August 13-17, 2007
Aug 13 06:33 Markos v. Ford Update Aug 13 07:18 A Giant Exits The Stage Aug 14 03:03 Sit Down & Brace Yourself Aug 14 20:47 Corn Cheapshots Rove Aug 15 02:40 Time For a Timeout Aug 16 09:41 They've Gone Too Far (Again) Aug 16 17:30 New Iraqi Alliance Formed Aug 17 02:47 Rybak, City Council Unified On Bridge Demands Aug 17 15:23 Michael's Nervous
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006
Markos v. Ford Update
Here's the update I promised. The transcript is now up and what a transcript it is. Here's the graph I described about Markos the lawyer turning into Markos the engineer:
MR. MOULITSAS: Well, there's just no doubt about that. I mean, there's a real disagreement about how to best do that obviously. I mean, this all sounds great and, and, and wonderful, and obviously we can all get to-you know, we can all come around inequalities and opportunity and, and energy independence and that sort of thing. The problem we have, though, is we've, we've had a, a, an organization that, one, has, has been on the wrong side of a lot of ideas. We're talking John Breaux, Senator John Breaux, who's an architect of George Bush's tax cuts, which have led our nation to record deficits, record debt, and a crumbling infrastructure, as we've seen in Katrina and as we've seen in, in Minnesota. I mean, crazy thing, but the American people want their bridges to stay in one piece. So we, we have a situation like that.Wednesday, I talked about former St. Cloud mayor John Ellenbecker, now a practicing attorney, who thought he was an engineer:
72. John Ellenbecker from St. CloudMarkos Moulitsas, another liberal attorney, made the charge that the Bush tax cuts led to the collapse of the I-35 bridge. What is it about these liberal attorneys that make them think that they're qualified to answer engineering questions? Is it that they stayed at a Holiday Inn the night before?
Comment Posted: 8/8/2007 1:13:53 PM
Gary - I retract nothing. This bridge disaster is the direct result of your party's tax policies and your party's administration of MnDot. Your party, in the name of creating greater "efficiency" in government, starved MnDot of funding, forced MnDot to operate on the cheap, administered MnDot very poorly and the bridge collapse was the result. Deny this reality all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Seriously, I think they're so willing to jump to conclusions because their beliefs, devoid of verifiable proof, are sufficient for them to conclude certain things. Therein lies their problem. Rather than using scientific methods and verifying their data while testing it against a proven formula, liberals use a much simpler method. In their minds, because they know something wrong happened and because they don't like the president, therefore they know beyond all doubt that his policies caused the problem.
Similarly, if anyone helped get the wrongdoer's policies enacted, they're guilty, too. They simply won't entertain any alternative theories for what went wrong. For instance, they won't consider the notion that federal highway trust fund dollars shouldn't be used for bike trails. Likewise, they won't accept the possibility that we shouldn't be mandating that a minimum of 40 cents of each MVST dollar should be spent on LRT:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?"They won't listen to that because LRT is another of their sacred cows. To suggest that we should actually put a higher appropriations priority on road and bridge maintenance was clearly unacceptable to the DFL.
Mr. Moulitsas, like John Ellenbecker, thinks that simply pouring more money at the problem will fix the problem. If that their theory was true, then how do they explain the Boston debacle known as the big dig? They kept pouring millions of dollars into that but it didn't seem to change the basic problem.
This shot that Moulitsas took at the DLC is priceless:
MR. MOULITSAS: Because I don't control hundreds of thousands of voices. You and your organization have a few dozen people. You can control that message. And you don't need to attack Democrats.That's clearly meant to say "Your tiny little organization is irrelevant." I suspect that Mr. Moulitsas thinks that that was one of his better moments. Here's a less than shining moment for him:
MR. GREGORY: And the Republican Party. The Washington Post reported it this way, "According to a...Washington Post-ABC News poll...even among Democrats, there is no consensus about the timing of any troop withdrawal. While three-quarters want to decrease the number of troops in Iraq, only a third advocate a complete, immediate withdrawal." Another issue important to the base and, and, by extension, the Net roots has to do with gay marriage. This is a Pew poll in January of this year. Look at the division allowing legal gay marriage, among Democrats, 49 percent in favor, 43 percent oppose.This exchange will sting in the long run. Mr. Moulitsas has just implied the following things:
Markos, does that make the point to you or at least raise the argument that some of what you're arguing is not in the mainstream of the Democratic Party?
MR. MOULITSAS: Absolutely not. I mean...
MR. GREGORY: There's more division.
MR. MOULITSAS: ...on the, on the Iraq issue, this is semantics. Whether we get out in three months, six months or a year, there is a strong consensus, almost universal in our party, and vast majorities among the American public that people want out. People want this war to end. They want our troops home.
- that most Americans are indifferent to victory;
-
that Democrats' pacifist desires trump good news from Iraq; and
- that their disagreement with President Bush is so strong that they'll oppose his policies whether they're working or not.
Think about that statement. Why would a positive report on Iraq split a political party? The only explanation is that partisans like Markos Moulitsas oppose everything that President Bush says or does. Let's examine the implications of that statement.
It isn't a stretch to say that his actions say that he's more concerned with winning political victories than with the good of the nation. It's impossible that he could harbor these thoughts if he put nation first and political party second.
There's another fatal flaw in Moulitsas' thinking. I've seen nothing to believe that he starts from a open-minded perspective. His mindset is that he and his like-minded minions know best. Here's a sample of that elitism:
MR. MOULITSAS: You, you were on just on Fox News. So, clearly, we have a situation where you have an organization that's been on the wrong side of the issues and has failed to really build a movement, has failed to really draw popular support. And it's telling that five years ago, when I first came on the scene, I used to attack many organizations-organized labor. I used to attack a lot of the issue groups and-because I saw them all as part of this failed Democratic Party establishment. We were losing elections. At YearlyKos, we had all these organizations at the same table-labor, the issue groups. The one organization that was still missing was the DLC. That's the one organization that refuses to acknowledge...(unintelligible)...with me.Moulitsas isn't criticizing a Republican with this statement. He's telling another Democrat that the DLC, of which Joe Lieberman is a proud member, has been on the wrong side of "the issues" and that's what sparked the Kos movement. Notice, too, the conviction and scorn with which Moulitsas talks about Fox. That first sentence is meant as an indictment against Ford. It's essentially saying "You went on that evil network." It's like he's saying that you can't be a good Democrat and appear on FNC.
He said earlier that he's just the leader of a movement, that he can't control the every action of the movement but then he tells his minions that they can't appear on FNC and still be a real Democrat.
Only someone who thinks that the Bush tax cuts caused the I-35 bridge collapse would be that arrogant. Only someone as arrogant as Moulitsas could think that getting out of Iraq is a matter of semantics. Only an arrogant man would tell another liberal organization that they're irrelevant.
I don't know when it's coming but Moulitsas is pointing his movement towards an electoral disaster. It can't happen soon enough.
Posted Monday, August 13, 2007 6:38 AM
No comments.
A Giant Exits The Stage
According to this WSJ article, Karl Rove is resigning his post at the end of this month. It's a sad day for Republicans.
Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, he said in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.Many are throwing pitchforks at him because of 2006 but I'd say that Rove's election record prior to that was pretty amazing. He engineered an unimaginable electoral victory in 2002. He masterminded President Bush's re-election campaign. So impressive was Mr. Rove that Dick Morris once said about the race between President Bush and Sen. Kerry that it was like watching a checkers player (Sen. Kerry) play against a chess grand master (Rove). Coming from someone who worked with Bill Clinton, that's indeed high praise.
Here's some analysis that I don't think Democrats will like:
Mr. Rove also said he expects the president's approval rating to rise again, and that conditions in Iraq will improve as the U.S. military surge continues. He said he expects Democrats to be divided this fall in the battle over warrantless wiretapping, while the budget battle, and a series of presidential vetoes, should help Republicans gain an edge on spending restraint and taxes.I totally agree with Rove's analysis. The FISA debate already has the Nutroots furious at Pelosi Inc. The surge is working, which is painting Democrats into a corner in terms of options. Finally, a series of presidential vetoes will cause commotion and confusion in Washington this fall. Democrats will want to fight but Republicans will be energized by President Bush's vetoes.
Finally, what I'll recall most about Mr. Rove is that he had a great mind in terms of how policies affected politics. The man is a wonk but he's also got a great political mind. That's a rare combination, which is why he's so revered within the Bush administration.
Another noteworthy Rove accomplishment is his designing the current GOP GOTV model. Following the 2000 election, President Bush told Rove to put together a plan that would bring victory in 2004. Rove first tested the plan in Georgia in 2002, then unleashed it to the world in 2004. Bush's talk about tax cuts, killing terrorists and nominating sane judges rightfully get most of the credit for Bush's victory but only a fool would think that it was accident that Bush's vote total jumped by almost 23 percent. That's a pretty efficient GOTV model, one which will stand the test of time.
I hope at some time that Rove returns to politics, especially as chairman of the RNC. I'd hate to think that we've seen the last of Mr. Rove's high-profile activism.
Posted Monday, August 13, 2007 7:21 AM
Comment 1 by Ramdu at 13-Aug-07 10:18 AM
A giant turd blossom has left the stage.
Comment 2 by JD at 13-Aug-07 01:15 PM
Democrats are irrelevant. Conservative majority forever!
http://hostilethoughts.blogspot.com/
Comment 3 by tommo at 13-Aug-07 01:58 PM
Yes, we will miss all Rove's lies, smearing, screwing the Constitution, doing whatever it took to win. I love that "ends justify the means" approach. Ethics, morals, integrity, forget it. What are they compared to Power?
Rove should be in Gotmo, like so many corrupt and traiterous Repiglicants.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-07 02:38 PM
Yes, we will miss all Rove's lies, smearing, screwing the Constitution, doing whatever it took to win. I love that "ends justify the means" approach. Ethics, morals, integrity, forget it. What are they compared to Power?
Rove should be in Gitmo, like so many corrupt and traitorous Repiglicants.
Grow up. If there's anyone that shouldn't complain about corruption or traitorous behavior, it's Democrats who won't tell John Murtha to resign after accusing the Haditha Marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial & due process rights? I've documented Murtha's violating each of those constitutional guarantees.
You can't even prove that Rove did anything illegal. Shame on you.
You've simply assumed the fact that he's done something illegal because you don't like the fact that Bush won.
Guess what??? That isn't proof. That's wild speculation at best.
Comment 5 by ibfamous at 13-Aug-07 04:00 PM
are you guys the only ones in the world who don't know what "wants to spend more time with his family" means?
Sit Down & Brace Yourself
When I first started reading this St. Cloud Times Editorial Board editorial, I had to do a doubletake to make sure I was reading the St. Cloud Times, not the Washington Times. What they said is exactly the right advice & I congratulate them on this thoughtful editorial. Here's the part that I think is sheer genius:
From an incumbent perspective, what's not to like about a special session in which legislators not only create a "solution," but one that would probably end with them holding hands and singing bipartisan praises? To this electoral allure, we say turn away from the light.I, along with bloggers like King Banaian, Captain Ed Morrissey, Andy Aplikowski, Drew Emmer and Leo Pusateri have called on Gov. Pawlenty to not call a special session almost from the day of the tragedy. If memory serves me correctly, Captain Ed was the first to say that we should wait until the NTSB investigation tells us what went wrong.
Why? Simple. Investigations into the collapse are not even close to pinpointing the cause or causes.
Without those crucial details, legislators have little clue as to what specifically needs fixing.
Sure, they could convene now and pass some measures designating more spending on bridge testing and repair. But is that really going to speed up changes? Remember, the 2008 session convenes in six months.
A smarter strategy, and one less likely to risk wasting tax dollars, is to begin statewide discussions on infrastructure issues likely to be targeted come Feb. 12.
Not waiting for the investigation's findings means that the most likely outcome is that politicians spray several fistfuls of dollars in the general direction of the problem. That's the best they can hope for because they can't pinpoint what the problem is without the NTSB's findings.
Another wise recommendation in the Times' editorial is for discussions to break out across the state to talk about how to best prioritize our transportation spending. We'd benefit from asking questions about whether we should continue funding LRT at the levels that we're currently funding it at. We should ask if we shouldn't make bridge maintenance a higher priority than expanding trunk highways in rural Minnesota.
Possibly the biggest benefit of having this series of discussions is that politicians would have to field questions from their constituents, not just hear what lobbyists have on their wish lists. It also gives citizens the opportunity to hear the politicians' policies. We'd also be able to ask these politicians questions on why they're advocating a specific policy. There's nothing that makes for better policymaking than citizens asking lots of why questions.
One option at Gov. Pawlenty's avail is to tap into the so-called rainy day fund. In other words, we don't need to call a special session to start the recovery.
Legislators would impress, gosh, probably every Minnesotan if they began these talks now and developed a coordinated plan that pledges definitive actions within the first 30 days of the 2008 session.They'd certainly impress me if they actually developed a prioritized list of specific projects . They'd impress me even more if they combined that prioritized list of specific projects with a comprehensive big picture roadmap to make Minnesota's bridges the safest in the nation and our highways the blueprint for efficient traffic flow .
For those reasons, I hope that Gov. Pawlenty avoids the trap of a special session. Special sessions have a history of not focusing on solutions that stand the test of time. From what I've seen, they specialize in haphazard legislation that creates more problems than solutions.
We deserve better than that.
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2007 3:03 AM
Comment 1 by Drew Emmer at 14-Aug-07 01:44 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary Gary!
Comment 2 by Nathaniel Merrill at 14-Aug-07 06:28 PM
I have also called on The govonor to not call this special session of jacking up our taxes.
Keep the Faith
Comment 3 by Dave at 15-Aug-07 09:30 AM
Sent the following to the Governors office and his politcal office this morning.
"Mr. Governor it has become apparent with each passing day since the bridge tragedy that the Tax and Spend forces are gearing up to undo all of your great work this past session. See the recent budget conferences of our two big city mayors for classic examples. Therefore I would like you to put considerable thought into rejecting a special session. We have a large reserve which can be used until the next session if need be, which at this point does not appear to be the case.
If you feel the need to "do something" before then for political considerations perhaps one of those bi-partisan blue ribbon panels to look at all aspects of transportation funding and the operations of the DOT with goal of having a legislative proposal ready for enactment at the beginning of the next session.
Thank You for your time on this matter and for your service to Minnesota."
Corn Cheapshots Rove
David Corn thinks of himself as a liberal thinker. This column disproves that theory. Here's proof of that from his column:
Certainly, a White House aide who has engaged in the sort of political and policy chicanery that Rove has perpetuated ought to lose the right to collect a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers. Take your pick: the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. attorney scandal, the Valerie Plame leak, inaction on global warming, injecting politics into federal agencies to a new degree, suppressing government science, the stem cell veto, tax cuts for the wealthy, politicizing the war on terror ...I can't deny that Corn spews mindless Democratic talking points effortlessly. That's part of his problem. He doesn't question anything that comes from the Democratic alphabet, whether it's from the DNC, the DCCC or the DSCC. For instance, the firing of 8 US attorneys isn't a scandal. On the intellectually honest scale, with 1 being intellectually dishonest and 50 being intellectually honest, Corn couldn't reach double digits with that one. If he were intellectually honest, he'd be writing about the Clinton US attorney scandal. He hasn't written a word about it. Don't hold your breath waiting for that Clinton-US Attorney scandal article, either.
But leaving is too good for Rove. He was Bush's partner in the Iraq war, yet he (like other Bush aides, including, most recently, Dan Bartlett) are abandoning ship before the fight is done. Rove has argued that the Iraq war is essential for the survival of the United States (that is, for all of our families). So how can he walk away with the war not won?
I'd further question his insinuation that Rove did something wrong with regards to the Wilsons. Just because he didn't like the Bush administration pointing out the fact that Joe Wilson is a serial liar doesn't mean that Karl Rove broke the law.
The conclusion I'm left with is that Mr. Corn has accepted the DNC's talking points without questioning any of its contents. He obviously hasn't questioned manmade global warming. He certainly thinks that Mr. Rove is evil for defending the President from a serial liar without ever questioning the Wilsons' credibility. He obviously thinks that Bush's veto of the stem cell legislation was Rove's work too. I don't think it's a stretch to think that Mr. Corn is more than a little paranoid about all things Rove.
Posted Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:48 PM
No comments.
Time For a Timeout
Early this morning, a friend forwarded an email to me. The contents of the forwarded email are repulsive at minimum. Disgusting and disturbing would both be accurate, though they'd both be understatement. Frankly, the man who wrote this email needs a timeout to settle down. Here's the content of the forwarded email:
Absolutely unbelievable. Jim Lehrer introduced the heroes of the Iraqi war: those men and women who were killed in Bush's evil war. It is indeed the war of this evil man and not the war of the people of our country or those in the national guard units who were forced to give up their jobs to do the bidding of the "devil" and psychopath GW. Such nonsense on the part of Lehrer to try to create something positive about our sons and daughters and loved ones being killed in this conflagration orchestrated by the "idiot" in the White House. We absolutely must impeach this most base human person and an international tribunal should be assembled to try him for high crimes and misdemeanors and for using torture (ignoring the Geneva Accords) on the captured victims of the war. Is this America???? No, this is Nazi Germany circa 1941. GW can be crowned as the neo-spirit of Adolph Hitler.Before I disclose the person's name that wrote this email, let me first say that this is the type of blind hatred that should scare every thinking individual in America, regardless of political party.
I can't say that the collection of irrational and unsubstantiated statements is unusual for the most extreme elements of the far left. I wish I could. That isn't what's most disturbing, though.
First, the man's name is Iver Bogen. As is my habit, I didn't just leave it at that. I googled Iver's name. Here's what I found:
Iver Bogen is a professor emeritus in the Psychology Department at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Here's one of Dictionary.com's definitions for psychology:
the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.It's bad enough, though not particularly unusual, to find out that he's a college professor. It's appalling to think that he's supposed to teach students how to think things through and to analyze thought patterns. This man seems incapable of rational thought. In fact, I defy anyone to pick out a rational sentence in Prof. Bogen's email.
Frankly, if not for the seriousness of his allegations, I couldn't take this person seriously. Calling President Bush the modern incarnation of Hitler is irrational at best. What's worse is that he doesn't even offer any verifiable facts to substantiate his beliefs.
At least we don't have to worry if he could define Bush Derangement Syndrome. Instead, he's the embodiment of BDS.
Posted Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:41 AM
No comments.
They've Gone Too Far (Again)
Yesterday, DFL legislators got into the business of giving MNDoT orders. Here's what happened:
State transportation officials were repeatedly told by DFL legislators Wednesday to put the brakes on their fast-track plans to replace the collapsed I-35W bridge and concentrate instead on making sure the new bridge is safe and meets the needs of Minnesotans for decades to come.Sen. Rest, as is customary for liberals, went too far. She went too far because MNDoT is part of the state's executive branch. It's a well-settled law that the legislative branch can't tell the executive branch what they should or shouldn't be doing. In this instance, Gov. Pawlenty should be telling them what projects they should be working on. The DFL can make recommendations to Gov. Pawlenty but they shouldn't be telling MNDoT that they should stop working on replacing the I-35W bridge.
"I'm going to need a lot of assurances that building it fast equals building it right," said Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope. "And I'm not there yet."
"We all have a common goal here, to replace this bridge," said Khani Sahebjam, MnDOT's Metro District engineer. "The question we have is how quickly."What's amusing is that, while DFL legislators are telling MNDoT to slow down in replacing the most important bridge in Minnesota, they're also urging the state to speed things up on rural bridges:
Sen. Rod Skoe, DFL-Clearbrook, shot back: "You say how fast, but I don't think that's the question. Will this bridge meet the needs of the community 100 years from now? My experience is that once you begin to pour concrete, it's hard to make changes."
In prepared remarks delivered by an aide, U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, DFL-St. Paul, was even more pointed: "[M]any people have expressed to me their extreme dismay at the frenzied rush to replace the bridge. A tragedy of this magnitude demands that we take a collective breath and assess the shortcomings of the old structure and the challenges of our future transportation needs...Unfortunately, it appears haste is governing how we move forward on planning and construction."
Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a bonding bill this year deprived communities of $30 million to start replacing or repairing hundreds of aging bridges, and pressure is building to revive the proposal in a special legislative session this year.This is the DFL's attempt to widen the scope of a special session. This is why Gov. Pawlenty shouldn't call a special session. The DFL essentially wants a special session to be a 'Do Over' after getting their heads handed to them in the regular session. It's obvious that the DFL won't agree to a one day special session. They want to revisit LGA. They want to increase taxes. It's important to remember that they need this special session because they're now viewed as the do nothing legislature that was long on tax increases and short on reforms.
Located mostly in rural Minnesota and built in the 1940s or earlier, the bridges are too weak to handle heavy truck traffic or are generally in bad shape. Residents of small towns and cities complain that the structures hamper commerce and jeopardize safety, albeit on a scale smaller than what happened when the Interstate 35W bridge collapsed.
"They're not going to have 30 cars going down...but you could have a truck going through and possibly kill somebody," said Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, chair of the Capital Investment Committee and a sponsor of the bonding bill.
Sen. Dennis Frederickson, R-New Ulm, another supporter, said driving on a country road can be "a little unnerving if you're meeting a big farm tractor...on the bridge. There just isn't enough width."
That's why it's important for Gov. Pawlenty to not call a special session. It's obvious that the DFL isn't interested in focusing their attention on this true emergency.
Some say that the MNGOP shouldn't be afraid of a special session. I'm not afraid of doing combat with the DFL. My position is that I'm not afraid of a special session. It's that it's a waste of taxpayer money. Special sessions are expensive. What's worse is that this special session isn't likely to focus just on the I-35 tragedy. Why give the DFL a do over now?
Furthermore, there isn't a downside to not calling a special session. I've advocated that Gov. Pawlenty would be best served by using this time of heightened coverage to hold transportation town hall meetings across the state. Gov. Pawlenty should use the time to lay out a long term vision for Minnesota's transportation budget. He should talk about better prioritizing our spending. He should talk about how gas taxes are shrinking because cars are becoming more fuel efficient. He should talk about the need for a new funding mechanism in the future.
"The governor did not veto the 2007 bonding bill over transportation items," said Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung. "He vetoed that bill because it was four times larger than his recommendation and was not focused on consensus items."The DFL was upset that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the entire bill. Had he gotten out the line item veto pen, the DFL would've campaigned in the districts that had projects vetoed, likely saying something like "Gov. Pawlenty & the GOP don't care about the people of this district." When he vetoed the entire thing, he took away their ability to make it personal in those districts.
But bill supporters said the governor could have line-item vetoed objectionable provisions in the bonding bill and preserved the borrowing for bridge improvements.
McClung countered that the Legislature could have passed a more targeted bonding bill after the governor's veto. He said any bonding bill in a special session must earmark a greater share of funds to transportation.
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:41 AM
No comments.
New Iraqi Alliance Formed
Whether it lasts is anyone's guess but at least they've formed a coalition that's capable of governing.
At the news conference announcing the political accord, President Jalal Talabani and al-Maliki were flanked by the leader of the northern autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani, and Shiite Vice President Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi.Of course, this information started in the eleventh paragraph, after talking about the widespread violence and the supposed disarray, etc. Still, it's welcomed information wherever they position it in the article. I think by now, most conservatives just skim the first few paragraphs because it's likely that the important information will be towards the bottom of the article.
The four men signed a three-page agreement they said ensures them a majority in the 275-member parliament that would allow action on legislation demanded by the U.S.
Talabani, a Kurd, said al-Hashemi refused the invitation to join in the new political grouping but "the door is still open to them and they are welcome at any time."
Al-Maliki also called on the Sunni Accordance Front, which includes al-Hashemi's party, to return to the government and heal a rift that opened when the bloc's five Cabinet ministers quit the government.
The four-party agreement was unveiled four weeks before the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are to deliver a progress report on Iraq to Congress.
"We have relegated efforts to topple the government to the past. We are now in a new stage," said al-Maliki's adviser, Yassin Majeed. "We will keep working to bring the Accordance Front back, but if they insist we will have a majority in parliament and bring in new ministers."
On the substantive side, we'll see if this coalition will actually pass the oil revenue-sharing reform legislation that is the most important step in the national reconciliation process. If this coalition can't get those things accomplished, the American people will get restless. They won't support keeping our troops there without political progress.
Posted Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment 1 by Steve at 16-Aug-07 05:40 PM
Great site!
Would you consider a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 27 of America's top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO!
http://netradionetwork.com
Rybak, City Council Unified On Bridge Demands
Contrary to what you might think, that isn't a good thing this time. According to this Strib article, here's what they're unified on:
The council appears likely to easily endorse at its meeting Friday morning the broad set of principles that encourages the replacement bridge be designed and built to meet current and future transportation needs. The second principle said the bridge should be designed to improve vehicle capacity and provide transit capacity.Here's what MnDOT says about providing "transit capacity" on a rebuilt I-35 bridge:
Including LRT in the I-35W bridge would cause unacceptable delays in the design and construction of the bridge. First, significant study would be required to determine the best LRT alignment and approaches to the bridge. In the best case, this work would take 6 weeks to complete. Even then...up to two additional years of review would be required to finally determine if an I-35W alignment is even feasible as compared to the Washington Ave. alignment, and the feasibility looks doubtful. Accordingly, delaying the I-35W reconstruction in order to accommodate further consideration of an LRT component would be imprudent because of the severe economic and transportation consequences of losing that critical interstate river crossing.This MnDOT statement is a polite way of telling Gov. Pawlenty, and R.T. Rybak, that an I-35W bridge with LRT capability is a really stupid idea. That's just the first explanation given for why it's a dumb idea. Another reason is because, in MnDOT's conversations with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the federal funds and environmental waivers granted "are contingent on the new bridge being substantially similar to the bridge being replaced."
The bottom line on this is that the Minneapolis City Council and R.T. Rybak can hold hands and sing choruses of kumbayah from now until Election Day, 2008 but they still won't get an I-35W bridge with transit capabilities.
What this episode tells us is that the DFL isn't serious about prioritizing the city's needs. They've made a foolish request without thinking about the practicality of their request. Rybak wanted something so he requested something. He didn't think about the environmental impact statements that would be required for such a radical change. He didn't think about whether his request would have any eminent domain considerations and costs. Rybak didn't even ask whether there was a better alternative for an LRT line, much less ask whether an LRT line was economically feasible.
This is a pattern for the DFL. The notion that they care about the taxpayer would be laughable if it wasn't serious. Frankly, when it comes to their wish lists, whether it's their education wish list or their transportation wish list or another wish list, they think of taxpayers as their personal ATM machine. A great case in point of that mentality is St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman. According to this Strib article, St. Paul faces a $17 million budget deficit. Here's how he plans on bridging that gap:
Throughout St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman's budget address on Tuesday, he called on the state to help the city bridge its $17 million gap in a highly anticipated special session of the Legislature.According to this budget document, St. Paul's general revenue for 2008 is projected to be $52+ million. That's a 14.5 percent increase from 2007. Despite that revenue increase, they're still facing a $17 million deficit. That means they plan on spending almost $70 million in FY 2008. Needless to say, property taxes will spike again in 2008.
That request drew boisterous applause, although there was a hush when Coleman told the packed house at the Minnesota History Center that he would recommend a nearly 15 percent property tax levy increase in 2008 without additional aid.
Let's not lose track of the fact that the DFL-dominated legislature passed spending bills that would've increased state spending by almost 18 percent.
Let's summarize this:
- The DFL-dominated legislature wanted to increase spending by 18 percent and taxes by $5.5 billion.
- St. Paul's mayor plans on a 14.5 percent revenue increase but still faces a $17 million deficit.
- The DFL mayor of Minneapolis has reached 'agreement' with the Minneapolis City council to ask Minnesota taxpayers to build a bridge that the federal disaster fund won't cover. If that isn't bad enough, their bridge proposal would delay the building of the busiest bridge in the state by 2 additional years . That's before they know if their transit bridge would even fit into that corridor.
At what point to the people of Minneapolis and St. Paul say that enough's enough? Let's hope it's soon because their financial practices are the budgetary equivalent of playing with sharp knives. At some point in the not-so-distant future, someone's bound to get cut up and it won't be pretty.
Posted Friday, August 17, 2007 2:47 AM
Comment 1 by Bill Kuisle at 17-Aug-07 09:08 AM
The MN constitution prohibits using any of the HUTF(gas tax fund) for transit. So any attempt to use HUTF money to make this bridge LRT ready would face a court challenge. While most federal money could be used for transit, this is not the case with this emergency money. So any additional money would have to come from the Met Council or the state. The state could try and bond by using general obligation bonds, but again the constitution says that these can not be used on state HWYS, only local HWYS and transit. Can the state co-mingle funds legally? I am not sure that has ever been tested in court. So it looks like the DFL is trying to come up with another reason to have a special session by saying a bonding bill is needed.
Comment 2 by Ben Edwards at 17-Aug-07 09:25 AM
If you don't like paying a lot of taxes you should be for looking at alternatives to the MNDOT plans that include light rail. The Central Corridor project that will run light rail lines down University avenue to downtown Saint Paul will require EXTENSIVE work to be don on the Washington avenue bridge (as it cannot support the additional weight currently) and roadway near Coffman Union to the tune of $300+ million. Why not simply incorporate the light rail line into this new bridge and re-route the line. You will actually save money in taxes. Win-Win.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 17-Aug-07 10:58 AM
The Central Corridor project that will run light rail lines down University avenue to downtown Saint Paul will require EXTENSIVE work to be don on the Washington avenue bridge (as it cannot support the additional weight currently) and roadway near Coffman Union to the tune of $300+ million. Why not simply incorporate the light rail line into this new bridge and re-route the line. You will actually save money in taxes. Win-Win.
Why not simply admit that LRT isn't a good fit in congested cities? Why not use the money for more important things like bridge repair, etc? Why are you ignoring the fact that the I-35 bridge & highway is a tight fit already & that adding a LRT capacity would force an eminent domain taking that would drive the costs of this capacity beyond belief?
Simply put, Rybak's idea is stupid on a plethora of different levels.
Comment 4 by Ben Edwards at 17-Aug-07 03:27 PM
I guess you are right, light rail hasn't worked in any congested cities.
Cities such as Portland, OR, St. Louis, MO and San Diego, CA, all with similar population sizes and suburban population density patterns as the Twin Cities, and have found that LRT has helped reduce air pollution, alleviate congestion and decrease travel times.
LRT has proven to be reliable in all types of weather, including snow, rain and sleet. Of the major metropolitan areas that currently have LRT, several, such as Boston, MA, Buffalo, NY, and Toronto, Edmonton and Calgary, Canada, have weather similar to ours.
I guess pulling comments out of your ass is more fun than actual research.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 18-Aug-07 12:10 AM
My statements were taken directly from MnDOT's formal letter to Gov. Pawlenty.
Furthermore, the use of LRT will have to be subsidized for the foreseeable future. That's before you consider all of the eminent domain issues that'd need to be resolved.
My state representative participated in several conference calls on this issue. The bridge they're planning on building is expected to be 10 lanes wide. The current I-35W corridor is 6 lanes wide. And it's cramped as is. If they tried adding LRT into that narrow corridor, they'd have to do a several-mile long taking on both sides of the highway. The property they'd have to take through eminent domain is commercial property.
In other words, it'd cost a fortune just for that.
The bottom line is that this isn't a smart use of taxpayer money.
Michael's Nervous
If you've visited Michael's website today, you know that the Brodkorbs are at the hospital awaiting the birth of their twin daughters.
Let me first say that I wish Michael good luck in calming himself down before the 'blessed event'. More importantly, I'm praying that things go smoothly for Mrs. MDE.
Good luck, Mr. & Mrs. MDE. God bless your little angels, too.
Posted Friday, August 17, 2007 3:24 PM
No comments.
