Minnesota Democrats Exposed is Getting Better

I’ve found a few positive things to say about the blogging wing of the MN GOP, Minnesota Democrats Exposed:

1. Ryan Lyk seems to have retired. Or, a least he’s blogging at a rate that makes me wonder whether he’s given up the gig. He’s posted only once in the past month (Jan 27th).

2. Ryan seems to be spending less time blogging and more time tweeting about the greed of workers who believe they have the right to negotiate as a group:

Perhaps Lyk could learn a thing or two from Erza Klein?

3. Which leaves Andy Post running MDE, where he recently uncovered – I kid you not – a tie between a union leader and the DFL. As in, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party:

MDE has obtained an email being distributed to union members in Minnesota by a local union leader and Education Minnesota Board Member, encouraging them to join organized protests and door-to-door advocacy walks this weekend in Hudson. At the end of her note to activists, Blaha confuses Wisconsin’s geographic location in proximity to Minnesota and calls for teachers to ‘support our neighbors to the west’. The full email is below. Blaha’s Linked-in profile highlights her direct partisan ties to the DFL.

(Andy, if you’re going to pick on typos, learn how to spell LinkedIn.)

While I view the above examples as positives, I really do wish that there was a competent version of MDE. A right-wing site that uncovered government waste and corruption would be a very good thing. Instead, based on the issues Andy Post (and previously, Ryan Lyk) took on, it seems like the MN GOP is more interested in creating petty distractions rather than debating serious policy issues. Which makes sense, considering that Tony Sutton and Michael Brodkorb are the state party’s leaders. Rep. Paul Thissen explained this well:

You can do better, MDE & MN GOP.

4 thoughts on “Minnesota Democrats Exposed is Getting Better”

  1. When unions stop collecting dues then you can claim the work they do isn’t motivated by greed.

  2. @Bill, I don’t see how it would be a fair fight to have worker’s rights negotiated by volunteers while their employers can put together an army of trained negotiators and lawyers. If employers were willing to rely upon pro-bono representation as well, that might make sense.

  3. Because workers in the private sector are their own rights advocates (on top of whatever world-wide/federal/state/local rules apply to both public/private enterprise). Why do those who belong to a union need to have a group advocate on their behalf?

    I don’t understand your statement about the other side having pro-bono help. It really makes no sense once you remove the collective bargaining argument IMO.

  4. @Bill, as I see it, workers often benefit by hiring specialists to negotiate on their behalf. It’s really just a counter to the specialists used by employers to negotiate contracts. It seems reasonable to me to assume that someone could be a great Spanish teacher, but not be a particularly strong contract negotiator. Wouldn’t that person benefit from having representation? Wouldn’t we benefit from having the specialist in teaching Spanish focus on what she does best while someone with specialized skills in contract negotiations represents her?

    Removing collective bargaining creates a divide and conquer approach to contract negotiations where people with specialized skills (other than contract negotiations) are forced to negotiate with trained contract negotiators.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.