The Rake Magazine

As the debate at the capitol starts to sound eerily Tyra-inspired, it's important to note that, according to The Defenestrator's highly-knowledgeable sources, had House and Senate leadership handled Pawlenty's veto of the Central Corridor differently, many of the problems the DFL caucus has with Tim Pawlenty's demands likely would have been non-issues. As things stand, (or sit, bound and gagged to a chair, really) Sen. Steve "Technicolor Dreamcoat" Murphy and Rep. Margaret Kelliher are in dire need of Mick Jagger's sage counsel, not to mention a safe word:

You see, the DFL caucus blew their proverbial wad when the veto of the Central Corridor came down. Rather than allowing the public to comment on this great disturbance in the Force, the one that felt as if millions of public transit users cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, the DFL legislators tipped their hand, letting Gov. Pawlenty know just how desperately they craved the long sinuous track running sensuously through Frogtown's deepest and most secret crevices. And while the train is rather important, the fiscal solvency of Minnesota's cities would seem to be even more important than joining hands and riding the love train.

And what could possibly threaten our urban areas enough to risk jeopardizing quiet and comfortable public transit to our finest ethnic eateries? Simple - in a bizarre twist, our executive branch wants to play nanny. Not to any delicious babies, of course - he prefers free range - but to property owners. It's no secret that our governor has not enjoyed the nigh-daily dirty sanchez he receives from irate constituents and opponents who blame him for stratospheric hikes in property taxes. And it's true that, while he may not exert direct control over said taxes, his cuts in local government aid and other funding has forced our cities and towns to look for revenue in other places...like our homes. Now that he has the DFL caucus bound, gagged, and spread-eagled, Timmy has decided that the best way to address the situation is to place a cap on those property taxes. Of course, out of the goodness of his heart he tied it to the consumer price index to account for inflation - his version of the reach-around. Too bad he has freakishly short arms.

While Gov. Pawlenty's concern for the taxpaying public is like a warm fuzzy blanket made from the fur of 1,000 virgin kittens, the consequences to urban areas could be disastrous. Minneapolis and St. Paul were forced to drop the quality of essential services during the last downturn, shedding police and fire department employees, not to mention Minneapolis residents' unrequited desire to borrow books on Sundays. Given that no one wants to see Minneapolis cops any more surly, hamstringing one of the cities' primary sources of funds seems like a profoundly bad idea. The sort of idea that would come from the diseased mind of a crack-addled human/badger crossbreed, actually.

This is not to say the DFL's magical new formula for determining property tax refunds is sent down from the heavens, carried by rainbow riding valkyries singing show tunes. Capping property taxes at 2 percent of income for anyone earning less than $100,000 would make the tax code more progressive, but there are far simpler ways to accomplish that goal - like perhaps actually making the tax code progressive. Wacky idea, I know, but it just might work.

In any case, the legislative session continues on unabated despite the governor's hand wrapped firmly around the collective genitalia of the DFL caucus, squeezing more tightly every day. The only question remaining is just how much will the legislature sacrifice to preserve its precious precious light rail. And whether Rep. Kelliher and Gov. Pawlenty agreed on a safe word. The variable that still remains to be determined, of course, is what DFL legislature has to give up in exchange for freedom. Delicious. Tantalizing. Freedom..

Older generations often talk wistfully of times past - an era when candy was a nickel and hookers cost but sixpence. And with Minnesota's sesquicentennial occurring this year, the temptation to romanticize is pushed even farther, with tales of subzero temperatures, white out conditions, and devouring small children to survive winter's lean times bandied about like so many empowering after-school special style messages delivered by Hillary Duff.

But is it really a terrible thing that our civic and nationalistic zeal is at an all-time low? It should certainly come as no surprise when our state legislature and governor have only in the last few days been able to stop offering a combination of absurd budget proposals and Yo' Momma jokes and actually sit down to hammer out a compromise that may prevent nearly 10 percent tuition hikes at the U, the loss of $450 million in Federal money, and the rising use of ninjas in foreclosure cases. Plus, with disapproval of the president at an all-time high of 67 percent, the country hemorrhaging money and global goodwill in Iraq faster than Delta's top execs , and the American dollar nearly equal to the vile Canadian Loon, it would seem to many that we have precious little to be proud of in these troubled times.

So, with the state legislature bickering over property tax caps and whether Minneapolis police officers will soon have the power to pull over downtown revelers, hot chick and douchebag alike, who may be too tipsy to remember their seatbelts, not to mention turning on their headlights, turning off the windshield wipers, or perhaps even closing the door, Minnesota Statehood Week could not possibly come at a better time. From May 11-May 18 we'll have ample opportunity to think fondly of the days when Minnesota's politicians were simply bald-faced land grabbers, rather than two-faced opportunists. Best of all, to celebrate Minnesota's statehood, a Dunlap Broadside - one of the original 25 copies of the Declaration of Independence made on the evening of the Declaration's signing - is on display until the 18^th at the Minnesota History Center.

This may seem like grasping at straws to the nihilists out there, but the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence, in combination with our Constitution, are the foundation upon which our country's eminence rests. As such, having this document in the state, touched by the founding fathers and imbued with the words that justified the formation of our country as it is, is a rather momentous occasion. And it certainly wouldn't hurt anyone to reacquaint themselves with these words - especially those in our legislative and executive branches who don't seem to understand that even well-intentioned political gamesmanship has, on occasions throughout history, been met with something less than the accolades politicians hope for from their constituency.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

On Wednesday, April 30, 2008, Sen. John McCain jumped the shark.

Now, I've got a lot of respect for the man. He's always been something of a straight shooter. And when a man spends time in a POW camp and can't raise his arms above his shoulders as a result, I'm inclined to cut the guy some slack. But in a campaign stop in Pennsylvania yesterday, McCain claimed that pork barrel spending caused the 35W bridge to fall down go boom. Pork barrel spending didn't cause the bridge to fall. All reports up until now point to trade school engineers from the 60s who were likely too baked to carry the damn one. And given how commonly politicians have taken the "If I say it, it must be true" approach this campaign season, I would've much rather watched the GOP's candidate for president actually jump the Mississippi on a motorcycle than listen to a man formerly known for candid statements trying to score political points by holding court whilst spewing forth a toxic slurry of obfuscating crap that would rival the noxious sludge at the bottom of the Mississippi itself.

But why do candidates feel so comfortable hocking these juicy loogies of misinformation at us? They know that the words tumbling forth from their forked tongues are simply a devious combo of smoke, mirrors, and sweet pandering nothings that smoothly caress the genitalia of their base constituencies, thus lulling them deeper into a bullshit-induced trance, right? Most blame television for forcing politicians to compress complicated issues into easy to digest bites. TV conditioned people to want their news spoon-fed - meaning whoever screams the loudest with the most glib sound bite generally is regarded as the prophet of truth. This applies even when the person screaming the loudest is the crazy fucker having a dance party in his underwear in front of Block E.

But the honest truth is that the blame for the sorry state of affairs that is the American political system falls squarely on the eagerly nodding culture whores known as American citizens. It's us. We're the reason Jeremiah Wright's sermons make such effective weapons in a campaign. It's our fault John McCain feels justified in using the deaths of 13 Minnesotans to make an unrelated point about earmarks. And it's my own damn fault I'm wondering why Al Franken couldn't find a nice Jewish uncle to keep his books. We've become a society of listless zombies who claim to be too busy to understand the issues at hand, but also refuse to devote any of that precious time to information that may contradict opinions or worldviews developed by listening to the chorus of malformed mewling creatures polluting the public dialogue.

Make no mistake, it is pollution. Yes, Rev. Jeremiah Wright said "God damn America." In fact, he danced on the altar while a chorus of seraphim drifted down from the heavens to sing those very words in a bawdy sea chanty written by the Archangel Gabriel himself. It doesn't matter all that much though, since Wright isn't running for president. Plus, it's highly unlikely that, should Sen. Obama be elected the next president, he'll take punitive steps against white America. Steps like outlawing rugby, New Balance sneakers, Volvos, Joe Mauer and his thrice-damned sideburns or any of the other ridiculous crap we fetishize. But because we've spent the last two months with politicians and pundits alike regurgitating bile and chunky bits of flag-waving rhetoric, Sen. McCain's health care proposal hasn't gotten the coverage, or scrutiny, it deserves. The lack of details in Sen. Obama's plan hasn't exactly been called out as a particular failing either. And because we've been too busy obsessing over what appears to be an innocuous accounting mistake on Al Franken's part, no one has taken the time to marvel at the profound stupidity of Hillary Clinton staging a press event at a gas station to demonstrate just how in touch with the plight of the common man she truly is while advocating for a gas tax holiday that would save the average American about $30 over three months.

A well-informed populace is vital to the operation of a democracy, according to our slave-owning, and banging, founding father Thomas Jefferson. And sad to say, we're not well-informed. We're well-indoctrinated. So we debate over whether Obama is, in fact, an Islamo-fascist for not wearing a flag lapel pin. We fight over whether McCain's "senior moments" are the result of campaign trail exhaustion or a sign that he'll be in Depends before his second term. And we shiver in fear as we wonder whether Hillary Clinton is a creature risen from the grave by sheer force of will, determined to win the presidency in order to secure access to the delicious babies necessary to sustain her unholy semblance of life. And all of that pointless noise pollution goes a long way toward explaining why, in the midst of this interminable, abominable election season, our status as one of the greatest and most influential superpowers this world has ever known can now be summarized in just under two minutes by Grand Theft Auto IV's Serbian protagonist - Nico Bellic.

Today's launch of the new Republican "issue ad" blaming DFLers for Minnesotans being asked to sacrifice manhood and innocence alike whilst pumping merrily away at the gas station is just the latest chapter in a textbook Nora Ephron romance. You see, it always starts with the title characters loathing one another. And you'd be hard pressed to find more animosity and revulsion than early in the legislative session. Much like Harry and Sally, our own Tim Pawlenty and the state legislature started off on the wrong foot, with the DFL-controlled legislature, after maintaining a certain amount of calm and decorum, offending the state's top executive by raising the gas tax a whopping 42 percent.

As any fan of the rom com genre knows, once the ire is raised, wacky misunderstandings and miscommunications must then ensue. And what better place for miscommunication and bafflingly wacky hijinx to occur than over the state's budget? When the governor first sent over a proposed bill last Monday, including $125 million in unspecified budget cuts, Democrats were quick to point out that they were completely baffled as to how they could approve a budget with so little detail. Why, they would sooner watch Rep. Margaret Kelliher and Sen. Tom "Sex Hog" Saxhaug engage in hot oil wrestling on the Capitol Steps before they would sign such a patently confusing document! Of course, last Friday, these same stalwart legislators provided Pawlenty with an inscrutable proposal outlining $204 million in cuts - when there's a $935 million deficit.

Of course, this tete-a-tete provided an opportunity for Rep. Tony Sertich to cross the threshold into the next stage of our most improbable film - the off-putting infatuation, in which our romantic leads find themselves inexplicably drawn to one another, as Rep. Sertich seemed to be after the DFL budget offer was rebuffed by the Pawlenty administration. Rep. Sertich said, with a tinge of longing in his voice, "If we keep working in this way of finding places where we agree instead of focusing on the areas we disagree I think we can build a solution." And as he walked away from the microphone, he let out a deeply flustered sigh, shaking his head as if to say to himself, "No! I can't possibly like THAT."

What's next remains to be seen, of course. If the formula holds true, there will be heated late-night budget sessions, replete with frenzied arguments and impassioned debate. When suddenly, upon reaching a breaking point, the dams will burst and Rep. Kelliher will find herself wrapped in the governor's sinewy, hockey-toned arms, making use of public infrastructure in ways never approved by a house ethics committee whilst the rest of the caucus listens at the door with self-congratulatory grins plastered upon their reddening faces.

And in that one all-too-brief moment of bliss, when common ground is found in the sweaty convergence of Republican and DFL, is when the healthcare access fund will finally be safe, the Central Corridor funding will be restored, the legislature will come to its senses and realize just how much it's truly asking for in a year the state can ill-afford most of it. And, if we're truly blessed, Michelle Bachmann will have her own deli scene whilst lunching with Al Franken.

If the ongoing national embarrassment that is the Democratic primary hasn't yet caused you to gouge out your eyes with a rusty spork, you may have noticed that the local political campaign season is in full swing. And because this year's campaigns are already shaping up to be nearly as contentious as the debate over whether the spawn of Billy Ray is just penance for the Western World's sins, or if her popularity is simply a sign of the end times, The Defenestrator has been tasked with ferreting out the secrets of this year's crop of candidates for local and national office.

Why have we been saddled with this thankless task? Because the staff of The Rake wants nothing but the best for its readers, except Ann Bauer, of course. That lush wants nothing more than to get you loaded and avail herself of your firm and nubile body. But in these times of rapid-fire political rhetoric and skyrocketing consumer prices, knowing is half the battle. Yo, Joe!

In any case, the first in our series of candidate interviews takes us to scenic Congressional District 3, encompassing most of the Twin Cities' western suburbs. Ashwin Madia recently took home the DFL endorsement in the race to replace longtime GOP stalwart, Jim Ramstad, in the House of Representatives. Madia, having never held office anywhere but in the University of Minnesota's Minnesota Student Association - where once upon a time Homer Simpson managed to make a serious run at the presidency, was not expected to make a strong showing, let alone beat the presumptive nominee, Teri Bonoff.

But he did beat her. He beat her like a bad bad donkey, in fact. And now he's all but certain to move on to the general election against GOP candidate Erik Paulsen. We caught Madia in the midst of a fundraising frenzy just after the nominating convention and he was gracious enough to to give us an interview, a few talking points, and at least a little insight into why anyone might want to vote for someone insane enough to put a lucrative law practice on hold after returning from a war zone so he can take a shot at gaining membership to the DMZ otherwise known as the United States House of Representatives.

Defenestrator: So, how's the fundraising coming?

Madia: We set a state record for an unknown candidate. We raised 161k in two months last year. In Q1 of this year we raised 196k. To be able to raise that kind of money, it shows that we've got a good message. It's resonating.

D: What made you decide to run for U.S. Congress, rather than trying for the state legislature or other local office first?

M: Because I care about these issues, the Iraq War - I want to find a way to end it. I care about global warming. I care about civil liberties. Those are federal issues. Some people think there's a path you have to take, city council, local government. We've all got something to contribute. I don't think you have to be a politician already to contribute to our discussion. We all have a voice in this.

I thought this was an opportunity to serve our community and instead of complaining all the time about where our country was going, I figured it would be more productive for me to step forward and actually try to do something about it.

D: When did you get the idea? Did Iraq drive you so insane that you had to come up with ways to torment yourself when you got back home?

M: I pretty much started to think about it when Jim Ramstaad retired. I wasn't really thinking about it in Iraq.

D: Apart from scamming on babes in burqas, what were you doing in Iraq?

M: I was creating a strategic system to establish rule of law in Iraq. It involved coordinating with the State Department, Justice Department, UN, European Union and Iraqi judges to develop a strategic plan to establish rule of law in Iraq. It was a lot of phone calls, a lot of meetings, a lot of supervision. A lot of meetings with different interest groups and brokering compromises to come up with plans everyone could agree on.

For example, I went down to meet with the British in Basra and the British foreign service to find out what plans and strategies they were implementing to strengthen the Iraqi legal system and take that back to Baghdad to fit that in strategically with what we were trying to do throughout the county. We would get assessments of the status of rule of law programs around the country and go brief the generals that were leading the multinational forces on what was going on and the way ahead.

D: Why'd you join the Marines?

M: It was a good way to serve and I really wanted a challenge. Whether you're a grunt or a pilot, you do the same training and I wanted to see if I could do it. I really enjoyed the challenge.

D: The DFL tried to position you as a former Republican intent on undermining the party from within by encouraging SUV use and alienating the party's base from the wisdom of Al Gore. Republicans are trying to position you as a hedonistic Communist, bent on legalizing drugs and using tax dollars to help Eliot Spitzer open a brothel. Who's right?

M: I don't think either one of them is right. What I am is an independent voice for MN. It's true that most of my principles line up on the democratic side now. But 10 years ago Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to balance the budget. They obviously don't now. I think the labels have gotten so mixed up that I prefer to go issue by issue and say where I stand. In the end I'm a fiscally responsible and socially moderate democrat.

D: So why not go the same direction but stay Republican?

M: I don't know. It seems like a lot of that party has adopted the philosophy of spending all that they want, cutting taxes at the same time and borrowing from China to make up the difference.

D: You mean you don't want to give the Chinese the opportunity to finally take their revenge on the white man for hooking them on Opium?

M: No comment on that one.

D: Coming out of a particularly vicious cat fight with the wily, but oh so short Terri Bonoff, How do you feel about parties having presumptive nominees? What's it mean for the political process?

M: Terri was a fantastic candidate. She ran a very spirited, very classy race and I've got a lot of respect for her. I think what this election shows is that even today if you've got a strong message, you can trump money and endorsements and name recognition and all the other things politicians use to win elections.

D: Do you see this as a sea change?

M: I think this is an election where people are much more willing to consider candidates who are from outside the political mainstream and just love our country. They're willing to consider values and authenticity over traditional political experience.

D: What do you think has changed to allow that? Why are people looking for that change?

M: Because the country is in the shape that it is. Because they think the country is on the wrong track and they want someone who's going to get it back on track and in the right shape again.

D: People seem to think the country might function better if Washington nuked itself and became a post-apocalyptic wasteland populated only by the mutant spawn of Newt Gingrich and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Any thoughts on how you'll change that perception?

M: In my mind, good policy is good politics. What that means is that Washington needs to start delivering. We need to end the Iraq War. We need to balance the budget and we need to get our economy back on track. We need to address global warming. If we start delivering on actual results for the American people, then I think they'll start to have more faith in government.

D: How do you think you can make that change? And don't give me any of that one man can make a difference crap. I mean, sure, Keanu Reeves was kinda cool as "The One" in the first Matrix movie, but the only thing worth watching in the sequels was Monica Belucci.

M: By working my tail off. I think there are a lot of people throughout the country who feel the same way I do - That we need a new kind of leadership in Washington. I think, and I hope, that we'll see a new kind of politics in the coming years.

D: Iraq - get the hell out? Stay the course? And now for something completely different?

M: I think we've created a very tough situation over there. It's hard to leave and it's hard to stay. So what I favor is a gradual withdrawal. Phased out over about two years. With a limited number of forces left behind to protect our diplomatic presence, to target high ranking members of Al-Qaeda and to prevent genocide if we start to see it on massive levels.

D: How would that withdrawal occur? Benchmarks? A phased drawdown?

M: A phased drawdown over about two years, with a force left in Iraq to protect our diplomatic interests, target high ranking members of Al Queda, and prevent genocide in conjunction with other nations. Ultimately, it's up to the Iraqis to reach a political solution. We can play a role in helping with security in the interim, but a lasting peace has to be an Iraqi peace.

D: And what happens if Muqtada Al-Sadr takes over Basra and, being too impatient to wait for the afterlife, holds nightly 72 virgin parties in the streets with the Iraqi army powerless to stop him?

M: Hopefully, by drawing down gradually, and by leaving some forces in Iraq for the missions discussed above, we can decrease the possibility of chaos in Iraq. But ultimately, it's true that Iraqis themselves hold the power for their own destinies.

D: Apart from the ability to kill a man 6 different ways, courtesy of the USMC, what are you bringing to CD3?

M: I'm fiscally disciplined, socially tolerant, independent-minded Democrat. I am a Democrat, but my biggest focus is on finding answers to the big challenges facing our country, not party affiliation. I think that makes me similar to most voters in the 3rd District.

D: Most people think politics is about nothing more than money. Now that you're in full-on fundraising mode, what do you say to that?

M: There are many good, honest, and decent people who are kept out of public service because of money. When I got into this race last October, I made a commitment that I wouldn't be one of them. So my team and I have worked very hard to raise what we need to get our message out. Having said that, real campaign finance reform is long overdue because the fundraising demands on candidates are really out of control.

D: How would you contrast yourself with Erik Paulsen?

M: I'm an independent-minded and pragmatic problem-solver who is more committed to getting our great nation back on track than advancing a political ideology. I come from outside the political system and I'm not an insider - I think that will be an asset as I seek to bring real change to Washington.

D: If anything, the state legislature has become even more contentious than the Federal, with DFLer and GOP alike focused more on sticking it to the other party than on conducting business in the people's interest. Do you think this is how politics is trending? Or are we just stupid enough to elect a room full of assholes?

M: No, I think politics will start trending in the reverse direction. People are so hungry for something different and a new kind of politics that they've been reaching outside of traditional areas to find new kinds of leaders, who lead based on ideas, not insults. It's true that sometimes politics gets out of control in terms of the nastiness involved, but I think those are the exceptions, and for the most part, people are voting for good leaders committed to change.

D: How do you feel about party unity? Does being a member of a political party give you a responsibility to that party, or are you ultimately responsible elsewhere, as Ron Erhardt has mentioned on numerous occasions after he was buggered by his own party.

M: Party unity is important and as Democrats we've been at our best throughout history when we've come together to tackle the big challenges facing our country- leading our nation through the Great Depression and fighting to bring long overdue civil rights for all to our nation, for instance. But at the end of the day, I think a legislator's biggest responsibility is to his or her constituents, not a political party.

D: You've mentioned George Bush is the reason you switched parties in 2003. But I've seen chimps on Discovery Channel do a better job of portraying conservative values than him. What makes you a Democrat? Why not a Libertarian, apart from that whole actually "wanting to win" thing?

M: I'm more concerned about getting things done for our country than what label people put on me. I want to responsibly end the Iraq War, balance our budget, address global warming, make health care more accessible and affordable, and stand up for civil liberties in our country. I want government to work efficiently and effectively, without taking a dime more in taxes than it needs while still ensuring the Federal government runs properly, and I also don't think government has a role in pushing its social values on citizens. It's my belief that my values and positions are shared by more Democrats than Republicans, though if there are Republicans out there who believe in some of the same things, then I want to work with them to get good bipartisan legislation on each of these topics.

D: What about the pending Senate race? Franken vs. Coleman -- other than the fact that this race feels like it should be run in New York, what's your take on what's shaping up to be a particularly vicious contest?

M: I think Al is a great candidate, as is the other candidate running for the Democratic endorsement, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. Either one will make for an exceptional US Senator.

D: Before you started running for office, you know - back when you had a life, what'd you do with your spare time? Defending our fair city from the undead predations of Cindy Brucato, perhaps?

M: You're right that when you're running for office, you really don't have time for too much else - it takes over your life. Before I got into this, I liked playing pick up basketball, watching old movies, and going out for dinner with good friends - typical stuff. My friends stopped taking my calls a few months ago (I think they think I'm calling to ask them for contributions), so I'm looking forward to spending some time with them after the campaign.

D: Michele Bachmann - direct connection to God or just bat-shit crazy?

M: Now, now - be nice. I disagree with a lot of what she stands for, and I think she's out of step with most Minnesotans on a variety of issues. I think she's in for a tough reelection race.