April 18-19, 2010
Apr 18 05:50 Larry Summers' Spin Apr 18 07:16 Chris Christie vs. The Teachers' Union Apr 18 16:14 The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher Apr 18 17:06 Bill Clinton Doing What Bill Clinton Does Best Apr 19 01:13 Michele's Dirty Little Secret Apr 19 02:18 DFL Derangement On Display Apr 19 07:59 I've Got To Hear This Explanation
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Larry Summers' Spin
Writing for the Huffington Post, Larry Summers explains that middle class relief is at the heart of President Obama's economic policies. Unfortunately, the statistics show us otherwise. Unfortunately, Sommers, like President Obama, isn't telling us the whole story. Here's what he's saying for public consumption:
The animating spirit of economic policy in President Obama's Administration has been a vision of America's future in which sustained economic growth, built by sound investment and skilled and productive workers, creates good jobs and rising incomes and spreads opportunity and economic security for all Americans. The President's focus on providing relief of the middle class has been at the heart of his agenda. It was a central element of the Recovery Act, in the jobs tax credits passed since then, and in health reform. Federal taxes have been reduced by $173 billion this year.What Mr. Summers isn't talking about is that the health care bill that the Democrats passed without Republican support and that his boss, President Obama, signed has $670,000,000,000 of tax increasea in it. Mr. Summers is insulting us by asking us to forget about the House's passing the Cap and Trade bill. Let's remember that his boss said that energy prices "must necessarily skyrocket" under his plan. Let's remember that then-candidate Obama said that people could open coal-fired power plants if they wanted...if they were ok with high taxes bankrupting them.
As a result of these policies, the average tax refund paid thus far has been about $3,000 per family, an increase of nearly 10 percent. That is largely due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law last February. Through the Recovery Act, working families and small businesses are benefiting from more than $160 billion in tax relief. Take just one example: the Recovery Act's Making Work Pay tax credit provided a tax cut to 95 percent of working American families. Thanks to Making Work Pay, individuals are collecting $400 more through their paychecks, and married couples are collecting an additional $800.
That's before talking about President Obama and congressional Democrats let the Bush tax cuts lapse on small businesses. The Democrats talk about that as forcing "the rich" to "pay their fair share." Kathy Kersten debunks that myth in this column :
We hear continually that better-off Americans should pay their "fair share" of taxes. For President Obama and his allies in Congress, it's an article of faith that they don't. You'd never guess, from the clamor, that the top 1 percent of income earners pay a whopping 40 percent of all federal income taxes. (Yes, you read that right.) The top 5 percent pony up 60 percent, while the top 10 percent contribute more than 70 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent of total income tax revenues.The reality is that most of the people in that top tax bracket are small businesses. Not only do they pay their fair share but they also create most of the jobs.
In 2009, we reached a point where almost half of American families did not contribute to the costs of our national defense, our federal welfare programs or our massive new hobby of federal bail-outs. (In 1990, in contrast, only 21 percent of families were nonpayers.) As federal spending soars and our country's mind-numbing deficit mounts, fewer and fewer of us are footing the bill.
You won't hear that from Mr. Summers but you will hear this outrageous lie:
Another crucial set of policies to provide tax relief to middle class families has been the health insurance reform bill recently signed into law by President Obama. Health reform includes the largest health care tax cut in history for middle class families.I wrote here that Dave Camp , the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has put together a detailed list of new taxes included in the Democrats' health care reform bill. The tax increases in the bill totals $670,000,000,000. The 'tax cuts' that Dr. Summers refers to aren't tax cuts. They're actually taxpayer-funded subsidies. They're actually funded by the tax increases on tanning salons, fines on employers and individuals who don't buy government-approved health insurance, a new tax on medical devices, etc.
Here's Dictionary.com's definition of subsidies:
Subsidies...are...grants of money, especially governmental, to aid private undertakings.Here's Dictionary.com's definition of taxes:
An involuntary fee levied on corporations or individuals that is enforced by a level of government in order to finance government activities.It's inarguable that there are subsidies included in the Democrats' health care bill that help people buy health insurance. It's beyond dispute that the Democrats' health care bill that these subsidies are paid for by a plethora of tax increases contained in the Democrats' health care bill.
There's abundant proof that the Obama administration hasn't hesitated in misusing words in misleading the American people to sell their failed or failing policies. They've insulted the American people with their misleading verbiage in an attempt to sell health care. People are furious that they've attempted to sell their health care bill with misrepresentations and outright lies.
This November, the American people will render an historic verdict on what they think of the Democrats' misrepresentations and outright lies. If they persist in selling their policies this way, the carnage will be massive.
Posted Sunday, April 18, 2010 5:57 AM
No comments.
Chris Christie vs. The Teachers' Union
The biggest fight that erupted last week was the fight New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie picked with the teachers union. Based on Scott Rasmussen's polling , I'd say that Gov. Christie has won the PR fight:
Sixty-five percent (65%) of New Jersey voters favor a one-year pay freeze on the salaries of administrators, teachers and school workers to reduce the state's level of local school aid, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.That's only part Gov. Christie's victory in the PR battle. Here's information that tells us just what voters think of the NJEA:
Just 28% of voters in the state oppose this pay freeze to meet Governor Chris Christie's proposed $820 million reduction in school aid. The newly-elected Republican governor is proposing the reduction as part of his effort to close the state's $11 billion budget deficit.
The state teachers' union, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), is angrily opposing the proposed pay freeze, saying it will set back education efforts. But 66% of New Jersey voters say the union is more interested in protecting its members' jobs than in the quality of education. Twenty-four percent (24%) believe the union places the quality of education first.Two-thirds of New Jersey voters are right in saying the NJEA isn't as interested in improving education as they are in protecting its members. That's a stunning figure by anyone's calculations. This information should be just as unsettling to NJEA leadership:
It's clear, too, that New Jersey voters are following the budget spat between the new governor and the teachers' union. Ninety percent (90%) of voters in the state say they have been following news reports about it at least somewhat closely, including 55% who are following very closely.With New Jersey voters watching this issue this intensely, the NJEA certainly knows that their moves will be intensely scrutinized. That's the last thing the NJEA, or any other union, wants. They'd rather maintain a low profile while negotiating. Scrutiny isn't the unions' friends during negotiations.
Based on this article , I'd say New Jersey's legislators don't like being asked to choose between fiscal restraint and their political allies:
Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver folded her hands on the conference table in her East Orange office and took a deep breath, as if she were telling herself to stay cool in the face of such disrespect. She has a list of policy disagreements with Gov. Chris Christie. But that's politics, and she expects that.Speaker Oliver likely doesn't like the fact that Gov. Christie is negotiating from a position of strength. When she speaks of being treated with disrespect, that's most likely a reaction to her getting used to getting her way.
What bothers her is that Christie seems to think he doesn't have to yield one single inch to her. "He's talking to the Legislature as if he's still prosecutor and we're the defendants," she says.
BTW, the legislature and the NJEA are on trial. They're being tried as to whether they're with the voters or whether they're only interested in themselves.
With New Jersey voters' overwhelming support, Gov. Christie understands that he shouldn't cave to the unions, that he'll win by siding with the voters. If he sides with the voters, Gov. Christie will strengthen himself in future budget battles. The NJEA and their allies understand this, which is why they're fighting him this early in his administration.
The last thing they want is to be dealing with a popular governor.
Posted Sunday, April 18, 2010 7:20 AM
Comment 1 by Janet at 18-Apr-10 08:10 AM
It's not just a popular governor, it's also a governor with a backbone and the chutzbah to say "No and I mean 'no' and that's the way it is."
Imagine what would happen if more fiscally conservative would say "no."
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-10 04:23 PM
Janet, That's the Democrats worst nightmare. It's not like the Democrats' policies are that appealing, right?
Comment 2 by Bob Gross at 18-Apr-10 08:46 PM
You totally failed to report that Governor Christie, in the face of a budget crisis, said he will line-item veto a reinstatement of a tax on the wealthiest citizens ($400K plus) which represents ONE BILLION in state aid. The governor obviously believes cuts in education are less important than a tax break for the rich. You also fail to mention that the state has defaulted on their pension payments to our system in 11 of the last 15 years, and have in fact raided the fund. All teachers have paid in every dime of their share. And now we are somehow the "demon enemy". It might be wise to check the facts before jumping on the Christie bandwagon. Also, the last poll showed a strong drop in Christie support, just this week, in stark contrast to your results.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-10 11:52 PM
Bob, If you keep attacking the job creators, like New Jersey obviously has been doing, all kinds of things will happen, none of which are positive.
If you want less of something, raising taxes will make it disappear. In this instance, you're taxing the job creators. Without private sector jobs, you wind up in a mess, which is exactly where California, Michigan, Nerw York & New Jersey are right now.
What I've seen across the nation is that unions have negotiated lucrative pensions rather than having to put money away for themselves. That's how most people in America deal with retirement. They save & invest. They don't get lucrative pensions.
Let's remember that GM went bankupt partially because they were paying more in pensions than they were paying in current wages. That isn't bright. But we're supposed to bailout the various unions? I don't think so.
Comment 3 by r. voza at 26-Apr-10 06:20 PM
bob is right. teachers put that money into the fund to the tune of over $450 million each year, but the state took the money and spent it elsewhere. now they have to replace it, and they're blaming teachers for the lack of funds. we didn't mismanage it. the state did. hey, janet, a governor is a person, so you should say "he" is a governor with backbone, not "it's" a governor with backbone.
as for the polls, of course most people will say they want the teachers to take a pay freeze to help everyone else's property taxes. that's like asking me if i want other people to give up their raise so i could save money. who would say no to that?
Comment 4 by bryan at 18-May-10 09:28 AM
it's about time someone stood up to the unions!!..Hopefully we can break the back of this union! Unions were great back in the 20's and 30's...now they've gone into overkill mode........down with this union and other unions who try their best to destroy our nation.
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
According to Salena Zito's column, Democrats know that the stakes couldn't be higher than they are in the special election in PA-12:
On paper, the nine Western Pennsylvania counties in the 12th Congressional District numerically favor Democrats by a nice margin.Thsi figures to be a test of the Democrats' November strategy. As that anonymous Democratic strategist admits, they're out of touch with heartland America. Instead, Democrats seem intent on running against evil: evil Wall Street, evil big banks and evil profiteers. (Hint to Democrats: in Heartland America, small businesses making profits aren't known as evil profiteers. They're known as employers.)
In reality, the 12th's people could not be more removed from the Democratic Party ruling out of Washington. More rural/suburban than urban/suburban, the district is chock-full of conservative Democrats who believe in hard work, God and guns.
It is a world that elite liberals fail to understand, as one Democrat strategist confessed in an e-mail: "Have to admit that America is about as foreign as France to me."
On May 18, ex-congressional aide Mark Critz, a Democrat, and Johnstown businessman Tim Burns, a Republican, will face each other in a special election for the unexpired term of the late Congressman Jack Murtha, a contest that will be repeated, for a new two-year term, in November.
Democrats have a long winning streak in House special elections, notes Isaac Wood, a University of Virginia political analyst: "If that ends now, it will be interpreted as a sign of impending Democratic doom in November."
The Democrats' problems run far deeper than just their disconnect with Heartland voters. This says everything:
In a year clearly about Main Street's disconnect from Washington, Critz curiously asked Vice President Joe Biden to raise money this Friday in downtown Pittsburgh, outside the district. If you're having Biden fundraise for you, why not have "Mr. Scranton, Pa." stump for you as well, inside the district?The Obama administration's approval rating in coal country is low. (Think lower than Harry Reid. By ALOT.) Two years ago, people ignored what President Obama said about coal. Had they reacted then the way they're recoiling now, voters would've spared us from the Obama administration's radicalism.
The simple answer: This is coal country, and Biden famously said during the 2008 campaign that he did not support "clean coal," backing that up emphatically: "No coal plants here in America!"
Critz isn't running a smart campaign either:
Critz is running as the bearer of Murtha's legacy. Yet Critz is no Murtha and does not have the power to do what Murtha did in this district.People instinctively know that the 'heir' to Murtha's throne doesn't exist. When it comes to influence-peddling and corruption, there was only one John Murtha, though other Democrats aspire to that position of influence.
The Biden problem is emblematic of a bigger problem for Democrats. Think of it this way: If Republicans want to help a candidate in a tight race, they can call on Tim Pawlenty, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan or Sarah Palin to go to that district and fire up the troops and win people over. Democrats facing difficulty with re-election, and there will be many in such a situation this year, can't call on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden or President Obama.
If presidential prestige was measured in wins where President Obama campaigned for his candidate, his prestige would be tiny or nonexistent after Virginia, New Jersey and the Massachusetts Senate race. If I'm a Democrat running for re-election in Pennsylvania or Ohio, I'd plead with President Obama to not visit. If he theatened a visit, I'd publicly announce that I'd be out of the country that day.
I don't know how this special election will play itself out but I'll confidently say that if Critz loses, it will be an indication that running against Wall Street doesn't work as well as running on getting government out of the way of job creators.
Posted Sunday, April 18, 2010 4:20 PM
No comments.
Bill Clinton Doing What Bill Clinton Does Best
Leave it to Rush to expose Bill Clinton for doing what Bill Clinton does best. Earlier this week, Bill Clinton criticized the TEA Parties, saying that some of the rhetoric might incite violence , just like talk radio incited Tim McVeigh's bombing of the Murrah Building:
"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold, but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.Here's Rush's rebuttal to Bill Clinton's misrepresentations:
RUSH: Yesterday we had the tea parties, and the Drive-By Media (I'm sure to its great chagrin) is filled with stories about how festive and how peaceful and how unthreatening all of the tea parties were. The effort to infiltrate these tea parties fizzled. They have stories on that that they probably do not like having to report. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's very clear that these citizen uprisings, genuine grassroots citizen's uprisings, are far more powerful than an attempt to drum up fake opposition to them from the White House. Yet, Bill Clinton is back in the game, expanding that threat via this sound bite.The truth is that Timothy McVeigh's attack was triggered solely by his disgust with Janet Reno's Justice Department's invading the Branch Davidian compound with tanks. It didn't have anything to do with talk radio. It didn't have anything to do with what happened in the 1980s.
CLINTON 2010: There was this rising movement in the early nineties that was basically not just a carefully orchestrated plot by people of extreme right-wing views but one that fell into fertile soil because there were so many people for whom the world no longer made sense. They wanted a simple, clear explanation of what was an inherently complex, mixed picture full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy, but personnel conduct and imagination about the world we were living in. So demonizing the government and the people that work for it sort of fit that, and there were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our economic problems was the federal government itself.
RUSH: So there you have it: Bill Clinton once again trying to rebirth his empty threat from 1995. He starts out tracing the plot that started in the eighties to "demonize government." I have a question. We have two more sound bites of the president here specifying right-wing talk radio, but I have a question: How come we're supposed to draw (on the basis of no evidence), a connection between conservatism and terrorism, conservative ideology and terrorism? Where is that connection? Yet we are told we must reject, despite tons of evidence, the connection between Islamist ideology and terrorism. So we can't call Islamist fundamentalists "terrorists." We can't even use the word. But we can have ex-presidents and current presidents running around trying to associate conservatives with nonexistent terrorism at peaceful tea parties. Somebody needs to explain this to me.
Whether you agree or disagree with Ms. Reno's decision, and most don't, the reality is that Tim McVeigh said that her invading the Branch Davidian compound with tanks was what triggered his terrorist attack.
If President Clinton wants to peddle these misrepresentations, he's best off peddling them to people who won't remember history. This is nothing more than Bill Clinton sounding the same Democratic theme, suggesting that the TEA Party participants are knuckle-dragging, backwoods crazies. Unfortunately for Mr. Clinton, that myth has been exposed.
Every time that the Democrats trot that storyline out, they ruin what's left of their credibility. People don't run to liberal pundits for their information anymore. Thanks to Al Gore's internet, people do their own due dilligence on whatever subject interests them. Right now, the TEA Parties interest them. ALOT.
One in five people support the TEA Party movement. Many more than that know people that participate in TEA Party rallies. TEA Party activists are everyone's neighbors, co-workers and friends. Mainstreet America isn't frightened by the TEA Parties. Whether they agree with the TEA Parties' principles or not, they aren't frightened by TEA Parties.
Having Bill Clinton suggest that the TEA Party faithful might incite violence just gives the American people another reason to not trust Bill Clinton. Some things never change.
Posted Sunday, April 18, 2010 5:10 PM
No comments.
Michele's Dirty Little Secret
When Tarryl and her political allies criticize Michele Bachmann for being out of touch, what they're really hoping is that people won't notice this tidbit of information :
While opinions about Bachmann divide strongly along party lines, 53 percent of her constituents approve of the job she is doing, versus 41 percent who disapprove . That's according to an independent survey done in December by Public Policy Polling, a national Democratic polling firm.Instead of highlighting that statistic, Tarryl's allies will talk about her being out of touch, about how El Tinklenberg came within 3 points of beating Michele or that unemployment is high in the 6th District.
"Michele Bachmann's constituents don't seem to mind her penchant for controversial comments," said Dean Debnam, Public Policy's president. "Given how poorly national Democrats rate in the district, [her constituents] probably agree with a lot of them."
Wouldn't you just love hearing Tarryl's minions explain how they'd positively affect growing jobs? I know Tarryl talks about investing in education and transportation but she doesn't talk about her voting for strangling levels of environmental regulations or higher taxation rates on small businesses.
Now more than ever, the case against Bachmann is based on the Democrats' view of her as an ardent culture warrior, more interested in a national platform for her conservative views than her district's high rates of unemployment and foreclosure.TRANSLATION: The Democrats' targeting of Michele is based on their hatred of her principled stand for limited government, not because she's in trouble within her district.
Usually, campaign committees don't pour resources into a race they aren't likely to win. I wrote here why Tarryl faces an uphill fight. The biggest obstacle is Michele, who's base is sizeable, steadfast and motivated. The next biggest obstacle facing Tarryl is a primary fight against a well-funded, motivated opponent. How motivated is Dr. Reed? Motivated enough to loan her campaign $250,000 from her personal account .
Another major obstacle facing Tarryl is that she isn't a good fit for the Sixth District's demographics. Tarryl is supported by militant pro-choice organizations like EMILY'S List and NARAL Pro-Choice USA. That won't play well in a district where a majority of voters are devout Catholics or evangelical Christians.
Prof. Aubrey Immelman isn't a Michele supporter but he doesn't think Tarryl has much of a chance:
To some observers, the Democrats' laser focus on Bachmann is more about passion than logic.If the DCCC and the DFL want to sink tons of cash into this race, that's their decision. It just isn't a particularly wise decision.
"It's money wasted," said Aubrey Immelman, a former Republican candidate and professor at St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict. "But if you're an activist Democrat, this is where the fight is."
Then again, with this shaping up to be a bad year for Democrats, perhaps the DCCC sees this race as being one of their best chances of winning in the nation.
Before I forget, there's another thing that Tarryl will be fighting uphill against. I wrote about it here :
Rep. Bachmann brought Gov. Palin in to supercharge the already enthusiastic faithful. Each of the 10,000+ people attending yesterday's rally got their tickets by volunteering to work at least 6 hrs. for Michele's campaign.Facing a GOTV army that large is bad news for Tarryl. Facing a GOTV army that's that big and that motivated is the last thing Tarryl wants to hear.
Honestly, the nearly 11,000 people that attended yesterday's midday rally is proof that Michele's GOTV army is motivated and exceptionally large. That isn't proof that Michele is "scared to death of Sen. Tarryl Clark." It's just proof that Michele is putting in place a large volunteer army to go after every vote possible this cycle.
Posted Monday, April 19, 2010 1:13 AM
No comments.
DFL Derangement On Display
Just when I thought I'd seen everything in terms of DFL derangement syndrome, I'm reminded that it's still a disease without cure. I'm attributing this LTE to the DFL's utter derangement:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed education reforms are another attempt to gain favor with the Republican National Committee.That's the entire deranged LTE. According to the writer, the RNC picks the GOP's presidential nominee. It isn't determined by the winner of the caucuses and primaries.
These proposed reforms would bolster his efforts to become a presidential candidate, as privatization for profit of public schools is one of the top issues of the Republican National Committee.
As delirious as that part is, the second paragragh is more delusional. According to this deranged person, it's the GOP's goal to privatize education while abolishing government schools and teachers' unions. I'll admit that I'm not the foremost authority on the national platform but I'm betting that the national platform doesn't have anything in it that states as a goal the privitization of public schools.
This LTE is proof that a little paranoia goes forever. God help us all.
Posted Monday, April 19, 2010 2:18 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 19-Apr-10 07:32 AM
Again I ask: Taryl who?
Comment 2 by R-Five at 19-Apr-10 04:46 PM
Oops, right comment, wrong post!
I've Got To Hear This Explanation
DNC Chairman Tim Kaine told OFA activists in Chicago that the TEA Party movement will help Democrats :
Tea Parties may end up helping Democrats, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine told 200 Organizing For America activists at an Ethiopian restaurant on Chicago's North Side Wednesday night.What a bunch of BS. According to Gov. Kaine, the Republican Party's base is "getting narrower geographically, ideologically and demographically" at the same time that Republican Mark Kirk is leading Alexi Giannoulias for President Obama's old Senate seat and GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady leads Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn by a 45-38 margin.
The Tea Party is built on "Anger politics - and the anger movements peter out," said Kaine, a finalist for Obama's vice-president.
"It's going to be tough for Democrats in mid-term elections," Kaine said. "The president in the first mid-term loses 28 House seats and four senate seats and that's the average and we're not living in average times. We're living in times of anxiety and economic uncertainty. We have to assume going into this mid-term cycle that we are running into a headwind and we are running uphill."
But Tea Party activists helped conservatives beat moderates in Illinois' Republican primary: Bill Brady for governor; Bob Dold and Joe Walsh for Congress, he said.
"They got a Civil War going on in that party between the Tea Partyers and the institutional Republican Party and that is presenting opportunities for us in races all over this country that we wouldn't have otherwise. The Republican Party today in Illinois, as evidenced by the governor's candidate, is getting narrower geographically, ideologically and demographically. They're kicking folks out while we're adding folks in."
I can't wait to hear Gov. Kaine explain how a base that's "getting narrower geographically, ideologically and demographically can hold leads in the top-of-the-ticket races in one of the bluest states.
I'm waiting with anticipation to hear Gov. Kaine what his proof is that there's a civil war within the GOP. While there's no denying that people have been unhappy with RNC Chairman Michael Steele and that activists think GOP strategists have been too willing to accept the Beltway's conventional wisdom as gospel fact, there's no proof that Republicans have drawn the long knives on each other.
I'd say that Gov. Kaine's statement was delusional if I thought it wasn't an outright lie. Unfortunately, Gov. Kaine and other Democratic mouthpieces have been telling outright whoppers latley.
This promises to be a bad year for Democrats. Late last year, the final vote on the health care bill proved there are no moderates in the Democratic Party. A month ago, the House vote on health care proved that there's no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. Through it all, Democrats proved that they're spineless before Speaker Pelosi and President Obama.
Sparked by the TEA Party movement, people are demanding principled leadership. Acts of spinelessness aren't appealing to this growing group of people. Because this group took a principled stand, other people are standing with them and demanding the same thing. They're asking why their congresscritter isn't showing a little spine.
The Democrats haven't figured it out that their schtick isn't working. That's why there's a strong probability we'll see alot of upsets this November that we aren't anticipating right now.
When this cycle is behind us, people will see that having principled, time-tested solutions won the day. They'll see how well that played with voters, who don't want a handout but who thirst for leadership that doesn't cave when Speaker Pelosi or President Obama come calling.
When the dust settles that first Tuesday in November, we'll see that Tim Kaine's message was more schtick than truth and that the Democrats' hopes were built on fluffy words, not time-tested principles.
Posted Monday, April 19, 2010 8:06 AM
Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 19-Apr-10 08:22 AM
I can validate what Kaine is saying. The Tea party movement, conservatives and GOP are kicking people out. It is because of the tea party and conservatives saying that people like me are not welcome anymore that I will not vote Republican for the first time this year in a decade. And from what I see around me, I am not alone.
Despite the "fantastically" great polling for Republicans this year, I think Kaine is more right then you think. Sure, now it looks great, but eventually you are going to have hard names on the ballot, and as Kaine points out, when voters realize these are not mainstream candidates, they will vote for the Democrats in the race.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Apr-10 01:56 PM
You're so full of it, it's funny. You've bought the DFL's storyline instead of paying attention to the information provided in recent polls that show 43% of all TEA Party participants are INDEPENDENTS.
Are you suggesting that we should chase off independents?
Before making more assinine comments about TEA Party participants, I'd suggest you attend one & find out firsthand who's involved.
You talk smart, Mr. Metzler, but I'd love taking your money in a bet this November. Care to put your money where your mouth is???
Comment 3 by Brent Metzler at 19-Apr-10 02:36 PM
Oh, I'm pretty familiar with the types of people involved in the TEA party movement. They've been around long before the tea party movement. They may have not had an organized movement, but they are the same people.
Am I suggesting you should chase off independents? By all means no, I'm suggesting the opposite. Right now it is fashionable to be anti-government and the tea party seems like it has all the hype. But eventually, there are going to be hard candidates on the ballot and voters are going to have to choose between 2 candidates. Make sure those candidates aren't so extreme voters would rather stick with what they have then vote for the other guy.
Since the GOP needs to pick up 38 seats to win the majority, I'll bet you $10 that they pick up less than 37.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 19-Apr-10 09:45 PM
Brent, Your arguments don't even rise to the level of being laughable.
You said in your first comment that "the TEA party movement, conservatives and GOP are kicking people out." After I mentioned that almost half of the people who support the TEA Party are independents, your argument changed to you "know the TEA Party types", having observed them for a long time because they've been around for longer than the TEA Party movement.
Tell me, Brent, what are these TEA Party types like. What's bothering them? Why are they showing up in huge numbers all across the nation?
BTW, can you explain how you know the TEA Party types when a large portion of the TEA Party crowds tell journalists that they've never paid attention to politics before in their life?
Comment 5 by Brent Metzler at 20-Apr-10 05:46 AM
You seem to think that I have no experience with the tea party movement, no idea who attends them, no idea who leads them, and no idea the kind of radical ideas they espouse.
It's as if you have somehow been following me around my whole life chronicling all my interactions with those in the tea party movement so you know everything that is going on.
Ok, here's the moral of the story. Just because someone has not been involved in politics, doesn't mean they are mainstream. Just because there are mainstream people who attend a tea party rally doesn't mean the leaders, and those who are "passionate" about the movement are also mainstream.
At some point, there's going to be a real name on the ballot, and people are actually going to have to decide to vote for that candidate. Who is that candidate going to be?
