Post in competition for K. Ellison in Nov.

May 14 12:26 UTC

Hi Jordan

  well said (have i ever said that to you?).

  One little note, however. Tammy actually did not play it safe. The press
missed much of that. As an example she advocated publicly for a collecting
federal revenue through a "sales tax" (replacing much of the income tax
system). There was considerable progressivity built into the proposal for
income earners on the lower end (btw- our other federal candidates did the same
thing). The main point of that conversion was to drive up savings among young
people. What is most important to realize is that when she advocated it people
listened, rather than dismissing it as they would had one of the more
cynically-viewed and polarized sides had said it. While we don't have the
"power" factor, we do have the "innocent" factor, which means people are more
willing to listen to our ideas.

  Her environmental positions were just as cutting edge. Everything policy wise
was about getting solutions implemented rather than posturing. They were fully
costed and respected people's intelligence. I wish that got in the news.

  Ideology:

  In the battle between the left and the right a very interesting thing has
happened. Any sense of federalism has been abandoned. The dogmatic left seems
to advocate for more government at all levels (I say dogmatic because I respect
enough Democrats and Republicans to exclude them). The dogmatic right seems to
advocate for less at all levels. The big I independents, and in fact many of
the small i independents understand and respect federalism. We clearly state
that government should be conducted at the most local level possible (but
unlike the Republicans we don't try to cut that local level too). Our federal
footpring in candidates and beliefs is far far more limited government than it
is at hte next level down and the next level after that.

  Your input was definitely right on though.

  Thanks

  Peter Tharaldson
  CD5 Chair IPMN
  Loring Park