April 11-13, 2010
Apr 11 15:29 Mitt Romney Steps In It Apr 11 07:44 Bring It On Apr 11 23:12 Michele Doing What Michele Does Best Apr 13 02:06 The Hate Bachmann Brigade Strikes Again Apr 13 04:27 Romney's Waterloo? Apr 13 10:33 Carlson & Mondale Attempt to be Relevant Apr 13 16:31 Tarryl Makes Her Case Apr 13 23:44 Hoyer Criticizes Michele, Urges Return to Civility
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Mitt Romney Steps In It
From this day forward, I won't take Mitt Romney seriously because he's trying to have it both ways on Romneycare. This NYTimes article lays it out perfectly:
As he promotes himself as a problem-solving pragmatist, Mr. Romney can justifiably point to the landmark universal coverage law in Massachusetts that he, as governor, proposed in 2006. But as he appeals to conservative activists and Republican primary voters, he is trying to draw nuanced distinctions between his Massachusetts law and the federal legislation that shares many of its fundamental elements, including a requirement that people have insurance.It's interesting that Gov. Romney thinks one of the things that's worthwhile is the individual mandate. After all, Gov. Romney said that he likes "the things that are similar." Presumably, that includes individual mandates because that's one thing Obamacare and Romneycare have in common.
The core of his argument is a federalist assertion that the new law usurps powers that properly reside with the states.
"Whether you like what we did or think it stinks to high heaven," he said of the Massachusetts plan in a speech here on Thursday, "the point is we solved it at our level."
He then compared the two plans: "I like the things that are similar, I don't like the things that are different, and that's why I vehemently oppose Obamacare."
That's a big deal because government, whether it's the federal, state or local government, shouldn't have the authority to force people to buy any product, whether it's prepaid health care or anything else, as a result of your existence. It's one thing for states to mandate a car owner to own car insurance because driving a car is a privilege.
While it's true that having the federal government mandate the purchase of health insurance is more egregious than at the state level by virtue of the Tenth Amendment, that doesn't mean Massachusetts' mandating the purchase of state-approved health insurance isn't repugnant. The reality is that both mandates are infringements on our individual liberties. That's unacceptable in the United States.
That's why people from across the United States are rallying against the individual and employer mandates. Only control freak progressives think that the mandates are a good thing.
I couldn't believe what I was reading when I read this statement:
In response, Mr. Romney is reminding audiences that Mr. Obama has cast the Republicans as the "party of no," devoid of ideas. "And yet," Mr. Romney said in Bedford, "he's saying that I was the guy that came up with the idea for what he did. He can't have it both ways."I won't pretend that Mitt's statement is one of his brightest. It isn't. His defense to President Obama's criticism is to essentially admit that the individual mandates in Romneycare gave President Obama the political cover for including individual mandates in the Democrats' health care legislation.
Scott Johnson has it exactly right in his analysis of whether Mitt will fit in 2012 :
However difficult it is to imagine the political landscape of 2012 now, I doubt that Governor Romney will be holding up the Massachusetts health care legislation as an exhibit supporting his prospective candidacy in the 2012 election. Yet Governor Romney has not yet made this particular calculation. Perhaps he feels he has no choice; perhaps he really believes in it. The Wall Street Journal's Peter Wallsten documents Romney's current defense of Romneycare in Romney dogged by a tale of two health plans " The New York Times's Kevin Sack does likewise in " Mitt Romney on health care: A particular spin ."I've said for quite some time that Romney and Huckabee are yesterday's news. Huckabee was exposed as a big spending pro-life candidate in 2008. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was exposed as a chameleon who re-invented himself whenever it benefited him. Those aren't the profiles of viable GOP presidential candidates in a TEA Party environment. They're the picture of why we didn't have a chance in 2008.
Wallsten quotes a Democratic MIT economist whom Wallsten credits with assisting the design of Romneycare: "If any one person in the world deserves credit for where we are now [with the passage of the new federal law], it's Mitt Romney. He designed the structure of the federal bill." Sack quotes Romney himself to almost equally devastating effect: "Whether you like what we did or think it stinks to high heaven, the point is we solved it at our level." Really? He then compared the two plans: "I like the things that are similar, I don't like the things that are different, and that's why I vehemently oppose Obamacare." It's not exactly a rallying cry, and the Times story a few more painful details.
Suffice it to say that Governor Romney is probably not the man to lead the resistance to Obamaism. If he isn't yet toast, I can't help but think he should be.
This paragraph fits perfectly with Scott's post on why Mitt should be toast:
He is already under assault from conservative writers and potential Republican rivals like Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.Gov. Pawlenty will highlight the fact that he twice refused to include individual mandates in his health care reform proposals. Gov. Pawlenty will also highlight the fact that the health care plan for state government workers has had insurance premiums stay flat 3 of the past 5 years. Meanwhile, health care costs haven't risen at the same rate as in other states' plans.
In other words, Gov. Pawlenty's plan actually has reduced health care costs while stabilizing health insurance premiums.
Here's my opinion of Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations: Get out the butter because Mitt's toast.
Posted Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:36 PM
No comments.
Bring It On
This morning on @Issue with Tom Hauser, Blois Olson and Sarah Janacek talked about the Bachmann-Palin rally and what it tells us about the state of the Bachmann-Tarryl Clark race.
Blois repeated twice that "Michele Bachmann is unpredictable." Sarah Janacek's response would've fit with the prevailing attitude at the rally: "Bring on the money. Michele's gonna win."
Hauser said that Palin's star power was evidenced by the fact that "over 10,000 people showed up for a mid-afternoon rally on a weekday." I've repeatedly said that the attendance needs to be seen from the perspective that tickets went to people who volunteered to work a pair of 3 hour shifts for Michele Bachmann's campaign.
In other words, Wednesday's rally was telling the DFL and the DCCC that Michele's GOTV machine is passionate and huge.
Hauser also talked about the fundraising numbers for Michele, Tarryl and Dr. Reed, noting that Tarryl and Dr. Reed have raised a little more than Michele has thus far before noting that Michele's numbers were from Michele's 2009 closing totals. For the record, Michele had raised $1,500,000 by the end of 2009, whereas Tarryl and Dr. Reed had raised a total of $1,700,000 thus far.
What I'm hearing is that Michele "will report a big number" when she releases her fundraising totals this week. That's before factoring in the numbers from Wednesday night's fundraising totals. That night's haul figures to be well into 6-figures.
Prior to the Janacek-Olson segment, Hauser played a clip of Tarryl criticizing Michele Bachmann of pursuing her own agenda rather than doing the people's work. This rings hollow considering the amount of union backing she's gotten. It isn't credible for Tarryl to say that she wouldn't be a rubber stamp for the unions after their PACs have contributed 10's of thousands of dollars to Tarryl's campaign.
Tarryl's pure-as-the-driven-snow routine simply isn't credible. Having a former lobbyist take 10's of thousands of dollars of special interest money isn't the way to prove you're working for 'the folks'.
Finally, I need to talk about something that Blois Olson said. Olson said that Michele is unpredictable, alluding to Michele's past statements. I won't deny that the press has had a field day with some of Michele's statements. That said, it's wrong to suggest that Michele's support isn't rock-solid.
I keep voting for Michele because I know that, at the end of the day, Michele will keep fighting for keeping spending under control, energy independence, including the use of fossil fuels, while keeping taxes and regulations to a minimum. People in the 6th District know that and appreciate that.
As long as that sentiment doesn't change, Michele will keep getting elected.
Posted Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:44 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 11-Apr-10 08:36 PM
Tarryl is another example of the "who?" model the DFL has been increasingly using. The first we heard of Margaret Anderson Kelliher was when she was somehow made Speaker, despite no committee chair experience, passing over many more qualified, more senior Democrats.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Apr-10 10:25 PM
That's a great point, Rex. You're absolutely right.
Comment 3 by eric z at 12-Apr-10 11:14 AM
I like Tarryl Clark's passion to help people. In ways Bachmann ignores. Maureen Reed and Tarryl Clark are both fine that way, whereas Michele Bachmann is a circus act. A three-ring circus when you mix in Palin and Hannity.
Michele Doing What Michele Does Best
Sunday morning, Michele Bachmann gave a virtuoso performance on Fox News Sunday. It was a virtuoso performance because, as Mediaite rightly highlights , she told the national TV audience why she disagrees with President Obama's policies:
Wallace could not have done more to goad her into character, reminding her of her Nostradamus references, claim that Barack Obama was anti-American, and fierce loyalty to George W. Bush, and playing several clips from her appearance on Hannity last week that belied her calm demeanor on his program. Her responses proved why she is the leader of the Tea Party movement: "the country has never gone this far in taking this much of the private economy," she argued; typical for her, except this time she had a 51% statistic of federally-controlled business to back her claim up. She explained how she was one of the few riding the Tea Party wave actually legislating to make their political beliefs laws, explaining the details of a health care bill she is working on to counter the effects of the Obama-supported health care bill that passed to much fanfare last month.Here's what Michele included in her explanation on how she arrived at the 51 percent statistic: Health care is now 18 percent of GDP. The federal government just took over student loans. They took over AIG and Fannie and Freddie, the owners of the majority of home mortgages. That's before factoring in GM and Chrysler.
It's an itemized list for all the world to see. The DFL and the DCCC will criticize Michele in their attempt to discredit her. That's their 'go-to move' when they can't win an argument, which they can't in this instance. When they attempt to criticize Michele on this, conservatives should simply demand that they explain which verifiable fact they're attempting to discredit.
Michele's statistics aren't Michele's opinions. They're verifiable facts, many of which can be accessed from government or industry websites. Before they argue with Michele, the DFL and the DCCC should first argue with the statistics and the government agencies that generated them.
Until they can refute Michele's statistics, they can't refute Michele's arguments. The only option left to the DFL and the DCCC is to 'shoot the messenger', which is what the DFL and the DCCC routinely do. That won't cut it with the American people, especially in this TEA Party world.
People agree that Michele and Sarah Palin are darlings of the TEA Party movement. This past week, Gallup's polling revealed how powerful a bloc that group is, with 49 percent of TEA Party activists identifying themselves as Republicans, 43 percent identifying themselves as unaffiliateds and 8 percent identifying themselves as Democrats.
In other words, Michele tapped into a motivated, broad spectrum of people when she tapped into the TEA Party activists. Nothing she did this morning alienated voters from that motivated bloc of voters. A number of things that Michele did re-inforced Michele's ties with TEA Party activists.
That's why the only accurate description for Michele's performance Sunday morning is to say she gave a virtuoso performance. (PS- That's why Tarryl is facing such a stiff uphill fight.)
Posted Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:12 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 12-Apr-10 07:53 AM
Thanks for the statistics. I've been wondering exactly what the party affiliation of Tea Party people is. Now, if we can only get that 43% unaffiliated to pull the lever for Republicans in November, rather than remaining unaffiliated, we'll have a victory for the country.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Apr-10 02:22 PM
Jerry, I'd say that we're about 3/4th of the way there to getting them to pull the conservative lever. There's still work to be done but just reminding them which party is ignoring them & which party is mixing with the people at TEA Party rallies should suffice in reminding who's on their side.
Comment 2 by eric z at 12-Apr-10 11:11 AM
NOTHING FOR THE DISTRICT -
What Michele Bachmann does best.
The Hate Bachmann Brigade Strikes Again
It was just a matter of time before the Hate Bachmann Brigades took their shots at Michele's speech after last Wednesday's rally . That isn't news. What's worthwhile, though, is the flimsiness of their arguments in this LTE :
If Bachmann is worried about re-election, which seems likely with the $10,000 per ticket cost for the dinner after the rally, she did a poor job convincing anyone that she'll work hard to create jobs, calm the economic downturn and decrease spending. Instead, she turned to blaming the Obama administration for every act of violence against the American people and boasted of her "no" votes.Spinmeister extraordinaire Keith Ellison started the 'Michele's in trouble' meme at last week's union rally in the Capitol Rotunda:
"If the congresswoman from the 6th District wasn't scared to death of Sen. Tarryl Clark, she wouldn't bring Palin here at all," Ellison said, referring to the candidate the Minnesota DFL Party has endorsed to run against Bachmann. "It is a sign of our strength and our power that they have to bring that person here."Let's set this in context. Michele doesn't underestimate her opponents, which means that she keeps working hard to connect with her constituents. The reason why Michele invited Gov. Palin to Minnesota was to draw a huge crowd of loyal supporters and to highlight Michele's common sense agenda.
Those people who know her know that Michele isn't the type to get intimidated. Instead, Michele's been known to go after the people that attempt to intimidate or smear her. They, not Michele, usually wind up with the short end of that proverbial stick.
Second, Michele is all about getting stronger each election cycle. This year, in building a stronger campaign, Michele invited Sarah Palin to Minnesota for an afternoon rally of the foot soldiers and an evening fundraiser for Michele AND the MNGOP. It's widely being reported, including on this blog, that almost 11,000 people attended the afternoon rally, each of whom got their tickets by promising to volunteer at least 6 hrs. for Michele's campaign.
Those people writing a $10,000 check knew in advance that the first $4,800 went into Michele's campaign coffers and that the rest went into the MNGOP coffers. In other words, Michele's fundraiser helped her campaign and the MNGOP. That's what's called being a team player.
But I digress.
According to the LTE, Michele "did a poor job convincing anyone that she'll work hard to create jobs, calm the economic downturn and decrease spending." This thinking isn't rooted in reality. In fact, it's downright delusional. Repealing the Democrats' health care bill will immediately cut spending. It will also give small and large businesses alike the information they need on labor costs.
During my interview of House GOP Policy Chairman Thaddeus McCotter , Chairman McCotter talked about the importance of knowing labor costs:
I then asked whether signing a health care bill into law might start the next round of layoffs. I said that I was basing that on businessmen and women talking about not hiring because of uncertain labor costs. Chairman McCotter said that he's warned Republicans that just knowing what the labor costs are isn't enough. He said that knowing that you're being taxed too much won't help job creation.In other words, lowering the employers' labor costs by repealing Obamacare will directly lead to job growth.
Chairman McCotter said that it's important that we bring certainty to the labor costs but that we also make labor costs affordable enough so that businesses have an incentive to start hiring and growing their companies again. According to Chairman McCotter, that isn't possible without controlling spending and reducing government's intrusion into our lives.
Some Democrats, including this administration, think that higher interest rates and high unemployment will be with us for the forseeable future. That diminutive thinking is what's led Michele to attack 'the new normal'. According to the LTE, here's what Michele supposedly said:
"I think the new normal will be when Speaker Pelosi loses her gavel, and the new normal is when Harry Reid joins the unemployment line."That's actually fairly close but it's missing another item: President Obama being a one-term president. Michele's gone after President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid because they've ignored the American people while shoving their radical ideological agenda down our throats. Michele's criticized them for their wasteful spending in the failed stimulus bill, for Speaker Pelosi's ramming through a jobs-killing Cap and Tax scheme that would raise heating bills, gas prices and the cost of groceries.
When deficits were getting alot of attention, President Obama announced a limited spending freeze. At the time, I ridiculed this spending freeze because what's needed is a major spending cut. Defunding the rest of the stimulus bill would be a nice first step but it's only a first step. Sunsetting every budget item would be another major improvement. Adopting zero-based budgeting would be a major step in the right direction.
If I recall correctly, the Kasich-Clinton budgets kept spending hikes to the previous year's budget plus population growth and inflation. There's no reason why that wouldn't work after eliminating the huge spending increases created from the stimulus bill and the omnibus spending bills and repealing Obamacare.
I know that type of budgeting won't buy special interest allies but it will restore fiscal sanity. It might even strengthen the dollar if we take a serious bite out of the deficits.
BTW, the deficit for the first 2 months of FY2010 is bigger than President Bush's biggest deficit. Those deficits are killing job creation and slowing economic growth.
This is supposedly Bachmann's platform for how she will restore solitude in the country. No examples of how to create jobs, no examples of how to fix health care and no examples of how to even decrease the role of government, just those in power losing their jobs.Limiting government spending helps the private sector each time it's tried. It'll do that this time, too. In fact, alot of savvy economists think that the federal government's spending is hurting economic growth.
The one thing that we'll see the rest of this campaign season might best be called the violence meme, illustrated by this paragraph:
Negativity and cynicism get us nowhere. Palin and Bachmann would be in good thought to ditch the breeding of violent and negative language, along with many other people in their party.The Democratic Party is resorting to the violence meme more and more. They brought it up the day Democrats passed their health care destruction bill. They accused TEA Party activists of using the N-word 15 times. Andrew Breitbart, one of the heroes of the TEA Party movement, isn't buying the Democrats' storyline. He's offering a $100,000 reward to anyone who produces audio- or videotape of a TEA Party activist using this disgusting language. The $100,000 will go into the United Negro College Fund. Thus far, nobody's come forward with that evidence. That's amazing considering the fact that there were network cameras stationed there, along with all the flip-phone cameras in the crowd and the Capitol Police mixing with the crowd.
The hope of these antagonists is to provoke TEA Party activists into bad behavior, which they'll then use to discredit politicians like Michele. The best thing TEA Party activists can do is to consistently behave in such a way as to discredit the Democrats' accusers.
In this instance, the best weapon is to be people of integrity. That's what Michele has done admirably this year. That's what all TEA Party activists have done thus far. That's what we need to do from this day forward.
If that's what we do, we'll win a great victory this November. Keep your eyes on that prize.
Posted Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:06 AM
No comments.
Romney's Waterloo?
This video might just be Mitt Romney's Waterloo:
Early in the conversation, Mitt admits that Romneycare never pretended to cut health care costs. According to this interview, Mitt says that the goal was to insure everyone. He then says that that's why he knows Obamacare won't lower health care costs.
As bad as that admission is, it isn't the worst thing he said. Later, he tells Bill O'Reilly that Romneycare is better than Obamacare because people don't want the federal government telling them what to do. While I agree that the American people don't want the Obama administration telling them what to do, I don't think the American people will differentiate between federal government oppression or state government oppression.
In either case, We The People are having our liberties taken away. What difference does it make whether our liberties are being taken away from DC or from the state capitols?
This is just one tidbit of proof that Gov. Romney's opportunity has come and gone. In this TEA Party environment, people don't care whether the state or the federal government are restricting liberties. TEA Party activists hate all restrictions on their liberties. And, contrary to the recent Democratic storyline, TEA Party attendance and activism is growing.
While it's too early for DC's pundits to write Gov. Romney off, CW being all the rage with them, I won't hesitate in saying that Monday night's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor was Gov. Romney's undoing.
Think of what Gov. Romney did. He's admitted that Romneycare doesn't reduce health care costs at a time when rising health care costs are people's and small businesses's biggest worry. He's admitted that his main goal was to make everyone pay their fair share, that nobody gets a free ride.
Doesn't that sound eerily similar to the logic behind Obamacare?
I've said it before and I'll repeat it here: Get out the butter because Gov. Romney is toast.
Posted Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:30 AM
No comments.
Carlson & Mondale Attempt to be Relevant
Arne Carlson and Walter Mondale want to appear influential again by suggesting a new redistricting system . While it's a lovely theory, all redistricting plans will have their flaws. Here's what Gov. Carlson and VP Mondale identify as the problem:
Here is what concerns us: Our democracy rests on voters choosing their representatives. But we have seen the rise of new computer software that allows incumbents to pick their own voters with pinpoint accuracy, upending the most fundamental of democratic ideals. For too long, the insiders have perverted this process by choosing their own voters, helping to explain why some districts have far more Democrats or Republicans and the incumbents rarely face competitive challenges at election time.Politicians have picked their voters forever. There's no question that they do this to gain the upper hand in re-election. There's also no question but that their best laid plans are often upset by voters who disagree with the politicians' my-way-or-the-highway style of governance.
Even if a specific politician doesn't get defeated because of their arrogant governing style, voters frequently take their frustration out on the political party rather than taking it out on a specific politician. In both cases, We The People are the check to their balance. It's a system that works exceptionally well, too.
Here's the solution proposed by Gov. Carlson and VP Mondale:
The leaders of the majority and minority parties in both houses of the Minnesota Legislature would each select one commissioner. Those four would choose a fifth. The map drawn by this independent commission would then be presented to the Minnesota House and Senate for an up-or-down vote without amendment. If it passed, the plan would be sent to the governor for his signature.Forgive me if I'm not overwhelmed with this suggestion. I don't like unaccountable people making the decisions. Make no mistake that that's what this would end up being. That's what would happen because few politicians would be willing to vote against such a panel.
Politicians should be writing the redistricting laws, not unaccountable panels, so that people can hold politicians and political parties accountable.
I'd further add that there's nothing that suggests that the system being suggested by Gov. Carlson and VP Mondale would eliminate the partisanship. It would just sweep the partisanship into an unaccountable panel. With Larry Pogemiller and Tony Sertich picking half the commissioners, partisanship will be part of the equation.
It's time that Mssrs. Carlson and Mondale stepped off the public stage once and for all. They're proposing things that were considered solutions 30 years ago. They aren't proposing 21st Century solutions to today's problems.
Posted Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:33 AM
No comments.
Tarryl Makes Her Case
Tarryl Clark is doing her best to make her case why she should represent residents in Minnesota's Sixth District in Washington, DC. Based on the information in this article , I'm thinking she needs a better message. Here's a line in each of Tarryl's stump speeches:
The district is currently home to the highest unemployment and foreclosure rates in the state, Clark said.I'm not questioning the statistical accuracy of this statement. Rather, I'm wondering if Tarryl has a solution to these problems that doesn't include billions of dollars of new taxes. Implied in the message is that Rep. Bachmann has failed to correct these problems. I'd love to hear what Tarryl thinks Rep. Bachmann should've done differently and what Tarryl would do differently to improve Minnesotans' lives.
"When done right, politics is really about making things better for people," she said.This philosophy is deeply flawed. It presupposes that government, and politicians, can consistently do things better than families and small businesses. I couldn't disagree more heartily. In fact, that type of arrogance is insulting to Minnesota's families and Minnesota's small businesses.
'Politics done right', in my opinion, is politics done closest to the people and in the least amount. There's a role for government but it's a limited role. Public safety and transportation are two things that people of all political persuasions would agree are important functions of government.
"Public servants are the ones that are thinking about their constituents and thinking about getting the best quality of life for the people of their district," Rep. Marsha Swails, DFL-Woodbury, said. "She is a true public servant," Swails said of Clark.Rep. Swails' statement is pure spin. How does voting for the biggest tax increases in state history improve "the quality of life" for St. Cloud small businesses? How did voting for an initial budget increase of 17+ percent in 2007 improve St. Cloud's "quality of life"?
As a St. Cloud resident, I have a simple two-word answer that fits both questions: They didn't .
Tarryl's campaign website is littered with endorsements from unions. Why shouldn't I think that Tarryl will do their bidding in Congress? She's already proven that she's willing to work with a long list of special interest groups.
I don't know if this tidbit of information was something that Tarryl said or if it's just a mistake that the reporter made:
In Clark's mind, government bureaucracy, including transportation and health care services, was not working for Minnesotans, so she decided to get involved politically when she first ran for the Minnesota Senate in 2005.Tarryl didn't "first run for the Minnesota Senate in 2005." Tarryl's first run for the Minnesota Senate was in 2000, when St. Cloud was part of SD-16 and Dave Kleis, St. Cloud's current mayor, represented the district. After redistricting, Tarryl ran against then-Sen. Kleis again, losing a tight race to Kleis.
Tarryl didn't win her first election until the special election after Mayor Kleis defeated incumbent St. Cloud Mayor John Ellenbecker. By then, Tarryl was sometimes refered to as Try Again Tarryl. At the time, I thought that was a little harsh. I still do.
Nonetheless, Tarryl's governing philosophy is that government can "do many good things ", a philosophy I don't subscribe to. In my opinion, it's a philosophy Sixth District voters will reject this November. This Tarryl cheapshot is typical:
Clark said she was talking with residents in Stillwater during the rally. "In many ways, I'm doing the job already that she was elected to do," Clark said.Actually, Tarryl isn't telling the whole truth about this. First, Michele doesn't ignore her constituents. In addition to making frequent stops throughout the district, Michele has hosted lots of teletownhalls from her DC office when they're in session. Most of these teletownhalls last more than 45 minutes. The typical teletownhall is 90 percent listening to and responding to questions. (One of the things the DFL doesn't talk about is that Michele's a great listener.)
The other thing that Tarryl omitted is that Tarryl held a rally that afternoon with Rep. Keith Ellison . I know this because Rep. Ellison said that Michele Bachmann wouldn't bring in Gov. Palin unless Michele "was scared to death of Tarryl." The rally was held in the Capitol Rotunda. I'm thinking that Tarryl intentionally omitted the fact that she held a rally with Rep. Ellison. I'm thinking that because Rep. Ellison is a radical, which doesn't fit with Tarryl's carefully crafted image as a moderate.
As long as Tarryl keeps omitting these important details, she'll have difficulty making her case. If there's anything that the TEA Party movement has taught people, it's that they want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Posted Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:35 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 13-Apr-10 10:44 PM
I'm not in CD6, so forgive my ignorance of your local superstars like ... Clark? Just what has she done? She came out of nowhere to be Larry's asst. She was apparently put under house arrest by her own party after some poor initial press appearances. She parlays that nothingness into a Congressional run?
No, she is just the requisite token opposition for MB, much like running a Republican in CD4 or CD5.
Comment 2 by ankapol at 14-Apr-10 07:47 AM
Foreclosure rate statistics are a misleading indicator. First, the data trails by at least two quarters. Second, the rate is calculated by foreclosures divided by the total number of parcels. Problem is once you reach second and third ring suburbs and beyond, the total number of properties drops. So the numerator stays the same but the denominator decreases thereby increasing the rate. So an unweighted foreclosure rate in Minneapolis does not compare well to a foreclosure rate in CD6. I could go on but you get the idea.
Hoyer Criticizes Michele, Urges Return to Civility
According to this post , Steny Hoyer "chided" Michele Bachmann for not taking the Democrats' word that the N-word was used on the day Democrats passed the health care bill:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday chided Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) for denying that a protester shouted a racial epithet at Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) during last month's healthcare battle,.I still haven't seen proof that the Democrats' accusations are anything more than accusations. I'm not saying that John Lewis is a liar. I'm saying that I won't trust Democrats until I've seen proof that this happened AND that it was a TEA Party activist that said that type of disgusting language.
"I think it undermines the credibility of somebody who's a denier. People denied a lot of things happened, bad things that happened," Hoyer said Tuesday at a press conference. I don't think there's any doubt that what John Lewis said happened and what others saw and heard happen did, in fact, happen. That's why I think the credibility of that assertion is questionable."
Hoyer urged a return to civility following the emotional healthcare debate, and continued to sound warnings about overly heated rhetoric from public officials.
Well over a week ago, Andrew Breitbart offered a reward for anyone who could produce a videotape of anyone using the N-word even once. The minute such a clip was authenticated, Brietbart promises to cut a $100,000 check to the United Negro College Fund. The left's silence is deafening.
It's more than extremely ironic that Democrats are pleading for a return to civility after months of strong-arming Republicans, shutting them out of negotiations on the biggest bills and ignoring the Republicans' alternatives to the Democrats' disastrous legislation.
It's especially ironic after Democrats repeatedly kept health care legislation going after the American people, aka their bosses, repeated, passionately and in overwhelming majorities, told Democrats that they were overwhelmingly opposed.
I can't take seriously Hoyer's call for civility considering their relishing Alan Grayson's appalling attacks. That's before factoring in Bart Stupak's speech saying that the Democratic Party was the party that made sure there wouldn't be public funding for abortions. That's downright insulting coming from the political party that believes in abortions on demand.
Simply put, Mr. Hoyer should shut down the Democrats who fabricate things. That list should start with the name of Emanuel Cleaver. If the Democrats want to prove that they're serious about restoring civility, let them prove it by defunding the money that hasn't been spent in the Democrats' failed stimulus bill and replacing the Democrats' stimulus bill with legislation that actually incentivizes entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses and start hiring people. BTW, we'd insist on making those tax cuts permanent.
Hoyer's credibility isn't strong after making this statement :
Asked whether he thought the threats and criticism forced Stupak to leave the House, Hoyer said: "Bart Stupak is a courageous member. I don't think he was forced out by anyone."Bart Stupak was a courageous man right until he caved to President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. That isn't a profile in courage. That's a profile in spinelessness, which is the minimum requirement for being a Democrat.
"Do I think the negative atmosphere that's been created by the Tea Party and by others certainly goes into the thinking of members? I think it does...I don't think that was a determining factor with respect to Mr. Stupak, because again, he was in very good shape in the polls so it wasn't a question of him losing his election."
As for Stupak being in good shape for this election, that's a lie. That district is staunchly pro-life. Stupak could write off re-election the minute he voted for public funding for abortion.
Finally, Hoyer's credibility took a major hit when he said that TEA Party activists created "a negative atmosphere" in DC. The only thing that might be perceived as negative is the TEA Party activists' insistence on the federal government not overstepping its constitutional boundaries. Hoyer's Democrats have overstepped their constitutional authority on health care. It's true that the TEA Party activist' reaction to the Democrats' overstepping their constitutional authorities was harsh but deserved.
Then again, the American people have a responsibility to criticize people who violate their oaths of office. That isn't criticism as much as it's the highest form of checks and balances.
There won't be a return to civility until the hardline Democrat ideologues like Barney Frank, John Conyers and Henry Waxman get neutralized and Alan Grayson and Maurice Hinchey are defeated this November. Until that happens, the incivility will continue.
Posted Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:48 PM
No comments.
