August 23-25, 2010
Aug 23 02:09 Sunday Morning With Esme & Tom Aug 23 11:48 More Proof of ABM's Dishonesty Aug 23 13:58 The Whining Continues Aug 24 00:28 Common Cause, Uncommon Priorities Aug 24 10:42 Whine, Whine All the Time? Aug 24 11:35 Exposing Common Cause Aug 24 13:24 ABM Disinterested In Truth (They're Not Alone) Aug 24 20:38 Tarryl vs. Michele: A Tale of the Taxes Aug 25 11:24 Keep It Simple
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Sunday Morning With Esme & Tom
This morning, Esme Murphy interviewed Tom Emmer for her WCCO-TV show. As one of Tom's supporters, I'm glad he appeared on the show. That said, there were too many predictable questions, almost like they were DFL talking points questions. This wasn't Esme's finest interview.
One of the questions she posed was why Tom hasn't "put out a detailed budget proposal like Sen. Dayton has". Tom quickly pointed out that Sen. Dayton's allegedly detailed budget plan is about two and a half pages long. Tom highlighted the fact that we're projected to take in $32,000,000,000 during the next biennium. Combine that with the fact that we're supposedly staring in the face of a $6,000,000,000 deficit. That means that the DFL passed bills that had tails to spend $38,000,000,000 the next biennium .
It's worth noting that part of Sen. Dayton's tax increase plan is unconstitutional. His tax on snowbirds who stay in another state 6 months and 1 day as though they were residents of Minnesota won't fly. Residence in a state means staying in that state 6 months and 1 day.
Let's remember that the budget that passed during the 2007 session called for spending less than $35,000,000,000 . That means that the DFL wants to spend substantially more during the 2012-13 biennium than during the 2008-09 biennium even though we're in a long-lasting, deep recession now and we were living in relatively prosperous times then.
Tom pushed back when Esme Murphy said that "You're talking about eliminating MinnCare in terms of the credits." He'd just finished talking about reforming MinnesotaCare "that would save $350,000,000". That sounds suspiciously similar to the fiscal note that the Department of Human Services put together for Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan.
Esme stuck to her language of where Tom would cut in order to balance the budget. Tom said that it isn't a cut if you're spending more money. He said that "It's not a deficit in reality. It's what government wants to spend. Government wants to spend $38,000,000,000." Tom later said that "it's a matter of spending what you have, now what you want to spend." Tom then noted that the DFL wants to increase spending by 17 percent from this biennium to next.
There isn't a sane person who thinks that spending should increase by 17 percent from this year to the next. To pay for that spending increase in Minnesota, that would require raising taxes by enormous amounts. It also means that tax increases wouldn't be limited to just "the rich" either. Those tax increases would dip well into the middle class.
When Esme asked "Where would the cuts be?", Tom answered Esme's question with his own question. "Esme, how do you have a cut when you have more revenue? That's why you've heard me. We've had this discussion before. I try never to use that word cut because you could leave everything the way it is today. We're gonna have more money to spend a year from now so where's the cut?"
Another thing that Tom mentioned that's important is the need for regulatory reform. Tom's also talked during debates and MPR interviews about streamlining the permitting process. Cutting taxes, streamlining the permitting process and implementing regulatory reform would spark a job creation explosion in this state like we haven't seen in a couple of decades.
Like I said, it was important that Tom appeared on the show. Tom showed himself skilled at swatting aside the stock DFL talking points questions. More importantly, he proved himself adept at talking about his positive agenda.
That will be important in the weeks ahead, starting with the State Fair. If Tom just stays within himself when talking with State Fair visitors, he'll win over alot of people because he's the only candidate in this race with a positive, job-creating agenda that will give Minnesotans the opportunity for prosperity.
Mark Dayton certainly can't credibly claim that his agenda will create more opportunities for prosperity. Under his tax plan, the only people who'd be getting rich would be moving van companies because there'd be tons of people leaving Minnesota.
With Tom's new ad starting this week, people will start seeing the real Tom Emmer instead of the charicature that ABM and the other progressive spinmeisters have created. The polls showing Tom trailing are mostly the result of ABM's relentless dishonest campaign and keeping Sen. Dayton in front of friendly audiences.
Now that the battle is joined, expect Sen. Dayton's lead to shrink quickly and disappear eventually.
Had Esme Murphy wanted to do a great interview, she might've asked Tom why he thinks Sen. Dayton's plan won't balance the budget or create jobs. Sparks would've flown, which is a TV show's ratings dream. Had she done that, it would've started a great debate on the candidates' policies instead of the drone of their soundbites.
Posted Monday, August 23, 2010 2:09 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Aug-10 09:34 AM
It sounds like ducking the issue of what the man's priorities and expendables would be, if elected.
What's he fearful of, in being specific. It's how credibilty is built.
On the revenue side the Dems have been clear on amounts to raise income tax rates at the top marginal brackets.
If you will not do that, which programs you intend to beggar is a fair question.
WCCO - aren't they less biased than KSTP? Should Sheehan and Emmer aim to use the latter outlet for softball games?
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Aug-10 09:41 AM
The real Tom Emmer?
Warm and fuzzy?
A compassionate conservative, as if from the Bush family?
It was not the real Tom Emmer who got into minimun wage rhetorical thickets, but now the real Tom Emmer will not talk minimum wage again between now and November?
It sounds more like the real Cullen Sheehan to me.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/101271354.html
I will admit that Emmer's assault against the minimum wage was blown up out of proportion, and that time will likely make voters forget it, but that is not cause to decline being specific on other economic concerns.
If the real Tom Emmer is running without clear policy objectives he can articulate, or that he ducks articulating, what's that saying?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-10 10:21 AM
Eric, Be prepared to eat crow when Tom & Annette roll out their reforming gov't package. Then watch Sen. Dayton's lead disappear. Sensible gov't defeats tax the rich handily.
More Proof of ABM's Dishonesty
When ABM's RRT critiqued Tom Emmer's first TV ad , it proved that they're willing to ignore the truth, something we already knew:
But the Alliance in a rapid-response release to the Twin Cities news media said that federal government recovery spending has created jobs in Minnesota: The state has received $3.2 billion in federal recovery spending as of March 31, 2010, and, according to the feds, has created or saved 11,027 jobs.Notice the bait and switch language? ABM intentionally writes that the "federal government recovery spending has created jobs in Minnesota" in the first sentence. In the paragraph's last sentence, it shifts to saying that ARRA has created or saved 11,027 jobs. Economist after economist have stated, emphatically, that there's no way to verify that a job's been saved, much less whether it was saved by ARRA.
It's worth noting, too, that the feds' website where they're getting these numbers from has jobs being created in imaginary congressional districts :
SULLIVAN: Your next guest has just announced his run for Congress from the phantom Double-Zero district of New Hampshire, one of those mentioned in the stimulus plan that don't actually exist. Grant Bosse says that if it's good enough to be cited as creating jobs, it ought to have a congressman.ABM's statements show their utter disinterest in the truth. They've repeatedly shown a disinterest in the truth . It shows that they're as willing to cite corrupt numbers as the Obama administration is to justify their economic plan.
Grant Bosse, Brian Sullivan in for Neil today. Forgive the tongue in cheek.
BOSSE: Oh, of course.
SULLIVAN: The Fighting Double-Zero, isn't that what you're calling it up there?
BOSSE: The Fighting Double-Zero. It's about time we had representation in Congress. Just because we don't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't count. We're just as serious, we're just as real as the jobs that were created under the stimulus plan.
SULLIVAN: What is your phantom platform?
BOSSE: Well, to keep the jobs here that the stimulus bill created.
SULLIVAN: Real jobs, though, right? Double-Zero would be happy to push them out to a real New Hampshire district, I assume?
BOSSE: We supposedly found out this week, through the Franklin Center's report on 440 fake congressional districts nationwide, that New Hampshire's Double-Zero District got about 2,800 jobs from the stimulus plan, which was quite a shock to the people who don't live there because it doesn't exist. And then when they changed the website, they took those 2,800 jobs away, so I'm gonna fight to bring them back and I think we need the type of fake jobs that, um...
SULLIVAN: If I was a fake member of that fake district, I'd be really upset because I was being discounted as being fake.
BOSSE: And that's why I'm asking you to pretend to vote for me.
SULLIVAN: You know, you've got my pretend vote. Now the problem is that it's in real reports. So it's not a fake report. That's the problem. It's a fake district with fake jobs but it's a real report.
BOSSE: Yeah, we spent $84,000,000 as part of this stimulus plan for the recovery.gov website and what we got is a very nice website with a great interactive map and the data on it is complete garbage. And in fact, the people that run that website now admit that they can't tell how many jobs the stimulus bill created because the data, they never bothered to check if the data was any good or not.
SULLIVAN: Listen, if I get up to the Phantom Fighting Double-Zero District, we'll go out for a fake burger, a fake beer and a real conversation.
BOSSE: No, the beer will be real.
SULLIVAN: That's the best part. Grant Bosse, thank you very much and good luck with your campaign.
BOSSE: We'll need it.
Everyone, repeat after me:
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SAVED JOB.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SAVED JOB.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SAVED JOB.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SAVED JOB.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SAVED JOB.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SAVED JOB.
They're as real as unicorns.
Meanwhile, ABM isn't the only progressive spin group willing to distort the truth :
Emmer also would slash the state budget by up to 30 percent, which would result in incalculable harm to state employees, state education, state roads and more importantly, those Minnesotans most dependent upon state services.Let's take that second baseless accusation first. The richest Minnesotans pay the highest marginal income tax rate of all Minnesota taxpayers. Their rate is 7.86 percent. I think that the LTE-writer is attempting to say that middle income people pay a greater percentage of their wages in taxes than "the rich" do. That's mostly because of all the regressive taxes that the DFL has raised over the years.
He also would keep a lower income tax rate for the state's wealthiest than for middle-income Minnesotans.
Most recently, those regressive taxes include all of the taxes in the recent Transportation bill and the Legacy Act sales tax increase, both of which hit lower income people harder than "the rich."
As for the 'Emmer will slash budgets by 30 percent' meme, that's been utterly debunked :
Claim: Tom Emmer said he will cut $20 billion from the state budget.The DFL isn't interested in the truth, whether we're talking about their rank-and-file activists or their special interest front groups. They'll say whatever they think will hurt Tom Emmer. They don't care if it isn't accurate as long as it serves the greater good of defeating Tom Emmer.
Source: Tom Scheck article on Minnesota Public Radio, June 14, 2010
Quote from John Gunyou
FACT: Tom Emmer has never said he will cut $20 billion from the state budget. In fact, he said we "can reduce government easily by 20% in the next four years, easily." In a classic case of cherry picking part of a quote out of context, Tom's opponents and the media have started to repeat this claim as a talking point.
This isn't the party of Hubert Humphrey or Paul Wellstone. Tehy insisted on intellectual integrity. The party of Sen. Dayton and Sen. Franken is built on deceit, corruption and saying anything to win.
Posted Monday, August 23, 2010 11:48 AM
No comments.
The Whining Continues
I've read more than a few columns/editorials whining about this or that part of Tom Emmer's agenda. I often don't write about them because they're utterly annoying. I'm choosing to write about 2 editorials, one in the Winona Daily News , the other in the Mesabi Daily News . Here's a sample from the Winona LTE:
When the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities planned a gubernatorial debate here, we hoped that residents across the state might learn more about where the DFL, Republican and Independence Party candidates stand on key issues, such as budgets, schools, roads and bridges.Imagine that. Tom Emmer chose to raise money that he'll need to get his message out to mainstreet Minnesotans rather than pander to another DFL-leaning special interest group that's mischaracterized Tom's agenda. Who would've thunk it?
Instead of learning about where the GOP candidate stands on the issues, we probably learned everything we needed to know from Tom Emmer's silence.
Emmer snubbed rural Minnesota by not showing up for the debate. Instead, he made time for a private trucking coalition fundraiser.
His actions, in this case, speak louder than any of his words, even his off-base words about tipping.
Tom Flaherty, one of CGMC's lobbyists, has said that Tom Emmer wants to eliminate LGA, which he knows isn't true. With all due respect to Mr. Flaherty, that isn't what Tom Emmer has proposed. He's proposed reforming LGA.
Here's more from the Winona LTE:
Emmer appears to be beholden to whatever business seems to be doling out cash at the moment. By snubbing the debate, Emmer not only snubbed rural Minnesota but also sent a powerful message: Raising funds is much more important than raising awareness.CGMC isn't surprised that Tom Emmer held a fundraiser. They know it's an essential part of the campaign. They're just throwing a hissy fit because he wouldn't pander to them at their debate.
It's good to know the priorities of Emmer because it's easy to assume they'll translate to the state's priorities if he's elected governor. And it appears that attention, in the Emmer world of politics, goes to those willing to pay.
It's more than a little melodramatic to say that missing a debate is snubbing rural Minnesota, too. Raising farmers' property taxes by voting for Ann Lenczewski's Green Acres bill in 2008, then refusing to fix the problem in 2009, is snubbing rural Minnesota.
Doing nothing to streamline the permitting process for farmers who want to expand their hog farming operation is snubbing rural Minnesota.
Tom Emmer has voted to repeal Ann Lenczewski's disastrous changes to Green Acres. Tom Emmer is proposing the streamlining of the permitting process so farmers don't expand in North Dakota rather than in Minnesota.
That's what's called stepping up for rural Minnesota.
Here's part of the Mesabi Daily News LTE:
Two of the three gubernatorial candidates, DFLer Mark Dayton and Tom Horner of the Independence Party, met with officials of 75 Greater Minnesota cities in Winona on Thursday.Let's put this in proper context. When it says that Sen. Dayton and Mr. Horner "met with officials of 75 Greater Minnesota cities", they didn't say that they met with CGMC lobbyists, too.
It was the perfect forum for rural Minnesota issues to take center stage in the gubernatorial race. But the event was also noteworthy for the absence of Republican nominee Rep. Tom Emmer.
The legislator from Delano has said he would be a champion for rural area should he be elected governor. So what better event to show off that concern for rural Minnesota than Thursday's Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities gathering.
But it's hard to be a champion for rural issues; hard to be a man of concern for rural areas, if you don't show up.
There's another thing that's bugging me. Why is it important to pitch the idea of LGA reform to people whose main goal is to lobby the legislature for more LGA? It seems to me that the right approach is to make the case to John Q. Public because it's his wallet that's ultimately affected.
It's bad enough having the DFL's special interest groups whining about Tom's reforms. It's another thing to have newspapers whining about Tom's not attending one debate is the ultimate snub to rural Minnesota.
Showing up or not showing up to a lobbyist-sponsered debate doesn't tell me whether a candidate supports rural Minnesota or the things that will make life better for rural Minnesota. Proposing the right policies tells me whether a candidate supports making rural Minnesota better.
At the end of the day, I suspect that rural voters will care infinitely more about Tom Emmer's policies than whether he missed a debate.
Posted Monday, August 23, 2010 1:58 PM
Comment 1 by Tom Marver at 23-Aug-10 08:49 PM
Too bad Tom Emmer was also too busy to show up to vote originally on the omnibus tax bill to begin with.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-10 10:41 PM
Every House candidate running for governor missed votes. That's a statement of fact. I haven't checked to see if you're right about the tax bill vote & I won't accept that as fact because I don't know you from Adam. That said, I know that the tax increase bill was going to get vetoed & that veto would be sustained.
In other words, Tom's missing that vote wouldn't change the end result.
Common Cause, Uncommon Priorities
Monday afternoon, Common Cause posted a tweet that cited the Winona Daily News LTE that complained about Rep. Emmer's not attending the CGMC's debate in Winona, which I wrote about in this post .
Common Cause-MN's complaint was that Rep. Emmer should've participated so people would learn where he stands on LGA. That's nonsense. CGMC is a lobbying organization that specializes in lobbying the state legislature for more LGA funds. It's insulting to hear that Common Cause-MN would tell people that alobbying organization that lobbies for LGA doesn't know Tom Emmer's position on LGA and his reform of LGA.
According to this op-ed , Common Cause-MN supports getting money out of politics:
Common Cause asks that the candidates offer solutions on how they will reduce the influence of special interests in state government. Unfortunately, the special interests groups won't be willing to accept any cease fires. But the candidates can start a real discussion about how they plan to reform the way we fund campaigns in Minnesota and reduce the influence of special interests in state government.In this op-ed, Common Cause-MN's ED says that it's time to return to "government of, by, and for the people, not government of, bought, and paid for by special interests." That's the opposite of what they just said about Rep. Emmer attending the CGMC debate, which was attended by lobbyists from across the state who lobby for more money for their clients.
" It's time we return to government of, by, and for the people, not government of, bought, and paid for by special interests ," said Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota. "All this special interest money is drowning out the voices of average Minnesotans in the political process."
How can you be for eliminating the influence of special interests in an op-ed, then argue that participating in a debate sponsored by a special interest group is important?
I'm betting that Common Cause-MN's ED would agree that if something doesn't make sense, your best bet is to follow the money. That's what I did in this instance. For instance, a major portion of Common Cause's funding comes from the Tides Foundation, a radical progressive organization. The Tides Foundation paid the attorney fees for Lynne Stewart, who represented the Blind Sheikh, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center's bombing.
I read in this article that Common Cause opposes photo ID:
In his explanation of why Common Cause took this vote into account, Marion wrote: "Common Cause opposes efforts to impose an identification requirement for voting. We feel it may be potentially discriminatory."According to Common Cause's About Us page , they also support increasing "diversity of voices and ownership in media", which sounds alot like net neutrality.
In other words, they sound alot like a typical run-of-the-mill progressive organization.
I realize that many of the things I've cited are about the national Common Cause. That doesn't matter much because the state chapters don't deviate from the national umbrella organizations.
It's difficult to respect an organization that fights for transparency and eliminating special interest influence in public, then lobbies for special treatment for their clients and themselves, that says it's opposed to government "bought and paid for by special interests" even though they're a special interest group that's opposed to photo ID, something that 70 percent of the people support and that the Supreme Court has ruled constitutional.
After everything's been stripped away, Common Cause is just another special interest group that opposes things that the vast majority of people disagree with.
As such, they don't have any moral authority to lecture anyone about what they should or shouldn't do.
Posted Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:28 AM
No comments.
Whine, Whine All the Time?
Yesterday, Michele Bachmann announced that she would do a series of bus tours in August, September and possibly October. Tarryl Clark's campaign's first reaction was to start whining:
Bachmann's challenger Tarryl Clark's campaign responds by asserting that Bachmann has kept her distance from constituents over the recess. "A carefully staged bus tour can't cover the fact that Bachmann's focus is not on the people of the 6th District," writes campaign manager Zach Rodvold.Tarryl's campaign's meme has been to accuse Michele of not getting anything done for the district. (Like any Republicans got anything done with Queen Pelosi running the House like a dictator.) Tarryl should watch her step. It isn't like she's got a long list of accomplishments as assistant majority leader.
Tarryl's 'accomplishments mostly include raising taxes, raising spending and raising taxes some more. Like most of her image, it's mostly a mirage that Tarryl's gotten many positive things done.
Her campaign is known more for her undying devotion to the labor union special interest groups' wishlists than for her principled stand on issues. Tarryl's criticism of Michele Bachmann seems to be that Rep. Bachmann is too principled to be bought off.
Tarryl would never be so principled as to not be willing to go to the highest bidder. Tarryl is nothing if not buyable. Except if the issue is increasing taxes. Then she can't be bought off.
Now that Michele is starting her advertising campaign, Tarryl's in trouble. She's got too many ugly votes to defend not to be hurt, starting with her vote to break a 33-33 tie to increase taxes on Minnesota's job creators .
Tarryl's anti-capitalist agenda won't be popular in the district. That's why she's alleging that Michele doesn't spend enough time in the district. The last thing Tarryl wants to talk about is how Tarryl's policies affect Minnesota's economy. During the time that she's been assistant majority leader, she's voted for gigantic spending increases (17 percent in 2007) and the biggest tax increases in Minnesota history.
Rapidly growing government and raising taxes on Minnesota's job creators isn't the blueprint for economic success. That's before discussing Tarryl's opposition to common sense health care reforms that save taxpayers money and improve coverage.
Tarryl likes playing the 'Michele's never around card' even though Michele is out in the district. It's just that she often spends part of a day speaking across the country, too. For instance, after Michele gave a stirring speech at this year's CPAC convention, she was back in the district before nightfall.
What you need to know about Tarryl Clark's campaign is that it's all whining all the time.
Posted Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:49 AM
No comments.
Exposing Common Cause
After posting about Common Cause's selective acceptance of special interest money overnight, I didn't expect what happened this morning. Here's Common Cause's reaction to my post:
commoncausemn Let Freedom Ring does a great Glen Beck impression and tries to connect Common Cause to Terrorists: http://bit.ly/btl7wC They have no shameHere's what they're referring to:
I'm betting that Common Cause-MN's ED would agree that if something doesn't make sense, your best bet is to follow the money. That's what I did in this instance. For instance, a major portion of Common Cause's funding comes from the Tides Foundation, a radical progressive organization. The Tides Foundation paid the attorney fees for Lynne Stewart, who represented the Blind Sheikh, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center's bombing.I'd say that Common Cause is just a bit touchy. The point I'm making is that Common Cause decried special interest's influence in politics in public, then accepts money from one of the most radical special interest groups in the nation. I merely mentioned the Tides Foundation's funding of Lynne Stewart to highlight the Tides Foundation's radicalism.
I don't think that Common Cause is sympathetic to terrorists. What I do think, though, is that Common Cause doesn't hesitate in accepting money from fringe special interest groups.
The overarching thing to not forget in all this is that Common Cause-MN criticized Tom Emmer for not attending a lobbyist-sponsored debate 3 weeks after writing an op-ed criticizing the need to get special interest money out of politics. Here's the quote from their op-ed:
" It's time we return to government of, by, and for the people, not government of, bought, and paid for by special interests ," said Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota. "All this special interest money is drowning out the voices of average Minnesotans in the political process."It's more than just a little disingenuous to criticize government that's "of, bought, and paid for by special interests" in an op-ed, then sit quietly when their parent organization accepts a $30,000 contribution from a fringe organization that funds radical causes.
Common Cause projects an image of being purer than wind-driven snow. Simply put, that isn't reality. An organization that tells candidates to show up at a debate sponsored by lobbyists isn't serious about getting money out of politics. It's more likely that they're just about getting special interest money they disagree with out of politics.
As long as I've got a keyboard and bandwidth, I'll highlight that type of hypocrisy. As you can see, I've still got a keyboard and bandwidth.
If Common Cause can't take the heat, then they should close shop or live up to their public image. It's just that simple.
Posted Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:35 AM
No comments.
ABM Disinterested In Truth (They're Not Alone)
It isn't surprising to me that ABM isn't even marginally interested in the truth. I first wrote about their disinterest in intellectual honesty way back om May 27:
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota isn't building a reputation for telling the truth. Frankly, their scare tactics aren't working in defining Tom Emmer. Anyone with half a brain knows that their accusations are either dishonest or the rantings of a paranoid person. And I'm fairly certain that few voters think that paranoid people get the funding for this type of website.Despite ABM's extensive funding by the Dayton family and the corrupt unions that have endorsed him, Sen. Dayton doesn't seem to have much influence on them. Despite his exhortations for a positive campaign, Dayton Family, Inc. and the Dayton family gaggle of special interest allies, ABM keeps putting out garbage about Tom Emmer. Here's a great example of ABM's exaggerations:
ABetterMN Tom Emmer logic: can't cut JOBZ because we've invested so much, but A-OK to kick tens of thousands off health care, state aid programs.As usual, this isn't close to accurate. If I had a sawbuck for each time one of ABM's lies is told or repeated, I'd be as rich as Mark Dayton.
Here's the truth: Tom Emmer said that he wouldn't close JOBZ because commitments were made to companies through JOBZ, commitments that the state should honor. Not that ABM would know this but men of integrity keep their promises.
As for their line that Tom Emmer wants to "kick tens of thousands off health care", that's just a bald-faced lie. Tom Emmer has repeatedly stated that he wants to reform GAMC and MinnesotaCare and stabilize the cost of taxpayer-subsidized health care for less well off.
ABM knows that but they're committed to their fabrications because winning is more important than telling the truth.
Based on Ed's post , it appears that ABM is just one of the progressive crazies afflicted with an inability to tell the truth:
Having spoken with Michele about Israel, it's apparent that Malloy doesn't have a clue about what Michele thinks about Israel and the Jewish people. In truth, she's a staunch ally of Israel, unlike the current occupant of the White House.Since late 2007, the Media Research Center has collected numerous examples of the outrageousness of left-wing radio hosts. And, unlike the Left, which attempted to smear Rush Limbaugh with phony quotes, readers can find an audio or video of every one of these quotes posted at our Web site: www.MRC.org .
This report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. Among the lowlights:
-~ Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: "I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out." (Ed Schultz)
~ Conservatives Are Terrorists: "Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia? " (Mike Malloy)
~ Conservatives Want You to Die: "If, in fact, the GOP doesn't like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?" When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot 'em! Kill them! Do we have enough body bags? I don't know." (Montel Williams)
~ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: "[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She's the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps ".This is an evil bitch from Hell." (Mike Malloy)
As for Ed Schultz's accusation that conservatives want President Obama taken out, that's only true if you're talking about defeating him in the election of 2012. Otherwise, I'd argue that Schultz's accusation is based on projection, not on anything concrete. Schultz isn't the only fringe lefty to make that accusation. Chris Matthews has talked about conservatives taking President Obama out, too.
My point is this: ABM is only one of the fringe left's members of the Lie Factory. ABM isn't that much different from liars like Mike Malloy, Eddie Schultz and Janeane Garofalo. ABM, Mike Malloy, Eddie Schultz and Janeane Garofalo struggle to tell the truth when it comes to talking about a true conservative.
The fringe lefties like ABM and others ran out of ideas in the late 1970s. That isn't just my opinion. That's the conclusion that the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, (D-NY), reached just prior to Reagan's election in 1980.
ABM understands that their candidate, the one they've bought and paid for, can't win on having superior policies. That's why they're resorting to their traditional lies earlier than usual this year.
Once Tom's ads start highlighting his positive, pro-growth policies and Mark Dayton's anti-capitalist policies, this race will quickly flip.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 24, 2010, revised 25-May 7:37 PM
No comments.
Tarryl vs. Michele: A Tale of the Taxes
Based on this press release , it looks like Zach Rodvold, Tarryl's campaign manager, wants to get into a fight over who's the tax cutter and who's the tax raiser between his boss and Michele Bachmann. As someone who's followed these ladies' careers, let's just say that I have an opinion based on their voting records and the things they did and didn't champion.
I also have a fair amount of quotes from Tarryl that exposes her warped thinking with regard to taxes. First, here's what Mr. Rodvold said about Tarryl, the tax-cutting champion:
If Michele Bachmann wants to talk about fiscal responsibility, let's talk. Tarryl Clark consistently voted to hold down taxes on 95% of working Minnesotans, including reducing the burden of property taxes. Unlike Bachmann, Tarryl has taken tough votes to balance budgets, including by cutting 10% from the state budget in the last two years alone. And unlike Bachmann, who spends hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars promoting herself and her agenda, Tarryl cut her own compensation and office expenses when Minnesota faced a record budget deficit.
With little due respect to Mr. Rodvold, Tarryl voted to raise the most regressive taxes Minnesota imposes. Tarryl voted to put the Legacy Act amendment on the 2008, which imposes a 3/8 percent increase in Minnesota's sales tax. Tarryl also voted for the Transportation bill in 2007 and 2008. Let's remember that that's the bill that brought us this memorable Steve Murphy quote :
" I'm not trying to fool anybody ," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. " There's a lot of taxes in this bill ."
Here's a list of the less-than-progressive taxes Tarryl voted to increase:
The bill also includes these other levies, all dedicated to roads, bridges and transit:
- Higher registration renewal fees on future new car purchases, but no increases on currently owned vehicles.
- A half-cent rise in the general sales tax in the seven-county Twin Cities area, imposed without a voter referendum, plus a $20 excise tax on new vehicle sales in the metro.
- Local-option authority for half-cent sales-tax increases in the rest of Minnesota, subject to voter approval.
- Authority for all 87 counties in the state to impose a $20-per-vehicle annual wheelage tax. Three suburban counties levied the current maximum of $5 per vehicle last year.
- Increased fees for leased vehicle registrations, license plates, titles and drivers' licenses, plus a $20 reinstatement fee for a license suspended for theft of gasoline.
That's $6.6 billion worth of tax increases on the most regressive taxes Minnesotans pay. It isn't possible for Tarryl to honestly say that she "voted to hold down taxes on 95% of working Minnesotans" after voting multiple times for a transportation bill filled with regressive taxes that hit Minnesota's working families hardest.
Let's remember that Minnesota had a $2,163,000,000 surplus in 2007. Instead of cutting taxes, Tarryl voted for all 6 tax increase bills. BTW, those bills were the first 6 bills submitted that year in the Senate. I attended a townhall meeting with Leo in late January. We asked Tarryl why the first 6 bills submitted in the Senate included tax increases.
Tarryl told us that only one of those tax increases were approved of by the DFL Senate leadership. By session's end, the DFL had caved to their special interest allies and passed all 6 tax increases.
In addition to voting all those times for tax increases, Tarryl had this spin for Michele when she, along with all other Republicans and 11 Democrats, voted against ARRA:
I just finished watching Esme Murphy's interview of Tarryl Clark. One thing that Tarryl said was so utterly absurd that I replayed it 3 times to make sure I heard Tarryl right. During one of her answers, Tarryl said that "she voted for higher taxes for 95 percent of Americans when she voted against the Recovery Act."
That's the most bizarre spin I've ever heard and it isn't even close. Tarryl's logic, if it can be called that, is that voting against hundreds of billions of dollars of pork and some one-time rebate checks is voting for a tax increase. Here I thought a tax increase was when I paid more taxes this year than I paid last year.
Rodvold cited this as proof that Michele "isn't a friend of the taxpayer":
Bachmann voted against renewable energy and job creation tax provisions. In September 2008, Bachmann voted against the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008, H.R. 7060. The bill included numerous tax extenders for things like the R and D credit, teacher tax credits, and suspending off-shore tax shelter loopholes. The bill passed, 257-166.
Actually, that bill didn't pass because it was brought up under a closed rule, meaning it had to pass with two-thirds of the vote or 290 votes. The reason it was brought up under a closed rule was because Queen Pelosi didn't want Republicans offering amendments for fear that many of her members would vote for the GOP options.
The bill was designed to offer a fig leaf to Republicans in terms of offshore drilling, then putting all other offshore drilling off-limits.
Meanwhile, Michele was one of the people who put TABOR, aka the TAxpayers Bill Of Rights, together. She's ready to cut taxes at a moment's notice if there aren't any poison pills in the legislation.
When Republicans retake the majority in the House and Senate, rest assured that they'll vote to extend the Bush tax cuts while dramatically cutting discretionary spending. They'll do this because Republicans will prove that, this time, 1) they're serious about reducing the size of government, 2) they understand the crisis that's being created by these super-sized deficits are creating, 3) they want to return to a strong dollar policy and 4) balancing the budget isn't just a goal, it's an imperative.
When those votes are being cast, I'll guarantee that Michele will vote to cut taxes, balance the budget and increase domestic oil production.
Tarryl's claims that she's a tax-cutter shouldn't be taken seriously. She's saying what she thinks people want to hear. (FYI- It's a nasty habit of Tarryl's.) Her votes don't comport with her assertions.
The votes that Tarryl cites as proof that Michele isn't serious about fiscal responsibility are nothing of the sort. Pelosi and Co. put together bills that sound worthwhile but that each contained poison pills, each of which essentially gutted the important parts of the bills.
When Paul Ryan, Dave Camp, Tom Price, Michele Bachmann and John Kline are writing the bills, things will be different and America will notice. That day can't happen soon enough.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 24, 2010, revised 03-Mar 2:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 25-Aug-10 03:38 PM
Gary:
I have to wonder is Tarryl and her people on drugs? Tarryl Clark because she voted for balanced budgets on the state level only because the state constitution requires it and there was a governor doing it in the form of spending cuts.
Clark if she had been in Congress would've voted for the stimulus $866 billion and growing, health care a trillion and growing, the $26 billion teacher plan. Where is her $2 trillion in cuts to offset this spending.
They say that Tarryl is the adult when Michelle is voting no to the spending cuts.
Will the entire Clark campaign show up for their drug tests!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Keep It Simple
Dick Morris' latest column has some great advice for Republican candidates. Here's his advice:
Republican negative ad writers always delight in describing the Stimulus package as bloated, wasteful, government-growing, and useless. The adjectives get in the way. The polling we've done indicates that the simple words "stimulus package" convey all that and more.Less is more. Why use words that clutter? It isn't like the people don't know what Obamacare is. It isn't like they don't already have a negative view of it. Ditto with Cap and Trade. Ditto with the stimulus.
There is no need to call Obama's health care legislation "a government attempt to take over our health care" or a bill to "slash medical care for the elderly" or an "attempt to force rationing of care." The simple word Obamacare conveys the same meanings.
Why describe cap and trade as "job killing" or "driving jobs overseas" when the words cap and trade say these same things to voters?
Vice President Biden got his nickers in a knot Tuesday when John Boehner gave a major economic address in which he said that the stimulus failed. Miserably. Biden can whine all he wants but defending President Obama's stimulus plan is a losing fight. Here's Morris' suggestion for an ad that works:
A simple ad along these lines will be far more effective for a Republican challenger to a Democratic incumbent than any elaborately conceived negative commercial:People aren't in a live-and-let-live mood these days. They're unemployed or underemployed, possibly in danger of losing their home to foreclosure and worrying about their kids' future. If that isn't enough, and it is, people feel like the government isn't listening to them.
"Do you support the $850 billion stimulus package Obama passed last year? Joe Democrat voted yes. Harry Republican says no.
The TARP bailout? Democrat voted in favor. Republican is opposed.
Obamacare? Joe Democrat supported it. Harry Republican would have voted no.
Cap and Trade? Democrat yes, again. Republican, no.
Vote for the one that agrees with you."
Never in my lifetime have I seen a group of people so motivated to throw the liberal bums out, not even in 1994. They're well-informed, too. Most have done their due diligence and just need to be pointed in the right direction. If that's the case, just point them in the right direction, then get out of their way. Don't overcomplicate things.
Most troubling to Democrat strategists is that these voters can't wait to get to the polls. Either that or it's that the worst is yet to come. What we're seeing now is voters expressing their digust with the Obama administration and the Reid/Pelosi regime. We haven't seen the partisan trend yet and we haven't seen the new Contract-like document yet.
Republicans are witholding those documents until everyone is fully tuned in. It's like a distance runner holding a little back until the final half-lap. Think of the races where the favorite is setting a strong pace, then the last half-lap arrives and suddenly he pulls away.
That's what I predict will happen this year. Call it a crystallizing moment or the moment of realization or whatever. It's coming and it will break the conservatives' way.
If Republicans keep working hard and enunciating clear messages, in the manner that Dick Morris said, this election will be a powerful repudiation of President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's agenda.
Posted Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:29 AM
No comments.
