August 17, 2008
Aug 17 03:50 Words That'll Make a Conservative Scream Aug 17 06:39 The Gang Of 10's Disaster Aug 17 07:13 Pelosi Plays While Cities Pay The Price Aug 17 07:54 Rep. McHugh Unloads Aug 17 09:02 Highlight The American Energy Act Aug 17 16:25 Fisking Liberal's Wild Accusations Aug 17 18:03 What Evangelicals Are Saying Aug 17 22:08 Mudcat Saunders Weighs In
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Words That'll Make a Conservative Scream
The St. Cloud Times LTE's are up for their Sunday edition. This LTE is enough to make a grown conservative scream. Check out this portion of the LTE:
Joanne also has a balanced view about the role of government and the market. She says that government is not inherently good nor bad; it is us. And it is up to us to make government build community and promote the good of all of us.With all due respect, that's nanny state talk. While it's true that government is needed to perform some basic functions (providing police and firefighters come to mind), it isn't up to city government to "build community." That's government overreach, overreach that isn't cheap. If you think that's bad, this paragraph is infinitely worse:
She believes the same about the market. The role of the market is also to promote the good of the community and it is up to all of us to see that it does. In both cases, you get what you pay for and we should expect and pay for value from both. This is a Central Minnesotan I can believe in. My vote is for Joanne Dorsher.When did the "role of the market" become "to promote the good of the community"? This is socialist tripe. It must be utterly rejected ASAP. This type of thinking is what leads to high taxes and outrageous spending. That isn't what we need, especially right now.
A glimpse of Ms. Dorscher's website reveals a similar mindset:
We need action more than talk, and the talk we need is honest talk, not rhetoric designed to make people suspicious of government and reluctant to invest in the common good.Ms. Dorscher's socialism is scary. We don't need people who are willing to "invest in the common good" through higher taxes and higher government spending. We need people who reject most of the things that the nanny state's lobbyists say we need.
A look at Ms. Dorscher's platform page doesn't provide much comfort to rational thinking people. Here's one of her statements:
Great SchoolsThere's nothing in her brief statement that indicates a reformist's mindset, which isn't surprising. Ms. Dorscher is an EdMinn apologist. I wonder if it's ever happened that Ms. Dorscher told EdMinn that education isn't just about funding but about teaching kids the things they'll need to move into the industrialized world.
Students must get the best education possible without shifting the burden onto property taxes and those who have the ability to pay the least.
Further, I wonder what accountability measures Ms. Dorscher pushed as a school board member.
One thing that I'm sure isn't part of Ms. Dorscher's agenda is vouchers. EdMinn won't let their apologists/legislators talk about that type of reform. EdMinn isn't interested in competition. In the past, they've avoided competition like a vampire avoids wooden stakes.
Here's Ms. Dorscher's statement on health care:
Affordable Health CareThe last statistics I've seen show that 93 percent of Minnesotans are insured. Of those that aren't, 59 percent of those are eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. That figures out to being 97+ percent of Minnesotans either being insured or eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. In other words, Ms. Dorscher wants to work on a non-existent problem.
Every Minnesotan needs to be ensured that they have access to high quality, affordable health care.
This statement on job creation is the scariest of all:
Quality JobsWe don't need innovative solutions to create good jobs. Let's start by lowering marginal tax rates, reducing bureaucratic regulations that hinder job creation and then getting the hell out of the way. In short, it's pretty simple: Give businesses the incentive to put their capital at risk and they'll put their capital to work. There's nothing innovative about that. It's just the right thing to do.
I will search for innovative solutions to create good jobs and strengthen our economy in central Minnesota.
Posted Sunday, August 17, 2008 3:50 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 17-Aug-08 09:56 AM
Too bad Dorscher hasn't gotten a good education. She might have learned that government can't create jobs only destroy them. That the power of the government is given to it by the people. Part of our current problem is we expect the government to do everything.
In Dorscher's case, we will get our job, our health care, and our education from the government. Sounds like in her world I don't have to lift a finger to live a good life.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The Gang Of 10's Disaster
Until now, I've tried focusing on what Republicans should do to press the energy fight to Democrats. I've focused on deficiencies in the House Democrats' plans. It's time to turn our attention to the Gang of 10 disaster that Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, Johnny Isakson, Saxby Chambliss and John Thune signed onto. A contact of mine on Capital Hill sent me an outline of the Gang of 10's bill. Let's go through that outline. Here's the part that bothers me the most:
Rather than using revenues from increased oil and gas production to fund competitive research into alternative fuels as proposed by House Republicans, the Gang of Ten proposal includes what the Wall Street Journal calls "a Democratic giveaway" that is funded by $84 billion in tax increases .Why on God's green earth would a Republican agree to these tax increases? Graham, Corker, Isakson, Chambliss and Thune couldn't have been thinking when they signed onto this. God help us if they were.
Here's another disastrous portion of the bill:
The off-shore provisions of this grand compromise are woefully inadequate to addressing the current crisis. The proposal only opens additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico to leasing and permits only the States of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia to opt in to a leasing program. The proposal even creates a new "no drill zone" within 50 miles of the coast in areas where drilling would be permitted, permanently taking off-line some of the most promising areas for production. Presumably the ban on production remains in place in Florida, along the West Coast and off of Alaska.Let's be blunt: We could've gotten this deal last winter. To settle for this deal while the Democrats' energy house of cards is about to collapse is unforgiveable.
Approximately $30 billion in new taxes will come from American oil and gas companies through repeal of the Section 199 manufactures deduction and increased revenue on oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.How dare these Republicans agree to $30 billion of new tax increases. They should be ashamed of themselves. Thankfully, President Bush and Sen. McCain have said that tax increases of any sort are a deal killer.
I just sent an email to each of the wayward Republicans on the Gang of 10. I was polite but I didn't attempt to be overly diplomatic if you know what I mean. I told them that they'd sold their colleagues, like Bob Schaffer, down the river while giving Democrats more political cover than they deserve.
It's everyone's responsibility to flood the inboxes of Graham, Corker, Isakson, Chambliss and Thune. They need to know that they'd best never pull a stunt like this again.
Posted Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:40 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Aug-08 07:28 AM
The big mistake is actually in your first paragraph. Spending the money from oil leases or from new taxes on oil, or both, on alternative energy simply overlooks the obvious, that we can drill for FREE, while alternative energies cost the taxpayer oodles of money. The oil companies will be happy to use their money to do the drilling, and then sell us the product to recoup their costs and a little-- very little-- profit. The wind companies want YOU to pay their outrageous up-front costs, then subsidize their production, then charge you higher prices for their product. I can see why they would want to do this "compromise." What I don't see is why anybody else, even those chowderheads in Congress, would be similarly inclined.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 17-Aug-08 07:30 AM
I just sent back a response to Thune's fundraiser with a black markered note across the reply form. "Not one dime to the Gang of Ten. Drill here, drill now, pay less."
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 17-Aug-08 09:49 AM
Gary:
I have sent emails to all five of them. Only one (Senator Chambliss of Georgia) has bothered to reply. Thune apparently isn't even reacting to my comment that we're getting the energy policy that Tom Daschle would've supported.
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Pelosi Plays While Cities Pay The Price
This article in my hometown newspaper is the perfect illustration of how Pelosi's Democrats' ineffective energy policies are hurting governments. This information should get everyone's attention:
While there isn't much change in the number for 2009, getting there will mean cuts throughout city departments to make up for increasing costs. The city's two biggest uncontrollable costs, heath care and fuel, make up large increases in the budget. Fuel costs alone account for $500,000 in budget increases. Mayor Dave Kleis said the budget proposal reflects belt-tightening during a tough economic time, much like residents have to do with their own budgets.Thankfully, Dave Kleis is a fiscal hawk. Mayor Kleis is a staunch supporter of TABOR, meaning that taxes aren't raised unless it's approved by the voters. It's important to note that St. Cloud's population is just under 65,000. Imagine how big the increases are for larger cities.
How much longer will cities suffer due to Ms. Pelosi's inaction? Don't forget that this is just the tip of the iceberg, too. Think of the additional energy expenses incurred by school boards for heating schools. Think of the additional costs for state governments that have to plow roads in the winter.
While Ms. Pelosi dithers, real people are paying the price for the Democrats' intellectually incoherent energy policies. If Democrats really put Main Street first, why haven't they told their environutter lobbyist allies that they're going to support building additional nuclear power plants? If Democrats really put Main Street first, why haven't they told their environutter lobbyist allies that they're increasing oil production?
Real people. Real pain. Democrats? Really indifferent.
Posted Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:14 AM
No comments.
Rep. McHugh Unloads
This article should get everyone's attention. As the articles states, Rep. John McHugh, (R-NY), isn't into political grandstanding. That's why I'm paying attention when he makes a statement like this:
"In my 24 years of elected office, I have never before been to more town halls, more places, where everyone is more concerned about one issue," McHugh, an eight-term congressman and former state senator, said Friday on the House floor.In other words, people have done everything possible to minimize the damaging effects of high gas prices. Now it's Congress' turn to do their part. It's time for Reid and Pelosi to end their vacations and deal with the most serious domstic issue of this election cycle.
"And, it's not just the price of gas," he said. "It's the associated rise in prices across the board, the price of a loaf of bread, the price of a gallon of milk. People in my neck of the woods have already cut back as much as they can; they're carpooling, not taking that summer vacation, cutting out the unnecessary car trips."
Plug in the search term gas prices. When I did, Google told me that there were 34.5 million entries on the internet.
Simply put, it's time that Congress passed the American Energy Act. It's obvious that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is a miserable failure. It's time to replace that legislation with serious legislation that will make energy independence real while dropping energy prices.
Anything less is unacceptable. That means scrapping the Gang Of 10 bill. At the moment, there's only one coherent energy plan on the table. That's the GOP's American Energy Act. The only thing Democrats offer us are words. Knowing that Ms. Pelosi told Democrats to say whatever they needed to say to get elected , words aren't much comfort.
This time, We The People demand action, action that provides price relief at the pump and in heating our homes. The Democrats' words won't get things done. They're just meant to get this issue off the table so they don't get clobbered this November. We The People demand better than that.
Thankfully, we have a champion like Rep. McHugh fighting for us.
Posted Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:55 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 17-Aug-08 09:58 AM
Gary didn't you in an earlier post say that Pelosi's spokesperson thought the recess was bad for the Republicans because the people will be blaming the Republicans. Here's a Republican and it seems like his people know the blame lies in Congress. Or is it the mind set of safe liberal districts that it's the Republicans and the oil companies fault.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Aug-08 10:04 AM
Walter, I think Democrats have misjudged this issue badly.
Right before last August's recess, Harry Reid said that a month with angry constituents would bring Republicans back chastened & willing to vote for withdrawal deadlines from Iraq.
This year, Nadeam Elshame said that Republicans didn't want to go home & face angry voters. Instead, Democrats are facing angry voters.
In both instances, Democrats misread the American public.
Highlight The American Energy Act
Nancy Pelosi's statement to Larry King that she'd consider drilling if it's part of a bigger package ( TRANSLATION: tax increases and government picking winners and losers) is a cruel hoax. Ms. Pelosi's use of the Democrats' Weekly Radio Address was a similar hoax.
It's time that Republicans rallied around the American Energy Act. This upcoming week, Republicans everywhere should talk about the virtues of the American Energy Act. Whether it's rebel legislators in Washington, bloggers across the nation or the NRCC running wall-to-wall ads on national TV, they should be touting the substantial legislation put together by House Republicans.
I've touted the AEA numerous times. Now it's time that the NRCC capitalized. This is solid legislation that Americans would flock to if they knew about it. The fastest way to guarantee Americans finding out about the AEA's provisions is for Pesident Bush and Sen. McCain to make a visit to Capitol Hill to hold a joint news conference touting the AEA.
Republicans should have graphics made to highlight the bill's balanced approach to energy reform :
To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:
- Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
- Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK);
- Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6138 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and
- Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that essentially blocks construction of new refineries, as proposed in H.R. 6139 by Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).
To improve energy conservation and efficiency , the legislation will:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies , the legislation will:It's time that these provisions was highlighted in every other sentence, in every TV or newspaper interview, in every townhall meeting back in the districts across America.
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
It's important for our elected officials to understand the importance of this issue. If our elected officials highlight the Republicans' balanced plan, we'll regain the public's trust by becoming the leaders who solved the biggest economic problem in many an election cycle.
We will have given voters a reason to be for us. We will have given voters a reason to ignore Democrats. We will have earned the mantle of leadership.
None of these things can happen, though, without us highlighting the Republicans' American Energy Act. We know what to do. Now it's time to make Democrats defend why the AEA isn't solid legislation.
Another thing I'd recommend is for the House Republican leadership to send Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team a letter asking them if they find any provisions in the AEA objectionable. As a followup, I'd ask them to explain why they find those specific provisions objectionable.
Finally, I'd take out half-page ads in strategically picked newspapers across the country highlighting the AEA's provisions. I'd also make a YouTube video highlighting the AEA and asking Speaker Pelosi why she doesn't support the bill's provisions.
Originally posted Sunday, August 17, 2008, revised 06-Apr 11:25 AM
No comments.
Fisking Liberal's Wild Accusations
This afternoon, I visited a local liberal website like I frequently do. What I found there was some of the most disgusting, unsubstantiated tripe I've ever seen. Political Muse was obsessing over what a wonderful woman Joanne Dorscher is and what a wonderful state legislator she'd be. Then Muse made this unsubstantiated statement:
When you compare that to her "Just Say NO" to education and everything else opponent who has spent nary a moment in a classroom, it is absolutely clear who people should be supporting come this November.This is a foolish claim. First, Rep. Gottwalt's wife is a school teacher . Second, Rep. Gottwalt frequently visits classrooms to get a feel for what's being taught and seeing if there's ways to improve educational outcomes. While he's there, Rep. Gottwalt talks about civics, too.
I've been at many of Rep. Gottwalt's townhall meetings. I can verify the fact that more thana few teachers have told him that they aren't happy with the union's way of handling things. They've mentioned how resistant to reform EdMinn is.
Rep. Gottwalt visits these classrooms because he's on the Early Childhood Learning Finance Division Committee and the E-12 Education Committee. It's obvious that Rep. Gottwalt takes his due diligence responsibilities seriously. I suspect that Rep. Gottwalt does more due diligence in the classroom than the vast majority of his fellow committee members.
Just a friendly suggestion to my liberal friend: If you're gonna make these types of statments, due your research so your accusations aren't so quickly refuted. Partisanship is a fine thing. Blind partisanship is just plain foolish.
Posted Sunday, August 17, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 18-Aug-08 12:26 PM
"It's obvious that Rep. Gottwalt takes his due diligence responsibilities seriously."
Well, maybe to you it is. But that doesn't change the fact that's a subjective statement of opinion - and that opinion is yours.
What Evangelicals Are Saying
It was just a matter of time before someone got a group of evangelical pastors after the Saddleback Forum to talk about who won, who lost and why. This article posts answers given by evangelical leaders. Two comments stood out for me. Here's one statement that jumped off the page at me:
The group next tackled Obama's stance on marriage. During the Saddleback Forum, both candidates agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman, however, Obama clarified that he is still for civil unions for same sex couples.I suspect that these leaders would've disagreed with Sen. Obama had he stated his true beliefs right from the start. What gets Obama in the deepest hot water is that he tried pandering to the audience instead of just being straightforward. He wasn't going to win them over because his views are opposed to their's but at least he would've earned a little respect for standing on his beliefs.
Michael Foust with Bandiss Press asked, "[Obama] says he supports marriage between a man and a woman, but of course, he says he opposed the marriage amendment in California, do you see some conflict there ?"
Minnery responded that there is conflict in Obama's position. "You cannot square the circle as he is trying to do. Either you support marriage or you do not. He says one thing. By his actions, he indicates another thing. And that answer,shows up the hypocrisy in his position on that issue ."
"I think it would be more refreshing for him if he would just be honest about it and say he favors gay marriage," Minnery continued. "He cannot do that, because the American people do not favor gay marriage. And so, he needs to keep twisting and turning, diving on that issue. And it is hypocritical."
Here's another reaction that jumped out at me:
Janet Folger, president and founder of Faith2Action noted that "John McCain, without hesitation, bang, life begins at conception, he gets it. The judges that he would appoint, he made it very, very clear. I think he also resonated with beyond the base, to those who are pro-life even within the Democratic Party. I think it was exactly what needed to be done. He said it exactly the way it needed to be said."This winter, pundits rightfully worried whether Sen. McCain would sufficiently fire up evangelical conservatives. While it's wrong to say he's winning their support at the level that President Bush was winning them in 2004, it's true that he's making a strong impression with evangelical voters.
This is important for a couple reasons. First, he's winning their votes, which is the important first step. More importantly, it appears as though Sen. McCain is convincing evangelicals that "he's one of us", which will energize the foot soldiers that every campaign needs to win.
At the end of the day, Sen. McCain must be happy with his performance last night. i suspect that Sen. Obama felt like they spent the night treading water, which is about the best they could hope for.
Originally posted Sunday, August 17, 2008, revised 18-Aug 5:26 AM
No comments.
Mudcat Saunders Weighs In
It's safe to say that Dave 'Mudcat' Saunders isn't part of Barack Obama's target audience. That's why Sen. Obama does poorly with blue collar workers. This article highlights why Sen. Obama will have a challenge in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Virginia.
"Sometimes they remind me of another bunch from Chicago, the Blues Brothers: they seem to think they're on a mission from God."While the media swooned during Sen. Obama's trip, I kept saying that European types weren't who he needed to win over. I kept saying that Sen. Obama needed to start making a connection with blue collar workers. Frankly, I don't think he's capable of making that connection.
He is scathing about the reliance on registering new voters. " If that's how he runs his campaign, he is going to lose. I'd rather bet on those who voted before . When he stands up and says that I'm gonna get 30 per cent more black voters, I'm gonna get 30 per cent more of my people to turn out for me, what is Joe Six-Pack thinking?"
Mudcat suggests that John McCain could win Michigan while holding Ohio and Florida. And, unless Mr Obama changes course, "he ain't gonna win Virgina either".
I've always been skeptical of candidates that base their victories on dramatically increasing voter turnout with a specific group. President Bush's 2004 vote total was dramatically bigger than 2000 because he increased his turnout within a number of groups. Across the country but especially in Ohio, Georgia and other Bible Belt states, additional attention was focused on church-going African-Americans and with blue collar workers.
President Bush focused on the Hispanic vote in the desert southwest, helping him flip New Mexico from blue to red. President Bush kept Pennsylvania close by focusing on culturally conservative Catholic voters. That's who he focused on in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, too. President Bush also focused on security issues, which helped win over the Security Moms cohort, too.
The Bush-Rove plan was to increase turnout of many different groups by noticeable amounts, thereby not leaning heavily on one group. Compare that with the Obama campaign's reliance on dramatically increasing turnout of campus liberals, high income liberals and African-Americans. That's a narrow list of groups. That's also putting alot of high expectations on those groups.
This paragraph is why I think Sen. Obama's strategy will backfire:
Along with his Confederate flag bedspread, the stag heads on his walls, his preference for profanity over punctuation, he would horrify what he calls the "northeastern elitist, Metropolitan Opera wing of the Democrats."It's safe to say that Mr. Saunders is a fan of either Howard Dean or John Kerry. I'd bet good money that he'd get along just fine with John Breaux or Zell Miller. Those aren't the type of folks that Sen. Obama can count on to turn out en force this November. In fact, I'm betting that they're the people that McCain's campaign is targeting.
Posted Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:09 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 18-Aug-08 07:16 AM
You know David Broder did a commercial for the Obama because he showed up at their campaign headquarters and was impressed to death (note during the Georgian crisis when he does this visit there is no mention of Georgian). One Obama aide was proud we don't have to worry about polls because we're registering new voters just like the primary.
Border didn't bother to point out in the primary let alone a caucus getting an extra 10,000 to 50,000 makes a hell of a difference. But in the case of Georgia Bush carried the state by more than 500,000. Even if you get those 200,000 new voters you still need to gain 300,000. But Border who thought Obama has act together didn't bother to ask that question.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
