By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
Sunday, November 19, 2006
When religion loses its credibility
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job). http://www.amazon.com/Things-Your-Minister-Wants-Tell/dp/0312363796/sr=8-1/qid=1170349238/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2824429-6070466?ie=UTF8&s=books
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job). http://www.amazon.com/Things-Your-Minister-Wants-Tell/dp/0312363796/sr=8-1/qid=1170349238/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2824429-6070466?ie=UTF8&s=books
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Jack Uldrich: Blame Hatch for his own defeat
There's no reason to think Peter Hutchinson's presence in the governor's race was a factor.
Famed Wall Street investor Warren Buffett once said that the problem with conventional wisdom is that too often it is long on convention and short on wisdom. I was reminded of this recently because in the aftermath of the election it has become conventional wisdom among the politicos, pundits and DFLers especially that Peter Hutchinson "cost" Mike Hatch the gubernatorial election.This is wrong.
In a democracy, a person is free to vote for whomever he or she believes is the best person. To suggest people should willfully vote for a candidate whom they believe is inferior is the antithesis of democracy. The solution for DFLers is not to blame Hutchinson; it is to endorse better candidates.
There is a solution to this problem, and it is called instant runoff voting. Unfortunately, the DFL Party has never embraced it. This is in spite of the fact that many of the same people now blaming Hutchinson for Hatch's defeat still blame Tim Penny for Roger Moe's loss in 2002.
The DFL had four years to forge a solution. It did not. To be fair, it is entirely possible that such legislation would have been blocked by the Republicans or vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But that does not excuse the DFL for refusing to either embrace the idea in its party platform or introduce a bill in the Legislature.
This continued indifference to a solution suggests the DFL remains impervious to the notion that many Minnesotans want more political options -- not a continuation of the status quo.
There are three reasons why the conventional wisdom about Hatch's defeat is wrong. First, according to the Star Tribune's own exit polling, 43 percent of self-proclaimed independents voted for Tim Pawlenty, and 43 percent voted for Hatch. This suggests that independents -- who were the people Hutchinson most appealed to -- were equally inclined to vote Republican as DFL. Therefore, a strong argument could be made that Hatch's defeat would have been no worse without Hutchinson in the race.
Many of Hutchinson's most visible and prominent supporters were Republicans, including former Lt. Gov. Joanell Dyrstad; former House Speaker Rod Searle, and scores of other prominent business leaders.
Second, and again using the Star Tribune's own polling, Peter Hutchinson's support in the polls from the time of the State Fair through Election Day remained consistent at about 7 percent. This implies that any last-minute erosion of Hatch's support did not go to Hutchinson, but straight to Pawlenty.
This leads to the third and most important point: It was not Hutchinson who "cost" Hatch the election, but Hatch.
Without Judi Dutcher's E85 gaffe and his own overblown response, it could very well have been Pawlenty complaining that Hutchinson cost him the election.
Of course, he, too, would have been misguided because a person's vote belongs to no one but the person for whom the vote was cast. But I guess that's the beauty of conventional wisdom. It doesn't have to submit itself to the facts.
Jack Uldrich is the former chair of the Independence Party of Minnesota.
Chris Stewart: An apology and a call for action to lift kids out of poverty
Furor over website has diverted attention from serious challenges that confront the Minneapolis schools.
The timing could not be worse for our school district. Over the course of the last several months I have met many people who put their faith in me and who voted for me. They were looking to my colleagues and me to restore public trust in our district. What should have been a joyful and hopeful time after the election has been damaged by news of this incident. I am painfully aware of the gravity of this situation.
I entered the race for school board with a lot of energy, some good ideas, the best of intentions, and a stubborn mission to open the doors for kids to leave poverty. I wanted to craft policies to help kids who are struggling find a path into the workforce, much as I had been able to do. The last thing I wanted to do was give people a reason to criticize our schools or divide along racial lines. I feel particularly sick to be associated with something viewed as "hate." I hate no one and I believe that we can work through the difficult and painful politics of race by discussing the issues openly. I am deeply sorry for damaging the public discourse on race that we so badly need to have.
Some people have asked for more details, so let me state a few things for the record. I have been part of several writers' groups for years. I have published poetry, short stories, and newspaper articles on poverty and race. Over the years I have made many friends who write for different purposes. The Tammy Lee spoof was written by a group of people who blog together. I participated in very loose conversations about politics with these friends and some of what I said is part of the spoof they created. I did not create or publish a hate site, nor am I responsible for everything posted on it. I have contributed to the blog in the past and once owned the domain name. Despite these disclaimers, I accept responsibility for the site and its misguided content.
I feel strongly about restoring order in our schools, increasing the prominence of math and science in the curriculum and using public education as a way to move young people into jobs with good pay. Too many kids are not making it into the workforce, and I have a strong vision of how vocational education can prepare many of them for a better life. I am deeply troubled by poor performance in high-poverty, racially isolated schools. I decided to run for the Minneapolis school board because I believed my experience in workforce development, social services and staffing would open doors for people who might otherwise be excluded from the prosperity of Minneapolis. This still drives me to push an agenda for those who have no one opening the gate for them.
I pledge to work hard to bring real change for our schools. Despite my mistake, I want and intend to prove myself as a reliable and effective leader who can help create a vision that leaves us all in better shape.
Chris Stewart is a consultant and member-elect of the Minneapolis School Board.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Turnover of state offices is one for history books
Constitutional offices have been models of stability in Minnesota. One officeholder served 38 years.
Robert Franklin, Star Tribune
Last update: November 08, 2006 – 10:03 PM
Minnesotans elected three new state constitutional officers Tuesday, and the trio could be around for a while.
Attorney General-elect Lori Swanson, Auditor-elect Rebecca Otto and Secretary of State-elect Mark Ritchie join an exclusive club of officeholders noted for longevity and stability:
Minnesota has had just eight attorneys general in the past 67 years, eight auditors in the past 75 years, eight secretaries of state in the past century.
For the three new constitutional officers, "the longevity begins now," said Hy Berman, a retired University of Minnesota history professor.
Berman called Tuesday's vote "a volatile shift in electoral sentiments" and "a DFL sweep" that didn't propel Attorney General Mike Hatch into the governor's office only because of the third-party candidacy of Peter Hutchinson.
All three of the winning DFLers won their races by margins of 100,000 to 265,000 votes, while Hatch lost to incumbent Gov. Tim Pawlenty by about 22,000.
Swanson, a top aide to Hatch, easily defeated state Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth. She said Wednesday that voters responded to her "incredibly passionate" desire to continue to "stand up for people, stand up for the ordinary citizen."
The secretary of state supervises elections, and Ritchie defeated two-term Republican incumbent Mary Kiffmeyer, arguing that she sought to depress opposition turnout.
However, Ritchie said he hopes to continue some of her initiatives, especially in working with children on the importance of voting.
Otto defeated Republican Pat Anderson, who served one four-year term, alleging that the incumbent shaded audits in a partisan way. Otto said she wants to make the office more proactive, less "reactive and punitive" and more visible.
Many reelected for years
Historically, many constitutional officers haven't been extremely visible, and incumbents have typically won reelection except in years of party sweeps.
Chuck Slocum, a former state Republican chairman, said the changes in auditor and secretary of state were unexpected, and "those offices may have been perceived by some voters as being more partisan than they are."
Warren Spannaus, attorney general from 1971 to 1982, said relations among constitutional officers don't have to be partisan. Spannaus said he got along best with a Republican governor, Al Quie.
In addition to Spannaus, longtime constitutional officeholders in recent memory included Hubert Humphrey III, who served 16 years as attorney general; Val Bjornson, 22 years as treasurer, an office abolished in 2002; Joseph Donovan, 16 years as secretary of state; Joan Growe, 24 years as secretary of state, and Stafford King, 38 years as auditor.
Some officeholders advanced, notably Democratic Attorney General Walter Mondale, appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1964, and Republican State Auditor Arne Carlson, elected governor in 1990.
Based on history, Swanson would do well not to follow her boss in running for governor. The last four attorneys general -- Republican Doug Head and DFLers Spannaus, Humphrey and Hatch -- all tried and lost.
For the record, Swanson, who entered the race this summer after the DFL endorsee dropped out, said she has no such plans.
"I wasn't planning on running for attorney general," she said Wednesday. "I'm a politician of 3½ months."
Robert Franklin • 612-673-4543 • rfranklin@startribune.com
source: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/798062.html
Robert Franklin, Star Tribune
Last update: November 08, 2006 – 10:03 PM
Minnesotans elected three new state constitutional officers Tuesday, and the trio could be around for a while.
Attorney General-elect Lori Swanson, Auditor-elect Rebecca Otto and Secretary of State-elect Mark Ritchie join an exclusive club of officeholders noted for longevity and stability:
Minnesota has had just eight attorneys general in the past 67 years, eight auditors in the past 75 years, eight secretaries of state in the past century.
For the three new constitutional officers, "the longevity begins now," said Hy Berman, a retired University of Minnesota history professor.
Berman called Tuesday's vote "a volatile shift in electoral sentiments" and "a DFL sweep" that didn't propel Attorney General Mike Hatch into the governor's office only because of the third-party candidacy of Peter Hutchinson.
All three of the winning DFLers won their races by margins of 100,000 to 265,000 votes, while Hatch lost to incumbent Gov. Tim Pawlenty by about 22,000.
Swanson, a top aide to Hatch, easily defeated state Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth. She said Wednesday that voters responded to her "incredibly passionate" desire to continue to "stand up for people, stand up for the ordinary citizen."
The secretary of state supervises elections, and Ritchie defeated two-term Republican incumbent Mary Kiffmeyer, arguing that she sought to depress opposition turnout.
However, Ritchie said he hopes to continue some of her initiatives, especially in working with children on the importance of voting.
Otto defeated Republican Pat Anderson, who served one four-year term, alleging that the incumbent shaded audits in a partisan way. Otto said she wants to make the office more proactive, less "reactive and punitive" and more visible.
Many reelected for years
Historically, many constitutional officers haven't been extremely visible, and incumbents have typically won reelection except in years of party sweeps.
Chuck Slocum, a former state Republican chairman, said the changes in auditor and secretary of state were unexpected, and "those offices may have been perceived by some voters as being more partisan than they are."
Warren Spannaus, attorney general from 1971 to 1982, said relations among constitutional officers don't have to be partisan. Spannaus said he got along best with a Republican governor, Al Quie.
In addition to Spannaus, longtime constitutional officeholders in recent memory included Hubert Humphrey III, who served 16 years as attorney general; Val Bjornson, 22 years as treasurer, an office abolished in 2002; Joseph Donovan, 16 years as secretary of state; Joan Growe, 24 years as secretary of state, and Stafford King, 38 years as auditor.
Some officeholders advanced, notably Democratic Attorney General Walter Mondale, appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1964, and Republican State Auditor Arne Carlson, elected governor in 1990.
Based on history, Swanson would do well not to follow her boss in running for governor. The last four attorneys general -- Republican Doug Head and DFLers Spannaus, Humphrey and Hatch -- all tried and lost.
For the record, Swanson, who entered the race this summer after the DFL endorsee dropped out, said she has no such plans.
"I wasn't planning on running for attorney general," she said Wednesday. "I'm a politician of 3½ months."
Robert Franklin • 612-673-4543 • rfranklin@startribune.com
source: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/798062.html
GREENS CITE ELECTION DAY VICTORIES -- READY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MINNESOTA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11.08.06
Green Party of Minnesota
Contact: Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota Politics Chair, (651)
224.6383
GREENS CITE ELECTION DAY VICTORIES -- READY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MINNESOTA
Minneapolis** The Green Party made history this year in securing enough
signatures to place five statewide, two congressional, and two legislative
candidates on the ballot by petition.
There were Green Party victories in several local races, including St.
Francis, where Leroy Schaeffer won his bid for City Council with 29.72% of
the vote and Winona, where Green Party member Dwayne Voegeli won re-election
as a county commissioner. In Minneapolis voters approved the use of Instant
Runoff Voting in municipal elections. Garnering 2.33%, and 1.93%
respectively, Green Party candidates Dave Berger for State Auditor and Papa
John Kolstad for Attorney General assured that the Green Party will continue
as a minor party in the state. Others, like the Constitution Party, were
not so successful, and the Greens remain the state¹s only minor party.
"The Green Party has worked for years in a multi-partisan effort to promote
electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis." said
Darrell Gerber, Green Party member and member of the board of the Better
Ballot Campaign. Minneapolis became the second major U.S. City (after San
Francisco) to adopt the treasured Green goal of Instant Runoff Voting, and
it passed by nearly a two-to-one vote. According to Dave Berger, candidate
for state auditor in 2002 and again this year, "We have won a structural
change that is far more important for the future than election to a few
offices. Four years ago most Minnesota voters had never heard of IRV, but
the work of the Green Party has changed that."
In reviewing election results last night, Green Party activists agreed that
while concerted efforts to eliminate Green candidates had partially
succeeded, Greens had won significant success on the issues they championed.
"Green candidates were blanked out by the mainstream media," declared Papa
John Kolstad, who ran for attorney general. "Our exclusion from candidate
listings and from debates, including those on Minnesota Public Radio, was
outrageous, and it was a great disservice to the voters." But while Greens
failed to regain major party status, the long-range impact of their repeated
campaigns could be clearly seen.
In Minneapolis, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be sent to the U.S.
Congress, campaigned on a Green platform. "His issues were identical to
those I put forward in 2004 and again this year," said Green Party candidate
for Congress Jay Pond. "Our campaigns were what brought them to the
forefront with voters." Those issues, including single-payer health care,
which all Green candidates listed as a top priority this year, also played a
strong role in overthrowing Republican control of the state House of
Representatives.
While Greens build toward the 2008 elections, they will continue to work
with popular movements and with all levels of government on issues that
reflect the values of the party. Those fundamental values include
Grassroots Democracy, Social and Economic Justice, Non-Violence, and
Ecological Wisdom.
For More Information on the Green Party of Minnesota see: www.mngreens.org
11.08.06
Green Party of Minnesota
Contact: Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota Politics Chair, (651)
224.6383
GREENS CITE ELECTION DAY VICTORIES -- READY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MINNESOTA
Minneapolis** The Green Party made history this year in securing enough
signatures to place five statewide, two congressional, and two legislative
candidates on the ballot by petition.
There were Green Party victories in several local races, including St.
Francis, where Leroy Schaeffer won his bid for City Council with 29.72% of
the vote and Winona, where Green Party member Dwayne Voegeli won re-election
as a county commissioner. In Minneapolis voters approved the use of Instant
Runoff Voting in municipal elections. Garnering 2.33%, and 1.93%
respectively, Green Party candidates Dave Berger for State Auditor and Papa
John Kolstad for Attorney General assured that the Green Party will continue
as a minor party in the state. Others, like the Constitution Party, were
not so successful, and the Greens remain the state¹s only minor party.
"The Green Party has worked for years in a multi-partisan effort to promote
electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis." said
Darrell Gerber, Green Party member and member of the board of the Better
Ballot Campaign. Minneapolis became the second major U.S. City (after San
Francisco) to adopt the treasured Green goal of Instant Runoff Voting, and
it passed by nearly a two-to-one vote. According to Dave Berger, candidate
for state auditor in 2002 and again this year, "We have won a structural
change that is far more important for the future than election to a few
offices. Four years ago most Minnesota voters had never heard of IRV, but
the work of the Green Party has changed that."
In reviewing election results last night, Green Party activists agreed that
while concerted efforts to eliminate Green candidates had partially
succeeded, Greens had won significant success on the issues they championed.
"Green candidates were blanked out by the mainstream media," declared Papa
John Kolstad, who ran for attorney general. "Our exclusion from candidate
listings and from debates, including those on Minnesota Public Radio, was
outrageous, and it was a great disservice to the voters." But while Greens
failed to regain major party status, the long-range impact of their repeated
campaigns could be clearly seen.
In Minneapolis, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be sent to the U.S.
Congress, campaigned on a Green platform. "His issues were identical to
those I put forward in 2004 and again this year," said Green Party candidate
for Congress Jay Pond. "Our campaigns were what brought them to the
forefront with voters." Those issues, including single-payer health care,
which all Green candidates listed as a top priority this year, also played a
strong role in overthrowing Republican control of the state House of
Representatives.
While Greens build toward the 2008 elections, they will continue to work
with popular movements and with all levels of government on issues that
reflect the values of the party. Those fundamental values include
Grassroots Democracy, Social and Economic Justice, Non-Violence, and
Ecological Wisdom.
For More Information on the Green Party of Minnesota see: www.mngreens.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
