August 1-5, 2010
Aug 01 11:38 Labor Groups Upping Ante? Aug 02 11:05 Pete Stark's Arrogance Aug 03 00:30 Debunking TakeAction Minnesota's Claims Aug 03 15:24 Why Dems are Tying GOP to Bush Aug 05 10:28 Kelly-Cuccinelli Interview Aug 04 04:26 MN Forward, Target & Tom Emmer Aug 04 11:51 Another Revolutionary Concept Aug 04 12:49 Walz Defends Cap & Tax Vote
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Labor Groups Upping Ante?
Pat Doyle's article about MN Forward would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Here's the opening of Doyle's article:
Minnesota businesses aren't wasting time flexing new political muscles to throw considerable financial support into statewide and even legislative races.Doyle immediately talked about who the major contributors are to MN Forward. By contrast, here's what Doyle wrote about ABM:
Thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January that allows corporations to get more involved in politics, 13 companies, including Target, Best Buy and Pentair, have contributed more than $1 million to a pro-business conduit, MN Forward, in little more than a month. It has emerged as a leading fundraiser, supporting GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer with $195,000 in ads. This week, it plans to roll out a campaign in six legislative districts.
Labor unions, which have long been allowed to spend money supporting or opposing candidates, haven't been shy in the governor's race, either. A leading group, Alliance for a Better Minnesota, has already spent $685,000 on ads critical of Emmer.The only other mention of ABM is found in these pair of paragraphs:
On the labor side, Alliance for a Better Minnesota spent $2.5 million in the 2006 election. It has already raised $1.7 million for 2010 races.Let's compare that mention in passing deep in the article with what Mitch Berg wrote recently about ABM :
It gets money from two pro-labor fundraising groups, one focusing exclusively on the governor's race. Those groups draw from the teachers union Education Minnesota and other public employee and trade unions. Major individual contributors include Democratic donors Alida Messinger, Vance Opperman and James Deal.
2006 Campaign - We first heard of "Alliance For A Better Minnesota" (A4aBM) during the 2006 campaign. During that outing, A4aBM spent $2,545,162, about $2.3 million of it in ads against Governor Tim Pawlenty.Next, Mitch 'fast forwards to 2010:
Where did that money come from?
Their donor list is as follows:
• CWA COPE $5,000
• MAPE $5,000
• Midwest Values PAC (Franken) $5,000
• MN AFL-CIO $5,000
• United Food Comml Workers $7,500
• Ma Mah Wi No Min Fund1 (Mille Lacs Tribe) $7,000
Unions and Native American gambling interests so far; no big surprises.
• Tom Kayser (MN) $7,500 [One of Mike Ciresi's cronies]
• Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux $15,000
• MN Nurses $15,000
• United Steelworkers $22,000
• Afscme Council 5 ; $25,000
• Lks and Plains Carpenters $25,000
• IBEW MN State Council $25,000
• Intl Union of Operating Engineers $25,000
• America Votes MN $30,040 [aka "ACORN 2.0"]
• Coalition for Progress $50,000 (Mich)
• Laborers Dist Cncl $60,000
• Pat Stryker (CO) $100,000
• SEIU MN State Cncl $100,000
• Educ. MN $135,000
• Tim Gill (CO) $300,000
• Alida Messinger (NY) $746,000
• Win Minnesota $778,500;
So, out of two and a half million dollars spent, about 20%, about $449,000, came from those whom I thought were the most likely suspects, the unions.
And nearly 2/3 came from two sources ; "Alida Messinger", and a group called "Win Minnesota".
So far in 2010, "Win Minnesota" lists the following donors to "Win Minnesota's current warchest (currently worth $1,173,500), again with emphasis added by me:I noticed that Mr. Doyle omitted the fact the Daytons' contributions. I'm sure that's purely coincidental. I'm sure it's pure coincidence, too, that Doyle's article didn't talk about labor unions strongarming Republican union members into paying dues that goes to support DFL candidates. Fortunately, Jonathan Blake's op-ed sheds light on that thievery:
• Andrew Dayton $1,000
• David Dayton $50,000
• John Cowles $25,000 [Remember him from 2006?]
• MaryLee Dayton $250,000
• Emily Tuttle (MN) $5,000
• Ronald Sternal (MN) $5,000
• Alida Messinger (NY) $500,000
• James Deal (MN) $50,000
• Roger Hale (MN) $10,000 [Remember him from above?]
• Barbara Forster (MN) $25,000
• Democratic Governors Association $250,000;
So of the $1.1 and change million warchest, $851,000 came from Daytons, and Alida Messinger.
The recent uproar over Target Corp.'s $150,000 contribution to MN Forward, a business-friendly political action committee that is running ads in favor of a probusiness gubernatorial candidate, has officially become a media phenomenon, covered in virtually all of the state's newspapers, blogs and TV newscasts. It's even made national news.Thanks to Mr. Blake's op-ed, we learn much more about the unions' campaign contributions:
Meanwhile, Minnesota's largest public employee unions have already spent five times that sum, more than $750,000, on the upcoming election, virtually all of it in support of a single political party and its allies. That story has been relegated to deep inside the local section, if it is covered at all.
In the past 18 months, Education Minnesota, the teachers union that represents 70,000 educators across the state, has shelled out $383,981 in direct political spending. More than 99 percent went to support Democratic candidates, the DFL Party and liberal campaign committees.Why hasn't the Strib or Pi-Press talked in-depth about the campaigns that are funded by these unions against the wishes of a significant portion of their membership? Nobody in their right mind thinks that 99+ percent of the unions vote DFL. Yet the DFL and their allies receive 99+ percent of the unions' campaign contributions. What's the justification for the unions' strongarming Republican union members for DFL campaign contributions?
During that same time period, the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE), which represents more than 12,000 state employees, has made $144,450 in itemized contributions to candidates and political parties . Well more than 99 percent was given to Democratic candidates and DFL Party units. Just one contribution, totaling $250, was made to a Republican candidate .
Finally, AFSCME Council 5, the Minnesota branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, has given approximately $230,000 to candidates, party committees and other political committees so far this election cycle. About $20,000 was contributed to candidates for nonpartisan local offices. All of the remaining money went to DFL party committees, DFL candidates, or liberal political groups such as Progressive Majority and Working America.
Let's hope that when the GOP takes control of the legislature and keeps the governor's mansion that they enact reforms that requires a secret ballot by the public employee unions designating where their campaign contributions will go. I hope that this legislation would include a provision that says unions shall hold a secret ballot election informing the union leadership where they want their dues directed to.
This provision must be mandatory or it's worthless. The other provision that must be included to prevent union corruption is that there must be independent monitors present during these designation votes.
When it comes to elections and unions, the only thing I'm certain of is that they'll be involved in corruption of some sort. No thanks. It's time to rid ourselves of their corruption.
Posted Sunday, August 1, 2010 11:38 AM
No comments.
Pete Stark's Arrogance
If there's any politician that embodies what's wrong with Washington, DC, other than Pelosi, Rangel and Waters, it's Pete Stark. This video speaks for itself:
There's no changing Pete Stark's mind on what the federal government is allowed to do. After getting a great description on how far rights extend from a well-informed citizen, Pete Stark insists that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants.
A judge in Virginia appears to disagree with Rep. Stark :
A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia's challenge to President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.It's time that we sent a message to arrogant legislators that there is a price to be paid for thinking that they can do whatever they want. This judge obviously thinks that there's a Tenth Amendment argument to be made against Obamacare.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state's lawsuit which argues the law's requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.
Pete Stark isn't fit to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. His grasp of the Constitution is nonexistent, as is his respect for his constituents. His arrogance prevents him from being a public servant.
In short, Stark thinks he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. It's time that his constituents told him otherwise. He's the embodiment of all that's wrong with Washington.
Posted Monday, August 2, 2010 11:08 AM
No comments.
Debunking TakeAction Minnesota's Claims
According to this information from their website, TakeAction Minnesota is a Minnesota-based organization committed to progressive causes. We don't just have to take their website's word on that. We can find that out by reading this Strib op-ed about their opposition to photo ID:
Severson's assertion that the recent flap about felons who may have voted in 2008 means that Minnesota needs a photo ID requirement for voting is nonsense. The only type of fraud a photo ID requirement could prevent is a voter's showing up at the polls claiming to be another registered voter. Voter impersonation simply does not happen, as the thorough examination of our election system in the 2008 U.S. Senate recount showed.This op-ed was written by TakeAction Minnesota's executive director. I'd love asking him how he'd know if voter impersonation does or doesn't happen. After all, I'm fairly certain that it isn't part of an election judge's training to even look for it. Even if an election judge was looking for voter impersonation, how would he know, assuming the person being impersonated wasn't a neighbor or relative.
In other words, TakeAction Minnesota's ED is making a claim that he can't substantiate if his life depended on it. At this point, we shouldn't think that this clown has a shred of credibility.
Let's put the opening paragraph of the op-ed under the microscope:
Contrary to state Rep. Dan Severson's claim that Minnesota should institute a photo ID requirement for voting in order to prevent felon vote fraud ("Photo ID at the polls: just smart" July 18), photo IDs would do nothing to prevent ex-offenders from voting in error.This paragraph isn't worth the bandwidth it's written on. Dan Severson didn't say that photo ID would prevent felons from voting. PERIOD. What he has said is that a state-issued photo ID card would guarantee that the person showing up at a polling station is who they say they are.
This is especially important in the Age of ACORN.
The best way to prevent felons from voting is complying with HAVA's anti-fraud provisions, which Mark Ritchie hasn't done . There's no proof that Mark Ritchie did anything to watch whether the Statewide Voter Registration System, aka SVRS, had been updated to reflect the changes that inevitably happen between election cycles.
The fact that felons voted affirms the fact that SVRS maintenance didn't happen. If it had, it wouldn't have been possible for felons to have voted without detection.
Under Minnesota law, a person flagged as a felon on Election Day and who is challenged by the election judge can take an oath swearing his eligibility and still vote. I talked with a veteran legislator Monday afternoon via email. This legislator told me that the first improvement to this provision will be to give such voters a provisional ballot, not a live ballot like they get now.
Here's another section that I wouldn't trust the op-ed author on:
However many ineligible felons voted in 2008 (the data from the report Severson cites has been dismissed as overwhelmingly inaccurate), you can bet that very few did it intentionally. As important as voting is, it is not worth risking another felony. Our election system already has significant checks in place, both before and after Election Day, to make sure that only eligible voters vote or that ineligible voters are caught.That's the most bizarre paragraph I've read in ages. To accept this at face value, we're expected to think that people who've prviously committed felonies wouldn't knowingly commit another crime. What's the basis for the athor's statements? Did he survey a group of felons who've testified under oath that they voted accidentally while they were ineligible?
National studies have estimated that more than 10 percent of eligible voters do not have the photo ID that Severson and others want to require for a person to vote. That is far too high a cost when a photo ID requirement would not prevent any type of fraud that actually happens, such as confusion around when a person with a felony is eligible to vote.During the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, ACORN committed massive amounts of voter registration fraud. Should we assume that they didn't commit any of that voter registration fraud in Minnesota? Thanks to Minnesota Majority's investigation, we know that many registration cards came back as not delivered :
VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has flagged the addresses recorded for nearly 100,000 voters as being either "vacant" or "undeliverable". We visited approximately two-dozen of these undeliverable addresses to verify the USPS results and discovered approximately 50% of the addresses in our sample to be correctly flagged, in that the addresses did not exist. We have taken photographs of empty lots and non-existent addresses where our investigation revealed invalid addresses.Why would I assume that these questionable registrations won't be used by people willing to commit voter fraud? The op-ed writer is asking us to believe that people will act honorably and not commit voter fraud. Smart policy shouldn't be based on trusting people. It should be based on fool-proof verification mechanisms.
BTW, this op-ed was written by the ED at TakeAction Minnesota, Dan McGrath. Obviously, this Dan McGrath shouldn't be confused with Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath. The key difference is that Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath is a man of integrity whereas TakeAction Minnesota's Dan McGrath is a man who's made questionable arguments.
That's a pretty clear distinction.
Posted Tuesday, August 3, 2010 12:35 AM
No comments.
Why Dems are Tying GOP to Bush
Simply put, it's because they're desperate. This Washington Post article goes a little more in-depth than that but they still get it essentially right:
Less than two years after leaving office, only 25% of Americans believe that if Republicans return to power in Congress their economic agenda will mean a return to former President Bush's economic policies. 65% say that a Republican Congress will promote a "new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush's policies." Even Democrats and liberals are unconvinced that a Republican Congress means a return to Bushanomics. And moderates and Independents, the key swing blocs in all major policy debates, have completely divorced congressional Republicans from the economic philosophy and failed policies of President Bush.Democrats have to do this because their 'accomplishments' aren't popular, with the stimulus having failed, health care being seen as a massive federal power grab and cap and tax being seen for what it is: the biggest tax increase in American history.
Ultimately, the Democrats' tactics will fail for 3 reasons: 1) Chris Christie's spending habits don't remind anyone of GWB's spending habits, 2) Paul Ryan's Roadmap doesn't remind anyone of GWB's economic policies and 3) the Democrats' economic policies stink.
Let's deal with these one at a time, starting with Chris Christie. Had GWB fought the Democrats over spending like Gov. Christie is doing, we'd now have John McCain as president and President Bush would have a 60 percent approval rating. Gov. Christie's fiscal restraint is reinvigorating both conservative and unaffiliated voters. After watching President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid spend with reckless abandon, a jolt of Chris Christie is exactly what America was looking for.
Paul Ryan's Roadmap and his detailed budgets don't look like anything the Bush administration would've proposed. Clearly, Paul Ryan's star shined brightest during the Health Care Summit held at Blair House. I certainly remember this exchange :
"This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."That's the moment when everyone in the nation saw that Paul Ryan was the policy giant in the room and President Obama was in way over his head.
"The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion."
"The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."
"The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets."
"The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."
"The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries."
"Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare President Obama didn't dare question Ryan's analysis.
Finally, in order to villainize someone, you have to be able to show people that you aren't worse. At this point, people thinking of whether they'd rather have GWB's economic policies or President Obama's economic policies think they both stink, though they'd likely prefer GWB's policies simply because he wasn't the reckless spender that President Obama is. GWB was 'just' an irresponsible spender.
Here's an update to Greg Sargent's post:
A Democratic aide points out that the polling memo also contains empirical evidence that if the public is persuaded that voting Republican would be a return to Bush policies, it has a dramatic impact on voter attitudes:The Democrats can surely gain ground on this...temporarily. The minute that Republicans announce their new governing document showing what their governing priorities are, the public will see that voting for Republicans isn't voting for a return to President Bush's economic policies.
If Americans believe that conservatives are espousing a return to the same economic ideas as those of the former President, the dynamic of the debate turns on its head. In two separate split sample questions, we tested President Obama's economic plan against a generic conservative economic plan. When the conservative plan failed to mention President Bush, it handily out-polled the President's agenda. When President Bush was inserted in the question, the Obama agenda easily won. In one split-sample, the difference was 49-points, in the other it was 23-points.
This is particularly pronounced among independents, the memo shows. It's more proof that Bush remains a potent issue, and explains the current Dem strategy.
The bottom line is this: Democrats can't run on their accomplishments because none of them are popular. Democrats can't run on having saved the economy because it's still staggering.
The only thing they've got is fearmongering and lying, which I'm certain we'll see lots of during the next 13 weeks.
Posted Tuesday, August 3, 2010 3:36 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Aug-10 03:59 PM
Why are you guys so desparate to disown him? He ran twice, your support, GOP.
Telling a sitting president to stay away from the convention in St. Paul was a bell weather event. I expect some in the GOP bailed on him even further, those that did not have pork project needs he, Rove, and Cheney could service.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Aug-10 08:37 PM
Eric, I'm not running from President Bush's achievements, especially his national security achievements in a post-9/11 environment. His take-it-to-the-enemies policies prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. His policies, in fact, thwarted a number of terrorist attacks, including attacks that were planned for LA, Chicago & in New York City.
I'll always be thankful for his putting Chief Justice John Roberts & Justice Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, too.
What I've never been shy about is criticizing him for his spending, which is what we're doing here. Frankly, I'd rather have him back as president & with Paul Ryan as Budget Committee chairman. Had that combination been in place, President Bush likely would've left office with a 45-50 percent approval rating.
Kelly-Cuccinelli Interview
Tuesday afternoon, Megyn Kelly aired her interview of Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli. Here's a partial transcript of the interview:
Thanks to this interview, we now have great insight into Judge Hudson's ruling.KELLY: How significant is this victory?
CUCCINELLI: It is very significant for a number of reasons. One, it allows us to go forward on the merits of the health care lawsuit. That's critical, both in terms of how long it will take to resolve this conflict and because we get to the merits. We get to the question of whether the commerce clause and the taxing power can support this legislation that Congress and the President have passed, which we and over twenty other states have said is unconstitutional.
KELLY: You know the Obama administration has responded to the loss by essentially downplaying it, saying that they are confident that this law will be found constitutional and adding that this challenge and other challenges like it are an attempt to settle a political dispute, basically saying it's sour grapes because this law got passed and it played out fairly and folks should just have to live with it. Your response to that?
CUCCINELLI: You know, when I was a Republican legislator, I opposed Virginia participating in No Child Left Behind, a Republican president's proposal. When this bill came through, I was the attorney general and I have an obligation to protect the Constitution and the statutes of Virginia. That's what we're doing with this case. They have violated the Constitution. It's my duty to take it on and I think we're likely to prevail. There's no guarantees when it's unprecedented but in the ruling yesterday, the judge said, whether it's found unconstitutional or not, that under both the Commerce Clause jurisprudence and the taxing power law that exists today, this bill is out beyond the limits of both of them. So if it's found to be constitutional, it will be the new outer limit of federal power and I would tell you it would essentially be the end of federalism as we've known it for over 220 years in this country.
KELLY: You know, if this judge, who was a George Bush appointee, rules in your favor, this will obviously go up on appeal and possibly will wind up and likely will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the judge, it really does raise unprecedented issues about government power and what the Congress can do and how far into our personal lives they can and cannot reach.The reason this is so unusual, this health care bill in general, and the individual mandate in specific that you challenged, is because, for the first time ever, they are essentially penalizing, taxing, however way you want to put it, someone sitting in their own house and not doing anything. That's essentially makes this so extraordinary, correct?
CUCCINELLI: That's absolutely right. they're trying to treat doing nothing as economic activity. That has never, ever been done before. In fact, King George III and his parliament recognized that they couldn't do it but this congress and this president don't recognize that the Constitution restrains them from that opportunity.
KELLY: You know, it's not just Virginia that's challenging this law. We're seeing more and more states weigh in, including 20 states that have an action going in Florida based on other grounds. If this ruling is upheld by the Fourth Cicuit Court of Appeals and perhaps by the Supreme Court eventually, what does it do? What is the practical effect? Is health care gone?
CUCCINELLI: Well, first of all, in that question, let's not talk about it as health care. This case is about liberty, not health care. The bill is about health care but the violation of the Constitution would take place if they were ordering you to buy Chevrolets. It's the same thing. But this bill does not have what's called a severability clause. You can't sever out one part that's unconstitutional and keep the rest. That means that if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, as Virginia says it is, the whole bill falls. The whole thing.
KELLY: WOW. Which is why you're going to see the Obama administration fight vigorously to try to get a favorable ruling as this case goes forward because now, the judge has just basically given you the green light to litigate the case.
First, we know from this interview that "this bill is out beyond the limits of" the "Commerce Clause jurisprudence" and "the taxing power law that exists today." That's asking SCOTUS to stretch those parts of the Constitution well beyond where they've ever before.
Next, we've found out that Gen. Cuccinelli is arguing his strongest point, that if they rule the individual mandate constitutional, they're essentially saying that federalism and the Tenth Amendment don't exist in any meaningful way anymore. Additionally, they're saying that living is a) an economic activity and b) something that the federal government can regulate through the ICC.
A liberal idiot with a black robe might buy that last argument but sane justices won't.
If Congress whines after this is struck down, I'll have this simple response: If you want to eliminate the Tenth Amendment, then the only way to eliminate it is by repealing it with a different constitutional amendment.
Democrats consistently tell us that the ICC trumps the Tenth Amendment. It doesn't. They wish it did because then their job would be easier.
Thanks to Megyn Kelly's interview of Ken Cuccinelli, we now have a great insight into Virginia's lawsuit against the individual mandate and whether they're likely to win when SCOTUS finally decides this issue.
Posted Thursday, August 5, 2010 10:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Aug-10 10:48 AM
Do you have a link for a background reading of what context this colloquy fits into? Some readers must confess ignorance of context, myself included. It makes the post more puzzling than otherwise.
MN Forward, Target & Tom Emmer
There's an LTE about Target's contributing money to MN Forward in this morning's Times that's more than a little irritating. Here's what's irritating me:
A backlash against the donation to MN Forward started on social networks and blogs. In less than a week, a new Facebook group called "Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-gay Politics" gained more than 27,000 members, and virtually every story related to Target now refers to the flap.This is being characterized as Target supporting a social conservative who doesn't share their corporate core values. After all, Target's CEO confirmed that their "commitment to the GLBT community is unwavering." Why haven't people asked the next logical question? Why haven't they asked why Target is contributing to MN Forward?
This raises two basic questions: Is the political value of supporting a controversial candidate or organization worth negative publicity? And will consumers care enough to change their shopping habits if they disagree with a corporation's choice of causes?
A Target representative explained that "our support of causes and candidates is based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business objectives" while CEO Greg Steinhafel told critics "Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."
It's so obvious that I can't believe people haven't figured it out yet. It's obvious that Target, along with Best Buy and other businesses, have contributed to MN Forward because they prefer Tom Emmer's pro-growth economic policies. Their contributions are a statement that they're tired of the DFL's anti-capitalist policies.
They're tired of hearing that they aren't paying their fair share, that their providing lots of jobs with decent benefits aren't enough. Their contributions to MN Forward is a signal that they're willing to state forcefully that they like Tom Emmer's policies because he'll restore Minnesota's economy to being one that creates jobs, opportunities and wealth.
Target's contribution also says that, while they identify with the DFL's social agenda, they disagree with their economic agenda. I suspect that they'll continue with this contribution pattern if the DFL continues with their economic agenda.
I reject the notion that Tom Emmer is controversial. I'll grant that Tom's controversial to the DFL's fringe elements but that isn't the same as being controversial to mainstreet Minnesotans.
Does the DFL really want to argue that it's controversial to want to keep taxes at a reasonable rate? Does the DFL really want to argue that it's controversial to have government be more responsive to Minnesotans? Does the DFL really want to argue that it's controversial to have government agencies focus on the things they were designed to focus on? Does the DFL really want to argue that it's controversial to eliminate job-killing regulations?
They're welcome to argue that but I'm betting that mainstreet Minnesotans will disagree with them.
Finally, the far left's huffing and puffing doesn't appear to have affected Target's bottom line. That's a good thing because the attacks were both orchestrated and mean-spirited. It's good to see that the far left's power is limited.
Posted Wednesday, August 4, 2010 4:26 AM
Comment 1 by Kurt Neider at 04-Aug-10 09:08 AM
How do you know this incident hasn't affected Target's bottom line? Seems to me alienating half of your customers isn't a great business plan.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Aug-10 09:23 AM
I don't accept as fact that alot of people are upset to the point that they say "That tears it. I'm not shopping there anymore." I'm sure some Target shoppers are a little upset but I'm not sure a little upset translates into huge loss of sales.
Besides, most people will cut Target slack after hearing that Target isn't abandoning the GLBT agenda.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 05-Aug-10 07:03 AM
You know in light of the decision about prop 8 we're suppose to tollerate gays being able to get married because it's suppose to be legal why can't these people tollerate Target and the other businesses because they are giving to a legal pac?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Another Revolutionary Concept
Tom Emmer issued this press release this morning on agriculture oversight:
"All Minnesotans have an interest in keeping our water and air clean, but we have to make sure our regulations make sense and are balanced with job creation and expansion," said Emmer. "Creating a one stop shop for agribusiness at the Department of Agriculture will send a signal to rural Minnesota that we are here to help, not hurt their interests.It's long overdue to determine whether the departments that have oversight responsibility a) makes sense from a structural standpoint and b) strike the proper balance between the various interests.
"Farmers are the state's first and best environmentalists because they depend on the land for their livelihood; the farm is their 401K. It's time we offer a fruit basket instead of a rule book to any business wanting to grow and expand."
Over the years, the legislature has appeared to enjoyed creating 'oversight agencies' that are best described as adversarial in nature.
During this morning's FarmFest debate, Tom Emmer restated his position on the role state agencies would play in an Emmer administration. Tom said that state agencies would have to work with, not against, farmers. (More on FarmFest later.)
Credit is due to Tom and Annette Meeks for thinking about how government can/should work with the people it serves, for setting the right priorities and offering common sense solutions.
Putting the Ag Department in charge of ag-related issues isn't radical...except with people like Speaker Kelliher, Matt Entenza and Mark Dayton. Having government work with, not against, the people who they serve isn't radical either, except with Dayton, Kelliher and Entenza.
Tom Emmer announced today a plan to move the regulatory structure for agriculture out of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and back to the Department of Agriculture. A state agency that better understands the importance of the industry to Minnesota's economy will provide better service to our farmers and agribusinesses.The day that a DFL gubernatorial candidate takes a serious look at revamping environmental regulations is the day that SEIU starts contributing to MN Forward, which is roughly akin to the day that Lucifer starts handing out figure skates in Hades.
Emmer also promised a comprehensive review of regulations involving agriculture to make sure they protect the environment without inhibiting expansion and job creation. The review will center on the time it takes the state to issue permits for new projects and examples of Minnesota's standards being higher than federal standards.
That the DFL won't seriously examine environmental regulations is testimony that they're owned by environmental lobby. That's who they serve, not their constituents.
UPDATE: The Big E at Minnesota Progressive Project has posted a thoroughly warped interpretation of what Tom Emmer's proposal means:
Republican MN-GOV candidate Tom Emmer pandered to the multi-national ag-conglomerates, mega-farmers and the super-sized feedlot owners today at FarmFest. Emmer proposed to move oversight of environemtal issues that relate to agriculture away from the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and give it to the Agriculture Department.This is proof that there's no such thing as making something idiot-proof. Tom's proposal simply said that agriculture-related issues should be handled by Minnesota's Agriculture Department. At FarmFest, Tom further said that government agencies should work with people instead of reflexively working against them.
Any environmental regulation that gets in the way of corporate profits will be ignored or gutted in an Emmer Administration.
From that information, the Big E thinks that Tom's for utter deregulation and rampant pollution.
This is proof that if you attempt to idiot-proof something, that the left will just find a better idiot.
Posted Wednesday, August 4, 2010 11:32 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 05-Aug-10 07:22 AM
If you can't criticize a Republican for the plain meaning of their words, just make up the words or the meaning so as not to upset your overweening liberal biases. Simple, yes?
Walz Defends Cap & Tax Vote
Yesterday, Tim Walz got into a heated debate with Randy Demmer over Walz's cap and tax vote . This morning, the Strib's Hot Dish Politics blog has posted an interview they did with Walz . Based on his answers, Walz would've been better off not doing the interview:
In an interview after the event, Walz said it is "debatable" whether a cap-and-trade system is superior to other methods of clean energy legislation, such as tax credits or imposing a carbon tax.What Rep. Walz wants us to believe is that he just voted for the largest tax increase in United States history to move the bill along the process. Rep. Walz wants us to think that the tax increases in the final cap and tax legislation wouldn't cripple farms or raise gas prices or affect the prices at the local grocery store.
"That's the debate that I think should be asked on this," Walz said. "I think many of us, Collin included, [are] not altogether comfortable with the cap-and-trade mechanism, but there were so many other things in [the bill] that went the right way."
He was comfortable supporting the legislation, he said, because he knew it would change substantially before it came back for a final vote, after it had been sent through the Senate and conference committee.
"You've got to start somewhere," Walz said. "I never thought that the final version I would vote on would look anything like it, but it's to move it forward."
The whole idea behind Cap and Tax was to raise taxes so people wouldn't use fossil fuels. PERIOD.
Here's an exchange between Rep. Walz and Randy Demmer:
Cap and trade should give farmers a boost, Walz said, by discouraging buying fossil fuels from other countries, often countries that do not like the United States. "They will hate us for free."Walz is right that "Cap and Trade" would discourage us from "buying fossil fuels from other countries." Unfortunately, it would discourage us from buying fossil fuels.
Demmer, a Republican in his second run for Walz's job, said he thinks cap and trade could cost agriculture $5 billion. "Cap and trade is not an energy policy, it is a tax," Demmer said. "It is tough on agriculture. We need to grow agriculture, not shrink it."
Steven Wilson, an Independence Party candidate for Walz's seat, agreed with Demmer that cap and trade is more of a tax. "We don't have to sacrifice our small businesses," he said.
This shot from Demmer is the right strategy:
One of Demmer's biggest criticisms of Walz is that he votes for San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House. Demmer said Walz talks like a moderate back home, then votes liberal in Washington.Rep. Walz, we don't care which caucus you join. During the last 2 years, we've seen supposedly conservative Blue Dog Democrats cave on Cap and Tax and staunchly pro-life Democrats cave on Obamacare. The notion that there's such a thing as a moderate Democrat is myth.
But when asked after the forum why he supports liberal leaders, Walz said he may seek a leadership job next year if Democrats maintain House control. "Maybe I will be one of them," he said. Walz rattled off a list of groups that have praised him for work on veterans and education issues, and hinted he could be in line to lead one of those areas.
Your statement that "voting for health care was the easiest vote I've ever taken" speaks volumes about whether you're a moderate or whether you're actually a hard left leftie.
After voting for the trifecta, aka the failed stimulus bill, Obamacare and the job-killing Cap and Tax legislation, there's little doubt but that Tim Walz votes the way Speaker Pelosi wants him to whenever she wants him to.
It's time to vote for someone who represents southern Minnesota, not San Fransisco.
Posted Wednesday, August 4, 2010 12:49 PM
No comments.
