what their personal sentiments are. We nevertheless need them in office for all the REST that they do for us and for the DFL. Voting for gun control measures jeopardizes them. Sometimes, a local population really does need to be REPRESENTED by their Representatives (and Senators).
I would add to Paul's list that it is almost certain that SOME GOP legislator will toss into the hopper a Bill intended to make it easier to do "involuntary commitment", and/or to increase our mental hospital capacity to accommodate that. This is, in a way, the flip side of Gun Control. Like Gun Control, it has ZERO chance of passage, but it is actually something we very much need - something we once had, and, like gun laws, got rid of in a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" kind of way. There is a LOT of "space" between "Let the criminally insane walk around free" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (book or movie...!) We need to (re-)find the balance, but there is currently almost NO constituency advocating for this.
Also, I have long held that if a politician is going to advocate for "emergency" legislation IN THE WAKE OF A TRAGEDY, it behooves that politician to state clearly HOW his/her Bill WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE EVENT IN QUESTION. Neither the things the DFL will propose in a Special Session, NOR those the GOP will propose, will meet this standard. Reinstating an assault weapon ban and/or a large capacity magazines ban will come closest, but, really, not very close. One could argue that REALLY robust involuntary commitment programs could come as close or nearly so. But neither, alone, would do the trick. If you think about it, you know that this is true. Even together, a motivated-enough and personally-'guarded'-enough crazy person could manage to shoot up any assemblage of people. This is a complex problem that will require a REALLY complex SET of changes to solve.
Finally, on Walz: I make no secret of thinking that he is a walking, ongoing tactical disaster for the DFL and the National Democratic Party. Here, he is (he has SAID as much) FORCING the GOP to publicly vote against Gun Control. They will willingly - EAGERLY - do so. Because they understand that the DFL faithful wants it, the GOP faithful ABHOR it, and the variably-sized (by District) non-partisans break more "against" than "for" Gun Control - ESPECIALLY in Districts that are not "safe" for either party. What Walz is doing plays directly into the GOP's hands. Not only will they vote "no" - They will campaign proudly on their votes. This is political malpractice on the part of Walz, and it's not his first rodeo. He should know better by now.
I see the graph depics an increase in gun violence steming from a period of great fear, the covid shutdowns and George Floyd. If I remember right gun sales boomed at this time and that there was a surprise as to who the buyers were. The majority DFL Legistature could have put a pause on new licenses at the time but chose not to address the change in buyers. The call for an all out ban is just lip service, they know it can't work, but they understand the increased fear level makes those not endorsing it sound less popular. So do we seek the popular vote and support something that we cannot achieve that also encourages people to remain afraid or do we fight back with their own words, "common sense", "statistics show" and "the smart choice is"?
“… we often find … [that] … many residents remain uninformed about local issues. Many don’t know their ward or council member, and ranked choice voting still confuses them. The Minneapolis DFL could strengthen its reputation by helping voters understand these basics instead of focusing its energy on controlling endorsements.”
Bravo Terry. I hope these concluding remarks don’t get lost in the rest of your (thorough, compassionate, useful) piece.
When Mpls residents lack awareness of their current Council Members, and their CM’s positions and votes on local issues that directly impact their daily lives, at the time of local elections, they all too often they are guided by who is “DFL-endorsed”.
And this is why the Mpls DFL, which has been captured by the DSA, wants to control “DFL endorsement”. They know that this confluence of imperfect political factors gives their DSA candidates an edge.
So bravo for continuing to educate the electorate on issues and candidates.
Just returned from
Fletcher's funeral. So Many young family’s. None of us should have been there.
I kind of think that a city council should live in Minneapolis and that an exception should not be allowed. It kind of shows how off center they really are these days.
The DFL really started encouraging not following laws perceived to be wrong for several years ago and there seems to be no real need to repeal them because they are obvious. Unfortunately this has created an increase in crime because everyone has their own idea of which laws are wrong. It is not surprising that the DSA does not want to accept the repeal of the Mayoral endorsement because they see it as unjust, therefore it is. There is no reason to listen because again, they are right.
Terry my friend. You brought up one point that the Republicans suggested to combat violence with firearms. Setting that aside for now I am curious your thoughts on the rest of their proposals. This is not verbatim but here you go
House Republicans School Safety Agenda
* Expanding school safety funding for private schools.
* School security grants including Safe Haven In Every Local District (SHIELD) Act HF 15. (Link below)
* Flexibility for school funding streams to be used for safety improvements.
* Making School Resource Officers available for all schools.
* Boost funding for Mental Health treatment needs.
* Plus mandatory sentences for those who commit repeat gun crimes and straw purchasers who enable violent crime.
HF 15 Link:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF15&type=bill&version=1&session=ls94&session_year=2025&session_number=0
The concern I have with fortification is that there is no shortage of soft targets. We fortify schools, they’ll go after malls. We fortify malls, they’ll go after soccer games. We fortify soccer fields, they’ll go after Chuck E. Cheese. Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam. Fortification sounds good on paper. But I am skeptical it would work in practice.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. There are too many potential targets, and guarding them all is impossible. And in the case of Midtown Manhattan, he shot the security guard on his way into the building.
Well yes. The whole gun free zone nonsense needs to go away. Maybe good intentions but many good intentions lead to unintended negative outcomes.
Yeah, I never really “got” the gun free zones. Almost impossible to enforce. The only ones heeding the signs are sane, law-abiding individuals.
I'm with Paul on this. Would like to hear more from you.
My 'take' - The Governor is about to call a Special Session to "work on" responsive legislation after the mass shooting. The DFLers are going to propose various flavors of Gun Control, NONE of which will pass. It will not pass, NOT because of the DFL/GOP balance in the two Houses - it will not pass because there are outstate DFLers (abandoned in the last two decades by the Metro DFLers) who are hanging onto their seats by their fingernails, and will vote "no" on most gun control measures because, in their Districts, to do otherwise is political suicide. I'm not even going to guess what their personal sentiments are. We nevertheless need them in office for all the REST that they do for us and for the DFL. Voting for gun control measures jeopardizes them. Sometimes, a local population really does need to be REPRESENTED by their Representatives (and Senators).
I would add to Paul's list that it is almost certain that SOME GOP legislator will toss into the hopper a Bill intended to make it easier to do "involuntary commitment", and/or to increase our mental hospital capacity to accommodate that. This is, in a way, the flip side of Gun Control. Like Gun Control, it has ZERO chance of passage, but it is actually something we very much need - something we once had, and, like gun laws, got rid of in a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" kind of way. There is a LOT of "space" between "Let the criminally insane walk around free" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (book or movie...!) We need to (re-)find the balance, but there is currently almost NO constituency advocating for this.
Also, I have long held that if a politician is going to advocate for "emergency" legislation IN THE WAKE OF A TRAGEDY, it behooves that politician to state clearly HOW his/her Bill WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE EVENT IN QUESTION. Neither the things the DFL will propose in a Special Session, NOR those the GOP will propose, will meet this standard. Reinstating an assault weapon ban and/or a large capacity magazines ban will come closest, but, really, not very close. One could argue that REALLY robust involuntary commitment programs could come as close or nearly so. But neither, alone, would do the trick. If you think about it, you know that this is true. Even together, a motivated-enough and personally-'guarded'-enough crazy person could manage to shoot up any assemblage of people. This is a complex problem that will require a REALLY complex SET of changes to solve.
Finally, on Walz: I make no secret of thinking that he is a walking, ongoing tactical disaster for the DFL and the National Democratic Party. Here, he is (he has SAID as much) FORCING the GOP to publicly vote against Gun Control. They will willingly - EAGERLY - do so. Because they understand that the DFL faithful wants it, the GOP faithful ABHOR it, and the variably-sized (by District) non-partisans break more "against" than "for" Gun Control - ESPECIALLY in Districts that are not "safe" for either party. What Walz is doing plays directly into the GOP's hands. Not only will they vote "no" - They will campaign proudly on their votes. This is political malpractice on the part of Walz, and it's not his first rodeo. He should know better by now.
I see the graph depics an increase in gun violence steming from a period of great fear, the covid shutdowns and George Floyd. If I remember right gun sales boomed at this time and that there was a surprise as to who the buyers were. The majority DFL Legistature could have put a pause on new licenses at the time but chose not to address the change in buyers. The call for an all out ban is just lip service, they know it can't work, but they understand the increased fear level makes those not endorsing it sound less popular. So do we seek the popular vote and support something that we cannot achieve that also encourages people to remain afraid or do we fight back with their own words, "common sense", "statistics show" and "the smart choice is"?