As I pointed out a few days ago, precinct caucuses are officially the beginning of the political season. That\’s right, it\’s time for the phone calling, the door knocking and sadly enough the mud-slinging. Of course some of it is slung more ineptly and without purpose than others.
Derrick Lindstrom is the sacrificial lamb that the DFL appears to be throwing up (figuratively and/or literally) against first-term Rep. Tara Mack. He\’s trying to frame himself as a simple family man and a fiscal conservative. No doubt a winning strategy. It\’s hard not to like the wholesome image of a family man. And in this economic climate a fiscal conservative is worth his weight in gold. Problem is that Mr. Lindstrom appears to be his worst enemy, destroying his image every time he opens his mouth.
No sooner does he announce himself as a fiscal conservative, then he starts talking about raising taxes.
“We need to raise taxes in a sustainable way…the DFL passed the tobacco (fee) increase to get people to stop smoking and to raise revenue. If people stop smoking, there is no revenue.”
That\’s very true, it was a God awful way to raise money in the first place. But Minnesota is one of the most heavily taxes states as it is, more taxes, however much sense they make, is hardly the answer. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. I shouldn\’t have to explain that to a \”fiscal conservative\”.
And Mr. Lindstrom, despite being a family man, appears to be hold some rather anti-family priorities.
\”Tara missed 27 floor votes, that’s 27 times the people of 37A did not have a voice\”
First of all, in the grand scheme of things 27 votes isn\’t a huge amount but that\’s beside the point. Rep. Mack missed only two days of the session….so she could attend her grandfather\’s funeral when he died unexpectedly. I know I know…clearly her priorities are a little messed up. I mean she could attend her grandfather\’s military funeral any time, but those 27 votes….well, the world could end.
Then Mr. Lindstrom starts attacking Rep. Mack for…..not having children. For all Mr. Lindstrom knows she has been trying and it just hasn\’t happened, but that\’s hardly the point in any case. Other than just the pure nastiness of it, there is certainly a sexist streak to it. I\’m not sure I\’ve ever heard a male politician criticized for not having children. Yet for some reason it\’s okay here? Mr. Lindstrom can claim super magical perspectives all he wants, but the fact of the matter is you don\’t need to have children to know that families are hurting all over the state, and that raising taxes on families that are already struggling isn\’t the answer.
When it comes right down to it, Mr. Lindstrom can\’t even live up to his own hype. And given his tax&spend desires, however, much he claims to be fiscally conservative, he\’s hardly what Minnesota needs right now….or really ever.