August 6-10, 2010
Aug 06 03:32 Target CEO: Sorry We Contributed to the Capitalist Candidate Aug 06 04:18 Paul Krugman: Certifiably Insane? Aug 07 04:45 THE Defining Issue This November Aug 09 00:54 Larry Hosch vs. the Farmers Aug 09 10:03 There's a Time For Campaigning Aug 10 03:17 I Told You So Aug 10 03:34 First Annual LFR Bleg
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Target CEO: Sorry We Contributed to the Capitalist Candidate
Implicit in the Target CEO's apology is the fact that they contributed to MN Forward because the DFL candidates aren't pro-growth:
The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation. While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry.That the money was spent on ads for Tom Emmer says that Target doesn't think that the DFL gubernatorial candidates support economic growth and sustained job creation. Let's examine the candidates one-by-one, starting with the one with the least chance of winning Tuesday's primary.
Matt Entenza probably comes the closest to having a business-friendly agenda. Still, his problem, in the eyes of the business community is that he wants to raise taxes on Minnesota's job creators except if they're green energy-focused. The reality is that he's still hostile to people who want to make a profit.
Speaker Kelliher isn't interested in being business-friendly. She wants to raise taxes on Minnesota's job creators plus she's intent on implementing single-payer health care. The taxes that'll be needed to keep government-run health care running are staggering.
Most likely, Mark Dayton will win Tuesday's primary. With his victory will come renewed promises of tax increases "so that the rich will pay their fair share." With his victory comes the promise of increasing spending on education with "no exceptions, no excuses." If there's anything that a person can trust about a DFL politician, it's when they promise to raise taxes or raise spending on education or their promising to raises taxes to pay for increased education spending.
A Dayton administration would send job creators fleeing to North Dakota or other tax friendly states where businesses can be competitive with businesses across the nation and around the world.
Minnesota's taxes, fees and regulations preclude Minnesota's businesses from being competitive globally or elsewhere. Target's contributions to MN Forward simply sends the message that they're tired of the DFL's hostility towards capitalists who simply want to make a decent profit as a reward for putting their capital at risk and for creating jobs.
The DFL gubernatorial candidates want the jobs. They just don't like 'greedy profiteers', which is how they see capitalists. Until the DFL starts thinking of job creators as essential to Minnesota's well-being, the DFL should expect other companies to contribute to the people who see them for what they are: important to the health of Minnesota.
Make no mistake about this. In the past, companies tried playing both sides. They saw that the DFL just expected the contributions. Companies saw that they got nothing in return. Companies are increasingly getting off the fence. They're siding with the capitalists.
That's a smart bet because I'm betting that there's more Minnesotans who think positively of capitalists than there are union anti-capitalists. We'll find out if I'm right this November.
Posted Friday, August 6, 2010 3:32 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Aug-10 07:19 AM
I see that I owe Target an apology, too. I'm sorry that I'm never again going to be able to shop at a place that kowtows to every liberal whiner that comes down the pike.
Comment 2 by Kurt Neider at 06-Aug-10 08:03 AM
It's good to hear Target has pissed off everybody now. I would not think alienating all of your customers is good busines, but hey I could be wrong.
Comment 3 by Dagny at 06-Aug-10 08:53 AM
The press has said little about this factual counterweight to the MN Forward donation:
Target Corporation received a 100% corporate equality rating from the Human Rights Campaign in 2010, the pro-homosexual rights organization (http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/organizatio...), as it has in past years. This means, among other things, that Target spends corporate resources providing "partner health insurance" and other benefits to gay employees on the same basis as if they were legally married to their partners.
Who wants to bet whether the cost of those gay employees' benefits was less than the size of the political donation everyone's in such a froth over?
Comment 4 by eric z at 06-Aug-10 07:16 PM
Cullen Sheehan?
Any insider info on whether he's the next Emmer top gun?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Aug-10 04:49 AM
There's lots of rumors flying. I haven't heard anything from the campaign about any personnel changes. At this point, I'd advise people to not trust everything they read.
Paul Krugman: Certifiably Insane?
I normally don't pay attention to political hacks like Paul Krugman but his latest column is proof that he's stopped caring about being intellectually honest. Instead, he seems to prefer being the political cover for the Insane Left's economic agenda. Here's what he said that's utterly ridiculous:
Mr. Ryan has become the Republican Party's poster child for new ideas thanks to his "Roadmap for America's Future," a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes. News media coverage has been overwhelmingly favorable; on Monday, The Washington Post put a glowing profile of Mr. Ryan on its front page, portraying him as the G.O.P.'s fiscal conscience. He's often described with phrases like "intellectually audacious."First things first. The last I looked, the 1990s , which Krugman now writes derisively about, was a time when John Kasich and Bill Clinton cut spending, cut taxes and grew surpluses .
But it's the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn't offering fresh food for thought; he's serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.
Mr. Ryan's plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He'd have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits "in apocalyptic terms." And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: "The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan's plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020."
But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan's request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts - period. It didn't address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.
That's the model that Paul Ryan is following with a notable exception. Paul Ryan actually wants to deal with entitlement spending, which should be viewed in apocalyptic terms.
Unfortunately, in Krugman's rose-colored world, the failed stimulus wasn't big enough.
Let's look at Krugman's perspective from a different angle. What Mr. Krugman is arguing is that giving capitalists an incentive to put their capital at risk and that cutting spending to rational levels will produce the same deficits as President Obama's plan.
This isn't just an insult to our intelligence, it's an insight into the mind of an elitist. Mr. Krugman thinks that he can say anything and have people believe him. When Mr. Krugman stopped caring about economic accuracy and became interested in being the Insane Left's political hack on all things economic, he lost his credibility.
The shameful thing is that he hasn't figured out that he isn't credible anymore, that people are ridiculing him instead. It's a shame because he used to be a credible economist at one time.
Posted Friday, August 6, 2010 4:23 AM
No comments.
THE Defining Issue This November
Let's cut through all of ABM's attacks on Tom Emmer, all of Randi Reitan's attempts to make it look like there's a huge populist groundswell of anti-Target angst and all of the DFL candidates' intention to raise Minnesota's job creators' taxes.
This race will be decided by the candidate that puts together the best proposal on creating jobs. That isn't the DFL's primary winner.
Let's start with taxes. I haven't found anything on Mark Dayton's stance on Cap and Trade but I can't imagine that he'd go against the Environmental Left's wishes. Still, I'm checking into it further. When I hear something, I'll report it.
I know that Speaker Kelliher is for reducing the use of fossil fuels, which isn't the same as cap and trade but it'll lead to higher energy prices in Minnesota.
Minnesota's extreme environmental regulations are just one way that they make Minnesota's businesses less competitive on a world market. For that matter, they hurt Minnesota businesses compete with businesses from other states.
That's before we talk about Mark Dayton's multi-billion dollar tax increase on Minnesota's job creators or Speaker Kelliher's voting for Ann Lenczewski's Green Acres property tax 'reform' bill that raised farmers' property taxes or Rep. Lenczewski's tax reform bill.
Dayton's tax increases will chase jobs and capital from Minnesota just as sure as death and the DFL proposing raising taxes. There's a reason why Marvin Windows expanded in North Dakota instead of in Minnesota. There's a reason why 3M expanded in Texas rather than in Minnesota.
Despite her repeated claims that she's pro-family farm, Speaker Kelliher voted to raise farmers' property taxes by 10's of thousands of dollars. Despite her claims that she'd take a centrist approach to balancing the budget, history says that she voted for a tax bill that included the elimination of the home mortgage deduction.
I'm certain that that isn't Minnesota's definition of a centrist.
The DFL candidates implicitly admit that tax cuts work by giving people special tax brakes for green energy businesses. The question I have is simple: If tax brakes help green businesses, why don't they work for other businesses, too?
I'm betting that they work. I'm betting that the DFL gubernatorial candidates know this, too. I'm betting that that's why they don't want to talk about that except with DFL-friendly audiences where raising taxes and killing jobs is a religion.
Sometime soon, we'll see the race pivot. When that pivot happens, the subject will be about creating jobs. That subject favors Tom Emmer in a big way. Mark Dayton's tax the rich scheme isn't playing well with Minnesota's job creators. When people realize that the DFL's tax the rich schemes are behind the unacceptable unemployment rates and the huge deficits, things will change quickly.
The other contrast that will be drawn, in my opinion, will be that Dayton's first goal is to figure out a way to fund a defunct form of government whereas Tom Emmer's approach will be to show how he'd build a 21st Century economy and how he'd create a government that's responsive to the people.
At the end of the day, people will vote for the man who will create jobs, keep their taxes reasonable and solve the deficit by setting the right priorities. That man is Tom Emmer, not Mark Dayton.
Posted Saturday, August 7, 2010 4:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Aug-10 06:56 AM
To me there is a bigger issue; bigger because it is more readily condensed to a sound bite, impossible to water down with semantics or demagoguery. That is, every single DFL candidate has pledged to spend more of your tax dollars to BUY IN EARLY to Obamacare. Emmer wants the state to opt OUT of Obamacare. Since 70% of people agree with Emmer on this issue alone, it ought to be out front.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Aug-10 08:50 AM
Obamacare isn't as important to people as getting a job is. They hate Obamacare but they're scared that not having a job will cause them to lose their house, their plans for their children's college & other things.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 07-Aug-10 11:17 AM
Hey Gary:
Lets remind people that whoever the Democrat is they say their policies will work just like the policies that President Obama said will work (the stimulus bill will keep unemployment under 8%).
I hear all of this talk about lets reject the failed policies of Tim Pawlenty. Um hasn't the DFL controlled both chambers of the MN since 2007 along with Democrats controlling congress since 2007, and the presidency since 2009. Yet it's Tim's fault that Minnesota's unemployment is not only lower than the national average, but Minnesota's deficit is a lot smaller than New York or California.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 07-Aug-10 06:56 PM
Republicans have to be very careful not to accept the Democrats' statement of a problem before offering their solutions. Government doesn't create jobs! Government has no money to pay anybody that it doesn't first extract from somebody else in taxes. The more we grow government the fewer real jobs there are. What government CAN do to create jobs is to get the h___ out of the way and let free enterprise create as many jobs as possible. Less government= more jobs. More government tax and spend= fewer jobs. Just that simple.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Aug-10 08:23 PM
Jerry, I totally agree with your statement. Check back later for a post tied directly to that principle.
Comment 5 by Rex Newman at 08-Aug-10 09:22 PM
I'd also point out that Democrat solutions to Minnesota's deficit all start with tax increases, as a matter of policy.
Republican solutions end with tax increases, if any, only if necessary, as a matter of principle.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Aug-10 11:40 PM
Rex, I'm sure you've noticed, too, that the DFL's solutions never start with thinking whether the thing they're doing can be done more effeciently. That's called reform & it's never part of their reportoire, is it?
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 09-Aug-10 02:53 AM
Notice, too, that they never start with "how much money do we need to spend," but rather "how much money can we get." They do the revenue side of the budget first, and then find something to spend it on. Turn that around, and set up the priorities and look for efficiencies within the amount of money you have, and you never have a deficit situation requiring higher taxes. I know, completely alien to DFL thinking, but that's the point.
Larry Hosch vs. the Farmers
This past week, I've spent a ton of time at the Benton County Republican Party's booth at the Benton County Fair. As a result of that decision, I wasn't able to attend Wednesday night's meeting on Green Acres tax policy in Cold Spring. Though the time spent at the fair was productive, it sounds like the meeting was explosive.
Based on the reports I got from the legislators and candidates who participated in the meeting, the overwhelming consensus is that the farmers still aren't satisfied with the changes made after Rep. Lenczewski's original changes implemented during the 2008 session.
Let's recall that last Wednesday night was a gorgeous summer evening, with temps in the low-to-mid 80's and a nice breeze. With that type of weather, you'd expect attendance for this meeting to be sparse. It was anything but sparsely attended, with 150 people reportedly attending.
After the legislators' and candidates' opening statements on Green Acres, the audience posed questions or stated their opinion on how their farm is being affected by Green Acres tax policy.
The three reports I've gotten is that the people attending were still mightily upset with their property tax bills. This afternoon, I got into a comment war on the St. Cloud Times' website with Rep. Hosch. Here's one of his replies:
I promised to work on fixing the problems with Green Acres, which I did. I am focused on getting things done, not working on something that simply won't pass and yelling at the top of my lungs about who's to blame. I worked on, authored, supported and participated on the conference committee for the following fixes, which were supported by the Farm Bureau, Farmer's Union, Corn Growers Assoc, Association of MN counties and many more Ag groups.Isn't it telling that Rep. Hosch authored changes to Rep. Lenczewski's disastrous bill and the farmers are still upset?
Repealing the 7 year pay back penalty, allowing CRP and RIM lands to be included in green acres, allowing non productive land to be included like sloughs, wind breaks, etc. We also passed with my support the ability to transfer Green acres land without a penalty, modifying the rural preserve plan process, extending opt in times, etc. etc. These all passed and became law. These changes greatly improved the disastrous Green Acres changes from 2008.
HINT TO REP. HOSCH: You're in trouble if you've made changes and the farmers are still upset. It doesn't sound like farmers are impressed with your list of farm organizations that support your changes.
In the end, that's what matters most. You don't serve these farm organizations. You serve people. Based on their reaction Wednesday night, I'd say that Rep. Hosch hasn't represented HD-14B's farmers very well. In that district, that's a big problem.
I think Rep. Hosch understands this. From the reports I'm getting, he's working hard. I'm just not convinced he's connecting with his constituents like he did in other elections. The worst thing that could've happened to Rep. Hosch was becoming an assistant majority leader. From that point forward, Rep. Hosch wasn't allowed to vote the way his constituents wanted him to vote as often as they would've liked. Too often, Rep. Hosch wasn't allowed to stray from the leadership's agenda.
As a result of sticking too closely with the DFL leadership, Rep. Hosch will be in the farmers' crosshairs the first Tuesday this November.
Posted Monday, August 9, 2010 12:54 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 09-Aug-10 12:13 PM
There's something weird about this story. Oh, that's right, it forgets to mention that all the changes made by the DFL leadership were supported by Representative Steve Gottwalt as well.
http://outstatepolitics.com/archives/11791
Oh and the fact that none of these green acres changes has taken effect yet. They go into effect in 2013. An honest person might want to mention that.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Aug-10 01:22 PM
The difference is that Steve wants a real solution, namely that they repeal Lenczewski's disastrous bill. It wasn't broken but Rep. Lenczewski decided to fix what wasn't broken.
Rep. Hosch hasn't gotten the job done. That's mostly because he's been neutered by Kelliher & Sertich. They let him go a little ways but they won't let him serve his constituents.
These farmers are worried. Their expenses are going up. They're worried that progressives want to raise taxes on the energy they need via Cap & Tax. That's on top of their property taxes potentially going through the roof.
Who cares whether the taxes don't go up until 2013? Smart businesspeople plan 5 yrs. out. That means that farmers had to start worrying about Lenczewski's disaster 2 yrs. ago.
At what point do progressives like Rep. Hosch, Rep. Lenczewski, Speaker Kelliher & bloggers like Eric Austin care that they're running family farms out of business?
Shoot your mouth off all you want but real families will be hurt if Lenczewski's disaster isn't repealed.
Comment 2 by Eric Austin at 09-Aug-10 06:56 PM
Answer me this, why did Steve Gottwalt lie?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Aug-10 11:39 PM
I don't accept the allegation that he lied.
There's a Time For Campaigning
When President Obama stopped past the view, he gave the Republican campaign committees some 'chalkboard material' to bludgeon Democrats with. Thanks to President Obama's gift, the NRSC has used footage of his appearance in this video:
While appearing on the View, President Obama said that "there's a time to campaign and then there's a time to govern." The NRSC inserted that footage into a web ad full of Obama campaign appearances. The images of him at fundraisers are particularly powerful against the backdrop of the opening voiceover.
In the opening voiceover, ominous music plays while the announcer briefly references "oil being pumped directly...possibility of a double dip recession, illegal immigration, wage two wars that we're fighting..." It then cuts away to his fundraiser for Barbara Boxer, "mob banker Giannoulias" before showing him hitting the links.
It's bad enough when Chris Matthews says "When will see him actually do something?" What's most damaging is Chris the final screen, though. It simply says "Mr. President, If you had actually created more American jobs, you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to save Democrat senators' jobs."
It's an effective ad that will rock Democrats because it plays into the image that President Obama has created that he isn't that interested in the day-to-day governance of the nation. What he's shown the American people is that his ideological playlist is his only priority until he's forced to address the issues that matter most to people.
President Obama hasn't shown the least bit of attention to the routine duties of the office. For that matter, he's refused to consider the possibility that his policies are failures. His narcisissism won't let him consider the fact that he's wrong.
The American people don't have that difficulty. They're seeing that he's being exposed as underqualified for the job. They're seeing that he's far better at talking than he is at governing.
There was great enthusiasm for President Obama's agenda when congressional Democrats took up his ideological agenda. They spent our money with glee as they paid off their political allies in the public employee unions with the stimulus money. Many Democrats willingly sacrificed their political careers for helping liberals achieve their Holy Grail moment of passing massive tax increases...I mean, passing universal health care.
It's no secret that this is the most ideological-driven administration in history. Likewise, people know that this Congress, especially with Speaker Pelosi running the House, is highly ideological, too. Together, they've made a mess of things.
BTW, when President Obama shot his mouth off that he wasn't going to give Republicans the keys back after he'd supposedly pulled the car out of the ditch, GOP activists and independents alike laughed.
First, President Obama didn't steer the car back to the blacktop. His policies are disastrous. Second, they're not his keys. The keys belong to the American people and they're fixing on telling this arrogant, narcissistic president that they're rejecting his policies.
The NRSC's ad illustrated just how disengaged this president is. This one's gonna hurt.
Posted Monday, August 9, 2010 10:05 AM
No comments.
I Told You So
Back in late May, I wrote a post titled " Alliance For Better Minnesota Not Concerned With Telling Truth ." Here's one of ABM's golden oldies :
We've become accustomed to some extreme Tea Party characters from conservatives in this state (you know who I mean, I don't need to link), but Tom Emmer's vision for "prosperity" using his "principles" for this state rank right up there with even the most caffeinated of Tea Partiers. What do I mean? I mean drastic cuts to school budgets, essentials services like road plowing in the winter, and Minnesotans having to hold out their tin cup begging for a charity check-up from their doctor.This is just one of the lies that the shadow Dayton campaign has posted on its website. Thanks to this study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, I now have proof that I was right about ABM:
A False Claim About TaxesFactCheck went onto say that this wasn't the only intentional inaccuracy from ABM:
The ad claims that Emmer "opposed a plan that would force corporations and CEOs to pay their fair share of taxes." That's false. The bill did not mention corporations or corporate CEOs at all. What it would have done is raise taxes on more than 100,000 high-income individuals, pushing the state's top individual income tax rate up to among the highest in the nation.
An estimated 122,000 taxpayers would have been affected, and while that group no doubt includes some corporate CEOs, it also would have included many more small-business owners, doctors and other professionals, not to mention high-income farmers and retirees. And whether or not the higher rate is "fair" is a matter of opinion on which even Democrats are divided. It passed the state Senate by a single vote, with Republicans and 12 Democrats voting against it . It also passed the Democratic-controlled House but Gov. Pawlenty vetoed the bill , forcing the Legislature to return in special session and pass a revised budget bill , without any income tax increase, which the governor signed into law.
A False Claim About the DeficitIt's important that people understand what's happening here. This isn't just a group of the DFL's special interest allies ganging up on Tom Emmer. It's Mark Dayton's family running a shadow campaign on his behalf.
The ad also claims that the "Emmer-Pawlenty plan created a huge deficit." That's false as well.
The bill was an attempt to close an existing $3 billion deficit without making all of the unilateral budget cuts that Pawlenty had tried to impose, but which were overturned by the courts. To claim that the bill's defeat "created" the deficit it was intended to close is pure nonsense.
The ad complains that the so-called Emmer-Pawlenty plan "cut things that Minnesotans rely on." That much is true. The budget measure Pawlenty eventually signed did make deep spending cuts. But the bill the Democrats proposed, and Emmer voted against, wasn't much better in that regard. The Democrats' proposed income tax increase would have brought in an estimated $430 million in added taxes, but their budget bill still would have made $2.5 billion in spending cuts .
For the record, in a "truth test" of the ad, the Minneapolis-St. Paul station KSTP-TV awarded the spot a failing grade of "F" for accuracy.
I'm not accusing ABM of coordination with the official Dayton campaign. I'm just accusing them of saying the things that the official Dayton campaign couldn't get away with.
This speaks volumes about the DFL's special interest groups' motivations. They don't care about anything but power. If that means lying to people, that's what they'll do without hesitation. ABM is proof of that. (Let's remember that ABM is comprised of groups like EdMinn, SEIU, AFSCME, TakeAction Minnesota and the usual suspects.)
It's important to understand that the entire DFL, not just Mark Dayton, relies on this network of organizations. They rely on these organizations for their GOTV operations and for campaign contributions. They rely on organizations like SEIU and ABM (sorry for the repetition) for their stale agenda, too. They've even adopted the unions' us vs. them mentality.
That's because the DFL doesn't have fresh ideas. Whatever is on the DFL's special interest allies' wish lists is their agenda.
That brings up another question. Since the DFL's agenda is nothing more than an amalgam of their special interest allies' wish lists, isn't it impossible for them to serve their individual constituent's needs?
Factcheck's assessment of ABM's ads just confirms what I already knew. It's just reason for saying 'I told you so.'
Originally posted Tuesday, August 10, 2010, revised 16-Apr 1:35 AM
Comment 1 by eric q at 10-Aug-10 06:24 AM
Tuesday morning. The DFL has a major primary choice.
Any predictions from the GOP viewpoint?
Seeing criticism of Dayton accelerate, and past criticism of Kelliher, it seems the GOP view fits what many think of the Entenza campaign.
The man certainly has financed a ton of mailings. Whether that worked or not will be news this evening.
My guess: Dayton.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-10 07:26 AM
I have no doubt that it'll be Dayton. The talk about MAK is that she's got this great GOTV operation & that'll make it a tight race. It won't.
This is the end of Entenza's political career. People don't like him. I thought he hurt himself when he told DFL primary voters that the budget situation wouldn't let them increase education funding.
Dayton will lose this November. He isn't likeable, which is huge. His tax-the-rich rallying cry is riddled with 'math problems', meaning his figures don't add up. He'd either have to make some of the Pawlenty unallotments permanent or he'll have to raise taxes on people well into the middle class, possibly on couples makingas little as $75,000 a year.
First Annual LFR Bleg
This morning, I'm starting the first annual LFR bleg out of necessity. Earlier tonight, my monitor started making wierd colors. (Mostly red but other colors, too.) I shouldn't complain since this monitor is over a decade old.
Be that as it may, it's time to upgrade some things so that I can provide improved coverage of local politics. No contribution is too small and all contributions are greatly appreciated.
To contribute to LFR, just scroll to the bottom of the page & click on the Donate button. The sooner you contribute, the sooner I can get a new monitor and improve the product here at LFR.
Feel free to donate to my new project, too. I hope to start a new blog that will focus on elections & the legislative sessions. The new blog means firsthand reporting from candidate debates, debates from the floor of the Minnesota House and Senate, bill analysis (yes, I'll actually read & analyze the bills.) and many other features.
We've all complained to one extent or another about the liberal media bias. I'd like to report the things that are happening at the debates so that you, the blogging community, don't have to rely on the usual suspects for your information.
Thanks in advance for each & every contribution.
Sincerely,
Gary M. Gross
Posted Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:34 AM
No comments.
