Monday, July 13, 2009

Drinking Liberally: “One Day in July”

1934 teamsters' strike On Thursday night this week, the 16th, Jim McGuire will be our guest at Drinking Liberally. Jim is one of the organizers of One Day in July – A Street Festival for the Working Class. The actual event will take place on Saturday, July 25th, in Minneapolis:

Youthful supporters of the struggles of union labor will gather again at a street festival and concert they are calling a "counter-Aquatennial" in the Minneapolis Warehouse District on Saturday, July 25 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the historic 1934 Teamster strikes.

This is just a block from where some of the greatest violence of the strike took place. You can read more about the event at the link, above.

Here’s the lede from a Minnesota Historical Society web article:

This strike, also known as the Minneapolis Teamsters' Strike and, alternately, sometimes called "a police riot," was one of the most violent in the state's history, and a major battle in Minnesota's "civil war" of the 1930s between business and labor.

We meet six to nine or so at the 331 Club in Northeast Minneapolis. We expect Jim around seven. Come and learn some history about the labor movement.

MHS photo

Conventional wisdom

Well one out of two ain’t bad. Both Jeff Fecke and Robin Marty have written recent posts about how, in the context of the Entenza campaign for governor, conventional wisdom is always conventional, but much less often wise.

Jeff provides a litany of many of the nuggets of conventional wisdom gone wrong in state and national politics since 1990:

In 1990, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party put forth a sacrificial lamb for the United States Senate. The feisty college professor was entertaining, and the base loved him, but he obviously couldn’t beat the firmly entrenched and well-liked Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, I-R-Minn.

And the list goes on, and on, and on. Jeff has a great example of the failure of the conventional wisdom in politics for almost every year from then until now. It’s a delicious trip down memory lane. Every supporter of an “inevitable” candidate should print out a copy of this post and tape it to to the refrigerator.

Robin picks a single analogy for comparison: the early Hillary Clinton race for president in the last election cycle.

I'd been working on this post ever since Fecke put up his Entenza piece, because I see a lot of parallels between Matt Entenza and the early Clinton campaign. Both candidates were seen as early on favorites due to finances, name recognition, and, in some ways, by this weird political idea of "it's my turn." Both candidates had extremely high positives, but for those who didn't like them, they REALLY didn't like them. Both have done things in campaigns that weren't necessarily officially unethical, but could be seen by their dissenters and coming dangerously near the line if not crossing it. Both were running early, long campaigns at a time when, let's be honest, a democrat really should have an excellent chance to win.

Couple these facts with the spectacular explosion and flame out of the 2006 Entenza campaign for attorney general, and it would be — in the words of one of Spot’s friends — mass ritual suicide to just annoint Matt Entenza the DFL candidate now.

No way; ain’t gonna happen.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

For the weekend gardeners among us

If you’ve been out mowing the lawn, or picking weeks, or even going to the Al Franken party all weekend, it might have escaped your attention that the Entenza Stampede has run into a bit of a gully. And if you look around the blogosphere and on Twitter, you can find a lot of dead buffalo.

As far as Spot can tell, it started last Thursday with the reporting of a fine by the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board levied against the Entenza campaign for taking an illegal contribution. This prompted Spot’s friend Jeff Fecke to say some things that have obviously been on his mind for a while in a post called Anybody But Entenza. Jeff’s lede describes the quadrennial suicide pact known as the Minnesota DFL:

The Democratic-Farmer-Labor party is really bad at picking gubernatorial candidates. Not since 1986 — that’s 23 years ago — has a DFL candidate won election in a governor’s race, a five-cycle drought that’s almost impossible in a state as blue as Minnesota. The candidates we’ve put up since — Rudy Perpich in full Governor Goofy mode in 1990, John Marty in weak tea mode in 1994, Skip Humphrey in dynastic right mode in 1998, Roger Moe in Roger Moe mode in 2002, and Mike Hatch in full meltdown mode in 2006 — have been disaster piled upon disaster, a series of men (all men) who each, in his own special way, clearly deserved to lose his election.

Jeff doesn’t think much of the idea of running with Entelza either:

Today, Matt Entenza is running for governor, pushing hard on the idea that he’s already the de facto nominee. He’s got a lot of money, he’s got a strong organization, and he’s got a tailwind. You can hear the cognoscenti of the DFL nodding approvingly [if they are nodding hard enough to actually hear them, Spot supposes, that would really be something!]. It’s his time. He’s put in his time, paid his dues, that 2006 kerfuffle was almost three years ago, nobody remembers that.

That seems to sum up the current conventional thinking pretty well. Suicide pact: the 2010 edition. But the race hasn’t even begun, much less ended, and given the creeping sense of entitlement of the Entenza campaign, Jeff’s post was a most welcome wake-up call. It has sparked some intense discussion, some hard feelings, and attempts to invoke the code of omerta.

Thinking that Matt Entenza’s campaign finance problems and his weaknesses as a candidate would remain undiscovered by the Republicans is, however, an exercise in magical thinking worthy of J.K. Rowling.

So thanks, Jeff; we needed that.

Insurance love

Yesterday, Spot linked to an interview with Howard Dean. Here’s more from that interview; Spot recommends it. It’s a good read:

ESQ: One thing I've never seen before is when you say [in his book], "Much is made of the 47 million without insurance, but nothing of the 25 million who have insurance but don't go and see the doctor." I've got one of those high-deductible catastrophic plans myself, so I don't go to the doctor unless I'm bleeding. Why have I never seen this argument before?

HD: Because 99 percent of the discussions among reporters, policy wonks, and politicians focus on the uninsured — which is, frankly, why nothing is passed. They don't focus on the majority of Americans who have health insurance that doesn't work.

ESQ: Boil it down, if you would. Why isn't it working even if you do have insurance?

HD: Because it's too expensive. The private sector can't manage costs. Health care is one of the few places — defense is another — that the government works more efficiently and more effectively than the private sector. That's just a fact.

ESQ: Why is that?

HD: Because there is no feedback in the private health-care system. When I was practicing medicine, nobody with substernal chest pain ever got off my examining table and said, "The guy down the street does it for $2,000 cheaper, I'll see you later." That's why we've had 40 years of costs that increase between two and three times the rate of inflation every single year. It's breaking our economic system. People are yelling and screaming about jobs going to China, but they're not yelling and screaming about jobs going to Canada. But they are. Because the right-wingers can scream and yell about rationing if they want, but economically their system works much better than ours does.

ESQ: I've seen nothing about that during this debate. But in the book you talk about GM and — or was it Toyota? — moving their new factories just across the bridge to Ontario to take advantage of the Canadian health-care system.

HD: Toyota did also, but GM and Ford were the big ones.

You see, boys and girls, it is often the people most loudly clamoring for “competition” who are trying to protect their place in the sun, or maybe they don’t want the sun to shine in, or, well, whatever. You get the idea. And it’s certainly true of the health insurance industry.

And those who love it or are married to it, if you follow Spot’s meaning.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

“I hope you have healthcare, young lady”

hope you have health nsurance kid

Star Tribune photo

“Because if you don’t, the woman to my left is probably not going to help you out.”

For the time being, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., appears to be undecided on some of the key particulars of health care reform. When asked specifically about the public plans, a single-payer system and financing options, Klobuchar's spokesman said that the senator was not available for comment.

"She is considering health reform options that include Health Benefit Gateways or Health Exchanges, but wants to analyze how the plans in their entirety will impact our state before signing on to a specific proposal," said Klobuchar spokesman Linden Zakula.

This gibberish is just another way of saying more money to the insurance industry.

“Health care reform” without a public option isn’t worth the effort according to Dr. Howard Dean, former chair of the Democratic Party.

Friday, July 10, 2009

More about the 28K smackers!

Returning now to the thrilling days of, well, the day before yesterday:

Spot, you mean that Entenza was fined 28K+ while running to be the most senior law enforcement officer in the state?

Guess so, grasshopper; we’ll have to look into it.

And look into it Spot did. Here’s the decision of the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board in 2006. Matt Entenza was self-financed for the Attorney General’s race in 2006. His campaign, Minnesotans for Matt, says it thought that meant at all campaign contribution limits were beneath consideration. Well, it didn’t say that exactly, but that’s in essence what it argued before the Board:

On behalf of the Committee, Mr. Weinblatt argues that the special source contribution limits imposed by Minnesota Statutes, section 10A.27, subdivision 11, do not apply to a candidate who has not agreed to a public subsidy under Minnesota Statutes, section 10A.25.  The Board does not agree, and has consistently found that contribution limits, including special source limits, apply to candidates regardless of their acceptance or refusal of the public subsidy agreement.

Spotty, what are “special source contributions?"

I’ll let the Board tell us grasshopper:

Candidate committees have an aggregate limit on contributions from certain types of contributors (special source limit) as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 10A.27, subdivision 11.  This statute sets a yearly limit on the total amount of contributions that a candidate’s committee may receive from political committees, political funds, lobbyists, and large contributors.  A “large contributor” is defined by this statute as “…an individual, other than the candidate, who contributes an amount that is more than $100 and more than one-half the amount an individual may contribute”.  In 2005, the contribution limit from an individual to a candidate for the office of Attorney General was $200.  Therefore, a contribution from an individual of over $100 was from a “large contributor” and counted against the special source limit.

The Board describes Minnesotans’ for Matt’s infraction:

In 2005, candidates for the office of Attorney General were limited to $14,588 in aggregate contributions from special sources.

Of the $42,693.33 in special source contributions accepted by the Committee, $3,125 was from registered lobbyists, $3,700 was from political committees or political funds, and $35,868.33 was from individuals who contributed more than $100.  The total amount of these contributions exceeded the special source limit by $28,105.33.

The excess contributions were not returned within 60 days as required in Minnesota Statutes, section 10A.15, subdivision 3.  Therefore, the Committee accepted the excess contributions.

In addition to having to return the excess contributions, the Entenza campaign had to pay a fine equal to the excess contributions.

That had to smart, Spotty!

Yes, grasshopper, it most assuredly did. Spot isn’t sure of the amount of the biggest fine ever levied by the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, but he’s got a box of kibble that says this one is in the top five.

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Drinking Liberally tonight!

Don’t forget, boys and girls, we have our regular meeting of Drinking Liberally tonight at the 331 Club in Northeast Minneapolis. Six to nine or so.

We have a big box of stuff from the mother ship at Living Liberally to start giving away: some books, a DL t-shirt, a Blue State Coffee baseball-style cap, some bumper stickers, etc. I’ll think of some games or riddles to determine the winners. The loot will be doled out over the next few weeks.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Another edition of “Matt Entenza knows”

Apparently he knows lobbyists. Campaign finance law? Not so much.

Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosures Board fined Entenza $500 for taking a campaign donation from  General Mills lobbyist Lee Anderson during the last session of the Legislature.

That’s a no-no.

And a pretty simple one for gubernatorial candidates to avoid: Is the Legislature in session? Yes ___  No ___. If the answer is “yes,” DON’T TAKE THE MONEY. You’d think the Man From Cheerios would know better, too.

The linked AP articles goes on to say:

Entenza has faced campaign finance issues before, including a 2006 fine of more than $28,000 accepting donations above state limits while running for attorney general.

Spot, you mean that Entenza was fined 28K+ while running to be the most senior law enforcement officer in the state?

Guess so, grasshopper; we’ll have to look into it.

Monday, July 06, 2009

Ken Avidor wins the Spotty!

the_spotty Spot told Ken on Friday that he had won the Spotty (tm) in the Norm Coleman political epitaph contest. The contest was well fought, with several excellent entries. Before we get to the winner, here are a few of them:

Second runner up – submitted by Jeff Fecke

Paul Wellstone is a Democrat
And I am a Democrat
We must work together
To Re-elect
Bill Clinton

First runner up – submitted by Phoenix Woman

Play me off, Keyboard Cat!

Be sure to follow the link to the video.

Winner – Exhibition Category – Spot

The Accidental Senator

Ken’s winning entry is a send up of the famous Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem Ozymandias.

Here’s the winner:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

My name is Norm Coleman, (former) Senator of Senators:
Look on my political career, ye mighty, and despair!


Nothing beside remains (except professional hockey). Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level snows stretch far away.

On learning that he had won, Ken penned an illustration to accompany the epitaph.

NOrm2

Notice the wingtips. And the cross-country skier and the little snowman.

Congratulations all and thanks for your participation.

Sunday, July 05, 2009

The day after the day after

Note to self: Don't ever take on a client who makes you interrupt the holiday with your family to trudge into the office to write threatening letters about the people she thinks are saying nasty things about her.

Update: This is especially to be followed when said client hasn't paid her bills.

Saturday, July 04, 2009

A winner has been chosen

A winner has been chosen in the Norm Coleman Political Epitaph Contest. The winner has been notified, and the award will be made public on Monday. Thank you all for your participation.

Friday, July 03, 2009

There are still some worms left in that can

Do you remember, boys and girls, in the early days of the Bush Administration the secret energy task force headed by the Vice President? And how we all thought it was just trying to figure out a way around all those bothersome environmental types? But we were thinking way too small:

    It was believed then that Cheney's secretive task force was focusing on ways to reduce environmental regulations and fend off the Kyoto protocol on global warming.

    But Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, later described a White House interest in invading Iraq and controlling its vast oil reserves, dating back to the first days of the Bush presidency.

    In Ron Suskind's 2004 book, "The Price of Loyalty," O'Neill said an invasion of Iraq was on the agenda at the first National Security Council. There was even a map for a post-war occupation, marking out how Iraq's oil fields would be carved up.

    Even at that early date, the message from Bush was "find a way to do this," according to O'Neill, a critic of the Iraq invasion who was forced out of his job in December 2002.

    The New Yorker's Jane Mayer later made another discovery: a secret NSC document dated February 3, 2001 - only two weeks after Bush took office - instructing NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney's task force, which was "melding" two previously unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states" and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." [The New Yorker, February 16, 2004]

That’s from a recent truthout.org article by Jason Leopold.

Now there’s an interesting word: “cooperate.”

Let’ see what that “cooperation” produced:

    It began more than six years ago with a lie, followed by another lie, and another lie, and then two more, ten more, a hundred, a thousand, an avalanche of lies from heads of state and hatchet men and well-fed media types more interested in getting the interview than in getting the facts.

    It began with lies like this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

    - Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002

    ... and this:

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

    - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002

    ... and this:

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

    - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 1/9/2003

    ... and this:

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

    - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to the UN Security Council 2/5/2003

    ... and this:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

    - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ABC Interview 3/30/2003

    It began with George W. Bush standing before both houses of Congress and an international television audience for his January 2003 State of the Union address and stating that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons - which is one million pounds - of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, al-Qaeda connections and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program.

Pretty impressive cooperation, wouldn’t you say, boys and girls? That’s William Rivers Pitt, also in truthout.org.

You know how people say You can’t make this up? Apparently you can.

Spot is sorry to drop this one on Dave on the eve of the Fourth of July, when Dave is undoubtedly busy sharpening and polishing his ornamental spear for the parade or some such, but these truthout.org articles came out in the last couple of days, and Spot thought they were interesting, especially taken together.

After he puts the silver polish away, Dave will no doubt deliver an impassioned defense, pointing out that many Democrats voted for the Iraq war and were therefore collaborators. We won’t quibble about the meaning or intent of the resolution that Congress passed, nor whether the Dems who voted in favor were collaborators or dupes, but you have to draw the conclusion that many anti-war types did early on: it was about oil.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Passing the torch

Several weeks ago, Stewart, an emissary from the Lafayette, Indiana, Drinking Liberally chapter, came to Minneapolis and to our meeting and presented our chapter with a National Review paperweight, given to Dan Quayle and signed by William F. Buckley himself.

Stewart was inspired to bring the paperweight to us symbolize a kind of passing of the loser-Republican torch from Dan Quayle to Norm Coleman. As Stewart says, the paperweight was picked up in a thrift store shortly after Quayle’s mother dropped it off in a box of her son’s memorabilia.

We cemented a sister-chapter relationship with toast and jeers.

Spot has to wonder whether scenes of Laurie Coleman schlepping boxes of Norm memorabilia around to the thrift stores in town will now become a common sight.

I’ll put up a picture of the paperweight, with the Buckley inscription legible, in the sidebar when I get a chance.

This one is toast

Here’s the headline on a recent KSTP web article:

Some Retailers Unaware of New Minn. Flag Law

Here’s a little about the law from the article:

American flags made in China? Some say it's unpatriotic, but it's also illegal in Minnesota. It's a new law that even some national retailers are not aware of.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS alerted the manager of the St. Paul Pier 1 store that the tiny, China-made U.S. flags it is selling for 95-cents are not allowed under a 2007 state law. 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS checked four Twin Cities Pier 1 Imports and found the flags in all of them.

In a statement to 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS, Pier 1 said "We are unaware of the Minnesota state law that you brought to our attention. We will investigate this issue and make adjustments in order to comply with any applicable Minnesota state law."

"If anything that should be made in this country, it's the flag," said DFL Rep. Tom Rukavina, who introduced the bill. He hopes other companies will get the message too.

"They should have known the law. The department of commerce or somebody should enforce the law and make sure they get a little slap on the wrist so it doesn't happen at another store," said Rukavina.

Sorry, Tom, and Spot really means sorry, but you can’t restrict interstate commerce that way. There is absolutely no legitimate regulatory purpose. Want flame resistant flags to keep protesters from burning themselves? Then write a law addressed to the flammability of flags. Want the flags to be reflective so that motorists will see late-night Fourth of July revelers along the roads in the dark? Then require them to be reflective. These might still be impermissible burdens on interstate commerce, but you could at least make them with a straight face.

But the state of Minnesota may not have a foreign policy. Foreign and interstate commerce is regulated by the feds. The Interstate Commerce Clause could take care of this law with a small wave of the Mighty Paw. [The Mighty Paw is the Invisible Hand’s opposite number.]

In fact, this would be a good one for Lee McGrath’s Institute for Justice. No actual civil liberties are involved here: just dollars — or maybe yuan — yearning to breathe free. Perfect.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

I vas only following ze orders

When it gets later in the evening and Spot wants a post to show some effort for the day, Scott Horton’s No Comment is usually a good place to turn for something to pass along.

There have been several posts over the last few years here at the Cucking Stool about the Nuremberg Defense: I am not guilty of war crimes because I was following the orders of my superiors. Although the Nuremberg Tribunal convened after the Second World War held that it was no defense, it continues to be raised by persons trying to shift the blame for their conduct to others.

Horton tells us about one of the latest examples:

According to a translation by the Associated Press, [former Milan CIA station chief Robert Seldon] Lady has set up a defense that sounds remarkably familiar: he was just following orders.

”I am not guilty. I am only responsible for following an order I received from my superiors,” Lady was quoted as saying by Il Giornale. “It was not a criminal act. It was a state affair. I find consolation in reminding myself that I was a soldier, that I was at war with terrorism, and that I could not discuss the orders I received,” he was quoted as saying. “I have worked in intelligence for 25 years, and almost none of my activities in these 25 years were legal in the country in which I was carrying them out.”

Lady was apparently against the action that was taken — kidnapping an alleged al Qaeda operative off the streets of Milan in one of those special renditions you’ve heard so much about — but Horton reminds us that it really doesn’t make any difference:

From a number of reports, Lady was intensely critical within CIA circles of the proposed effort to snatch Abu Omar. As it turns out, Italian prosecutors were on the verge of arresting and prosecuting Abu Omar before the CIA interceded. Chief Italian prosecutor Armando Spataro stated that the criminal case against Abu Omar was demolished by the CIA action. But Lady opposed the action, noting that it would be understood by the Italians as a crime and would badly damage the relationship with a NATO ally which was supporting the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Lady assessed the situation with perfect accuracy. It’s a shame that his bosses in Langley didn’t listen to him. However, “only following orders” is also known as the Nuremberg defense, and the problem is that it is no defense at all. [Spot’s italics]

Unlike the United States, persons can be tried in Italy in absentia, as Lady and 25 other Americans are over this affair.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Drinking Liberally: the Al Franken valedictory

nyt al franken Thursday night will be a chance to offer congratulations, and maybe some advice, to our new Senator. Al won’t be there, but the video camera will be.

Six to nine at the 331 Club in Northeast Minneapolis.

New York Times picture

Norm Coleman political epitaph contest

01coleman Submit your entries in the comments in the Cucking Stool’s contest to write the definitive political epitaph for Norm Coleman. The winner will receive a Spotty (tm) medallion, a digital one anyway. Deadline is Friday, close of business.

And remember: epitaph, not obituary.

Update: Here’s one, but it is only entered in the exhibition category:

Paid no rent
Saw no evil
Now he’s out
On his schnozzle

Further update: There’s a couple of good ones in the comments already. Keep ‘em coming! One more for the exhibition category:

Here lies the Accidental Senator

And yet another update: There are several excellent entries in the comments. Please keep them coming, and try, if you can, to get them in by Thursday afternoon (deadline remains the same: Friday afternoon). The ones that are in will get an airing at DL tomorrow night just to get some crowd reaction to help the judges. This isn’t going to be easy.

Technorati Tags: ,

The money un-quote

It’s been news for nearly a half an hour now that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Al Franken. But before the rejoicing begins in earnest, and too much beer and champagne are drunk, and too much confetti is thrown into the air, consider this:

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn.Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.

That’s the judgment at the end of the Supreme Court’s 32 page opinion.

Hey, that’s great, Spotty! When’s the swearing in ceremony?

Not so fast, grasshopper. The judgment lacks one teensy little thing: an order to Governor Pawlenty to sign the certificate. He’s said he would, unless blah blah blah. Of course, blah blah blah is in the eye of the beholder.

If he refuses to sign the certificate, on whatever pretext: that he’s unsure of the correctness of the decision, Coleman says he’s going to appeal to the federal courts, whatever; the governor’s failure to sign is not likely to have legal consequences. Why? Because the governor has not been given an order from which he could be found in contempt.

It may not be over yet.

Update: The grasshopper asked why the Court didn’t include an order to the governor and the secretary of state in its judgment. Spot’s pretty sure that Al Franken’s lawyers would have asked for one. The best answer is probably the reluctance of the Court to provoke a constitutional crisis. That’s understandable, but it seems like a dereliction of the Court’s duty to declare what the law is and to enforce it.

Further update: It is reported that Norm Coleman has awakened and smelled the unmistakable aroma of coffee.

And Spot forgives the Supreme Court for not wanting to pick a constitutional fight with the governor.

Quote of the day

"Sadly, there is a cost to this kind of freedom."

Lee McGrath, just this morning at the Federalist Society Continuing Legal Education seminar, when asked about the need for regulation - or not - of the financial markets in the wake of the Bernie Madoff scandal.

Mr. McGrath also explained how he'd have no trouble whatsoever having a surgeon from a non-accredited medical school operate on his heart.

More later if I get a chance to revisit my thoughts on the morning.

Monday, June 29, 2009

A keen sense of smell

TPaw by Avidor "Any time you have leading figures who are engaged in behavior that is sad and troubling and hypocritical, other people are going to look at that and say, 'Hmm, they don't walk the walk.' And so the words and the actions don't ring true," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn. "It certainly hurts the brand."

Pawlenty added: "I think I can make a contribution, in a positive way, for trying to rebuild this party. And it needs it."

That’s a quote from a Strib web article Sunday, commenting on Governor Pepsodent’s appearance on the Sunday morning talk shows. One of the commenters to the article wrote: “I’ll give him this: the man can smell opportunity.”

So can a jackal.

Pepsodent was talking about the recent revelations of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford playing with an Argentine fire cracker and earlier stories about an extra-marital affair of Sen. John Ensign of Nevada which he admitted were true.

Still, if the personal rectitude card is all you’ve got, Spot guesses you have to play it.

Update: Forgot the graphic attribution: Ken Avidor. This formerly appeared in Law & Politics.