Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) received a zero from the Minnesota Family Council, meaning he voted against the family.
The Minnesota Family Council ranked each Representative’s votes on 13 pieces of legislation in 2008 that affect the family. Kalin voted against the family in each of the 13 cases, securing for himself a big fat zero.
You can find the legislative scorecard here. The voting record of each Representative is first in the scorecard. The 13 issues are located at the bottom of the document.
Listed just above Kalin in the record is Rep. Rob Eastlund (R-17A: the other half of Senate District 17) who has a 100% family voting record in 2008.
We need to replace the current anti-family Kalin with Don Taylor, a pro-family man.
___________________________________________
Response to Independent and Undecided Anonymous
Anon said: "Can't you guys discuss specific issues, rather than how another right-wing pro-republican website/foundation/think tank rates Republicans vs. Democrats? There are serious issues that should be discussed, rather than the link in this post (Really - look at that table. Objective? Hardly.). . . "
When I point to the scorecards of other web sites, I do it because it is impossible for me to sift through all the legislation to compile the voting record of a legislator. Some people do this for a living and create the databases that give helpful and usable information to the rest of us.
Providing links to the rating of a candidate by various entities is valid. These scorecards are handy starting points for you to investigate more on a particular candidate. Obviously they are not meant to be the be-all, end-all in a debate. I expect my readers to do some investigation on their own.
The scorecards do have objectivity because all legislators are compared to the same standard. The ratings point out the general direction that a legislator takes because they are based on actual votes. A legislator may step out of a voting pattern on occasion and that can be investigated.
So I do not apologize for pointing you to scorecards. Use them and you may learn something. Further, I do not just dabble at the "scorecard level" on this blog. I have written in detail on many specific issues on this blog. Based on the above, my writing is not "empty headedness" as you charge. Go back and read more of my work.
Bringing up a new topic in the comment section is not necessarily a red herring. But the way it was done in the case you referenced, is a red herring. Funding the Positive Alternatives Program does not answer voting against the Finstad amendment. Bringing it up attempts to divert attention from the Finstad amendment. A red herring is a logical fallacy.
You said, "Undecided voters want to hear about moderation." If you limit yourself to moderation, you will not be listening or reading most Democrats. And you may not be listening to "moderate" John McCain either, because his position on the use of nuclear energy is radical to many leftists. In Minnesota it is illegal to build a new nuclear electrical generation plant, thanks in large part to radicals. Get used to reading and listening to radicals; the political and academic world is full of them. I hope you are more interested in being right than being moderate.
