December 22-23, 2009
Dec 22 02:08 Good Advice From Joe Biden??? Apparently Dec 22 03:27 Franken: Ignoring Constitution "A Big Victory For Progressives" Dec 22 14:12 The Mighty Have Fallen Or What Happened to That Permanent Democrat Majority? Dec 22 16:18 Mitch Chooses Civility Over Liberty Dec 23 03:17 Utterly Clueless Dec 23 04:29 Tarryl's Already In Trouble? Dec 23 11:48 Gov. Heineman Unloads Both Barrels Dec 23 16:10 Let's Use The Majority This Time
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Good Advice From Joe Biden??? Apparently
It isn't often that a person hears that Joe Biden has given great advice. Rumor has it that it happens as often as pigs fly. Apparently, migrating pigs were just spotted flying in V-formation over the White House. Check out this video from the Heritage Foundation:
Before anyone starts thinking that we're seeing a 'new and improved' Joe Biden, I'll just say calm down. In this post on the Heritage Foundation's blog, we're told by Vice President Biden that we should talk with our doctors about ObamaCare. That's what the Heritage Foundation did, though ObamaCare advocates won't like the results. Here's what Harvard Medical School Dean Dr. Jeffrey Flier wrote :
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.I'm thankful that I took Vice President Biden's advice. If I hadn't read Dr. Flier's op-ed, I wouldn't have gained this important information. Here's Johns Hopkins Medicine Dean Edward Miller's opinion :
We'll meet the demands placed on us because serving poor and disadvantaged populations is part of our century-old mission. But without an understanding by policy makers of what a large Medicaid expansion actually means, and without delivery-system reform and adequate risk-adjusted reimbursement the current health-care legislation will have catastrophic effects on those of us who provide society's health-care safety-net. In time, those effects will be felt by all of us.It's apparent that the Democrats haven't changed how they do things in terms of instituting changes in how they'll deliver health care. They've only said that they're adding more people to a broken system while they're adding money to their budgets. That isn't reform. That's just expanding an existing program. That doesn't fit with Dictionary.com's definition of reform :
1. the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory;The Democrats' bill doesn't alter the rules governing Medicare or Medicaid. The Democrats' bill certainly doesn't eliminate the corruption or improve the unsatisfactory parts of the federal health care system. That's why I can't call the Democrats' health care legislation reform.
4. to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition
Vice President Biden, Thanks for the first good advice I've ever heard from you.
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 2:11 AM
No comments.
Franken: Ignoring Constitution "A Big Victory For Progressives"
Sunday evening, Al Franken posted his thoughts on why he's voting for the Democrats' health care legislation. Here's one of the 'highlights' from the post:
Requiring insurance companies to spend 85% of premiums on actual health services, not administrative costs, TV ads, or gargantuan CEO bonuses, is a big victory . Senator Rockefeller and I worked hard to get that provision included because it holds insurance companies accountable and will put an end to exploding premiums and obscene profits, a huge win for progressives.Sen. Franken is actually bragging about the Democrats' legislation giving this administration proxy control of health insurance companies. They aren't the CEO of the insurance companies. They'll settle for being the CEOs' puppetmasters. This is TARP without the companies being in financial difficulty.
Sen. Franken, good luck getting that provision to pass the Constitution's test.
Sen. Franken apparently thinks that this provision's end run around the Constitution is "a big victory" for progressives. My question is why Sen. Franken thinks ignoring the Constitution is any sort of victory. After all, when he was sworn in, he took an oath to protect the Constitution.
QUESTION: Does Sen. Franken take his oath seriously? If he does, it'd be nice to see him prove it with his actions.
To earn my vote, health insurance reform must improve access to affordable health care for Minnesota families, and this bill clears that bar with room to spare. This bill does not fix all the problems with our health care system, and I will not stop working to improve the quality and lower the costs of health care for all Americans.Sen. Franken knows that this bill increases health care costs, raises insurance premiums, explodes the deficit and lowers health care outcomes. At least, he should know these things. Health care costs are going up because the Democrats' legislation contains $518,000,000,000 of tax increases, which will get passed onto health care consumers.
According to Wellpoint's actuarial study , health insurance premiums are going up:
WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more.Sen. Franken must be ignoring this study because, if he was intellectually honest, he wouldn't say that the Democrats' bill "improve[s] access to affordable health care for Minnesota families" or that it passes that "this bill clears that bar with room to spare." The Democrats' legislation doesn't clear that bar, much less clearing it with room to spare.
These reforms are fiscally responsible and crucial to our long-term economic health. By bringing down costs and focusing on prevention and high-value health care, more Americans will get screenings to prevent diseases before they become costly and disabling. We'll also make providers accountable for making people healthier, rewarding them for efficient care. In the end, this bill will save money and keep our country healthier while cutting the deficit by $132 billion in the first ten years and $650 billion in the second ten.The $132,000,000,000 figure is a myth because it wouldn't happen if you matched up the years of expenses with the years of increasing taxes. Instead, the Democrats' legislation starts collecting taxes in 2010 but doesn't start paying expenditures until 2014.
The other reason why that figure is a myth is because it (a) expects Congress to actually cut Medicare by $470,000,000,000 and (b) doesn't include the $274,000,000,000 for the doctor fix. BTW, cutting Medicare by $470,000,000,000 in the first decade represents a 21% cut to Medicare.
If there's one thing that this Congress isn't noted for, it's cutting spending on their pet programs. In fact, the only thing that the Democrats' leadership believes in cutting is cutting Republicans from negotiations on legislation.
The plain simple truth is, because of this legislation crafted by Leader Reid and others in the Senate, 31 million more Americans will have affordable health insurance and the growth in health care costs for families will be dramatically diminished.The CMS actuary said that health care spending will increase by $235,000,000,000 in the first decade. My math skills tell me that increasing health care costs isn't the right path to "dramatically" diminishing families' health care costs. Perhaps it's different in the alternate universe that Sen. Franken apparently lives in.
Summarizing, Sen. Franken (a) thinks that ignoring the Constitution is "a big victory" for progressives, (b) thinks that raising taxes by half a trillion dollars will lower health care costs and (c) misrepresents the facts, choosing instead to use the Democrats' discredited talking points.
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:27 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Dec-09 06:49 AM
Once again you seem to assume that "progressives" (and in Al Franken, yet!) are actually capable of basic reasoning. Nothing could be farther from reality, except maybe progressives in general, and Al Franken in particular. They honestly believe what they say, because they live in a universe in which what they say becomes real. They happily run off the cliff believing they are the Roadrunner, who can float in the air, and not Wile E. Coyote, doomed to crash on the hard rock of reality.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-09 09:49 AM
I did no such thing. LOL
Comment 2 by Crystal Kelley at 22-Dec-09 01:57 PM
Franken's comment, "We'll also make providers accountable for making people healthier, rewarding them for efficient care," is code for rewarding doctors for using fewer medications, fewer tests, less expensive tests, etc., therefore oftentimes providing lower quality care. I used to work for an HMO, and I know this is true. This is such a travesty; I can't believe anyone's falling for this.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 22-Dec-09 05:26 PM
Wow lets look here:
He's proud to tell insurance companies how to spend their money, but won't force Congress to have the same policies as us.
He's proud to tell insurance companies how to spend their money, but apparently has no idea that people might go to jail for not having insurance.
He's proud to tell insurance companies how to spend their money, but apparently he doesn't care about telling lawyers that they will be harmed.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z. at 22-Dec-09 05:52 PM
I think there's a better way to do it.
Insurance companies will report on a regular, audited basis on what they spend on actual care delivery. Then allow 15% of that as additional non taxed income, and tax away the remainder of anything they take in beyond those two allowable expense items; the remainder going via an excess profits tax.
Any thoughts? It could finance the war.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 24-Dec-09 03:08 AM
good for tort reform them and using Franken's logic a lawyer can make a maximum of 15% of the money we wins for the client since if insurance companies make 16% that's wrong shouldn't the same thing apply to lawyers?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The Mighty Have Fallen Or What Happened to That Permanent Democrat Majority?
According to Scott Rasmussen's polling , nearly half of the likely voters polled strongly disapprove of the way President Obama is doing his job:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That's the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.This isn't just the lowest approval ratings for President Obama. It's a warning sign that he's in serious electoral danger. If almost half of the likely voters strongly disapprove of the job he's doing, then that's getting close to a tipping point for re-election. I can't overemphasize that this polling is about people who strongly disapprove of President Obama's job performance.
This number essentially eliminates disaffected liberals. It isn't likely that they'd essentially tell a pollster that they're upset with President Obama's job performance. The vast majority of disaffected Democrats would fall in the somewhat disapprove category.
More importantly, this polling is instructive in that it tells Democrats that President Obama won't be a big help in 2010's elections other than as fundraiser-in-chief. That's taking a big weapon out of the Democrats' arsenal. Whereas the GOP can bring in governors like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour and congressmen like Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and John Boehner to fire up the faithful, the Democrats are stuck with Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
Every time that President Obama's approval rating drops, it represents another congresscritter that's endangered. Combine that with the unpopular votes that representatives took on Cap and Tax, Stimulus, Omnibus I and II and Pelosicare and you've given the voters a multitude of reasons for kicking the Democrats out.
It's important to note that President Obama's support has dropped 7 points since Ben Nelson's defection . Since Sen. Nelson's announcement, President Obama's approval rating has dropped from 14 points to 21 points.
Factoring in Parker Griffith's switching parties and factor in that Zogby's polling shows that the 84 percent of the American people think "that Congress drafts lengthy, complex bills to hide spending on special interests and to prevent constituents from understanding what's in them before a vote is taken" and you have the clear signs that there's a huge anti-Democrat backlash building.
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 2:24 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Dec-09 05:48 PM
How about a poll asking if the election were tomorrow, would you vote for Obama or Palin?
Why don't the GOP people do that poll, or buy it, from a reputable polling source? Any guess?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-09 08:10 PM
Eric, At this point, I couldn't care less about 2012. We're focused on kicking the living shit out of the Democrats in 2010.
BTW, there was a poll recently showing Obama beating GWB 50-44. The Golden Boy isn't doing so hot.
Mitch Chooses Civility Over Liberty
It's a sad day when people like Mitch McConnell throw in the towel rather than fight for liberty:
The Senate will now hold the last of the procedural votes on health care, to cut off the last Republican filibuster of the bill, on Wednesday afternoon.Mitch McConnell is part of the problem with the GOP. In fact, he's typical of what's wrong with DC Republicans. While TEA Party activists are calling for a peaceful revolution across the nation, Mitch McConnell is playing nicey nice with ruthless, power-hungry Democrats.
The vote on the debt limit will allow a temporary two-month increase, long enough to prevent the country from defaulting, but guaranteeing that there will be another angry debate over fiscal policy in the early part of next year.
The scheduling agreement, between the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, will allow the Republicans to say that they pushed the vote right up to Christmas Eve without having to ruin the holiday travel plans of senators and their aides, not to mention the staff in the Capitol that takes no sides in the various legislative fights but often takes a beating at times like this.
Anyone thinking that the Democrats' health care legislation isn't the biggest power grab in U.S. history is kidding themselves. That's what it's primarily about. The good news is that there are some Republicans who haven't waved the white flag of defeat. Senators like Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham (yes, you read that right) are challenging the legislation's constitutionality :
But the Nelson deal swiftly drew the ire of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has asked his state's attorney general to give the issue a legal review. He told Fox News on Tuesday that other states can probably bring a "constitutional challenge" over the issue. He said it's unfair for one state to get special treatment while others pick up the tab.Sen. DeMint is upset with a different aspect of the legislation:
"I don't believe most senators believe this is OK," Graham said. "I think it stinks. I think it's sleazy."
Graham said his state could file an equal rights suit under the Constitution. The Constitution calls for "equal protection" of all citizens.
Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.Sen. Reid's aide tried downplaying things this way:
"It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection," the section says.
DeMint said he found that "particularly troubling."
"We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law," DeMint said. "I'm not even sure that it's constitutional."
Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.I'm not a constitutional scholar but I can't imagine legislation that explicitly says that Congress can't change the legislation is constitutional. That language essentially gives the provision more protection than the Constitution. At least the Constitution can be amended. Sen. Reid's language, if taken literally, doesn't provide for amending.
"It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection," the section says.
DeMint said he found that "particularly troubling." "We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law," DeMint said. "I'm not even sure that it's constitutional."
The overall section the senator referred to applied to the creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
But a senior Reid aide noted that the language restricting the repeal of the measure only applied to one subsection, a subsection dealing with the manner in which the proposal for the board is introduced and considered in Congress. The aide said the language DeMint found "troubling" did not apply to board or its duties as a whole.
Plus the aide noted that the language can be waived by a 60-vote majority in the Senate.
It's time for old-fashioned politicians like Mitch McConnell to resign their leadership positions. They've put a higher priority on comity than on fighting for liberty. That's unacceptable and it shouldn't be tolerated.
Posted Tuesday, December 22, 2009 4:25 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Dec-09 05:36 PM
Now Mitch McConnell is a RINO?
The term is not used.
The implication is there.
When will it stop?
Or am I reading too much into the intro, the point is to characterize Reid as what, ineffective, misguided, evil?
What about spawn of Mammon? Why not call him that? Or Nelson?
And, I surely would like to see that DeMint thing in context, and the language he is attacking, and, like, Gary, the underlying facts rather than the overlying opinions; without citation.
It sounds silly, weak, watery tea to me. Nothing strong to it, if it cannot stand fleshing out a context.
Seriously, Gary, in a comment would you post two links:
The DeMint commentary, in context.
The language he is commenting on, in context.
Otherwise, it truly is hard to follow or understand.
Is it a rule for procedure, or a part of the statute. Your post makes it sound like both.
What about correction of scrivening error? Are you saying a rule would prevent the chair noting a scrivening error, a misspelling, what?
And, sources ---
Comment 2 by eric z. at 22-Dec-09 05:42 PM
Okay, Gary, I did follow your one link. And it is not you posting some bit of bloviating out of context.
It is the item you linked to that's doing it.
I don't consider it worth my time to try to unwind that awful reporting, so I would not ask you to spend yours on finding what that reporter's talking about.
So, I withdraw any hint of criticizing your effort in this.
But I simply, from that one source, cannot make a shred of sense out of whether DeMint is blowing pure smoke, or finding true fault.
Let's chalk it up to inadequate reporting by the quoted source, and wish they gave underlying links.
Moving on ---
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-09 08:07 PM
Eric, Jim DeMint doesn't blow smoke. Jim's a straight shooter.
As for the provision that he's citing, it is its own context. Any legislation that essentially that it can't be changed, which is what this language said, is ridiculous. It can't be enforced from one Congress to another.
As for Harry Reid, I'm perfectly comfortable calling him evil, just as I'm perfectly comfortable calling Speaker Pelosi & President Obama evil.
They played important roles in stopping the DC Scholarship Program, which has a history of great results of lifting poor inner city minorities out of poverty. That's my definition of evil.
Each of these tyrants ignored the American people with health care, the stimulus & the bailouts. To ignore them once is awful. To ignore them twice is unforgivable. To ignore them 3X on important, life & death issues, is evil & it's arrogant.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 23-Dec-09 09:29 AM
Gary, I think you're being too hard on McConnell. He's already said that he's going to do all he can to halt this thing while simultaneously trying to avoid giving the Democrats the ability to call Republicans "obstructionist." You know they will, given the barest pretext, or even without it. So long as Reid holds his 60 votes together, Pinkycare is going to pass the Senate sooner or later, and Reid is determined to pass it before allowing Senators to go home for Christmas break, so....
McConnell's choice is to throw up more delays, force the Senate into session through the Holidays (making Republicans the grinches, by the quirks of MSM logic), or to lean back and insist upon strictly following Senate rules (and holding on to that precedent lest Reid make a habit of breaking them), but otherwise not fighting a battle that cannot be won, to fight another day.
Pinkycare cannot pass in the House, so Pelosi can have it defeated there (substituting for Pelosicare), or she can call a conference committee. We know Pelosicare cannot pass the Senate; that's where Pinkycare started, and of course Obamacare is still pure fantasy. All McConnell is doing, it seems to me, is finding a good seat for the upcoming battle, in which the best role may be as innocent bystander, shouting encouragement to both sides. The longer this drags out, of its own internal illogic and inconsistency, the better the chance of its eventual failure, and the better the voters' memories will be in November.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-09 10:12 AM
Jerry, I'll respectfully disagree with you that Mitch is doing everything he can to stop the bill. What we need is someone to have a fit. We need someone to ask the Democrats why they're voting to increase insurance premiums, raise taxes on the middle class & destroy the next generation's prosperity, then asking why they're ignoring the American people.
Instead, they're making arguments about slowing the process down. Who flipping cares about that other than political junkies like us?
Instead of painting the Democrats into a tight corner on why they're voting to limit the types of policies that are acceptable, Republicans are taking the gentlemanly approach.
Shame on them. We're screaming for revolution & they're worried about acting like gentlemen.
Utterly Clueless
The first thought that crossed my mind when I read the opening paragraphs of Kevin Drum's article in Mother Jones magazine was that he's utterly clueless. Here's what I'm basing that opinion off of:
But I'm going to repeat what I said over the weekend: the Feiler Faster thesis is largely true, and healthcare will be mostly forgotten within a few months. This bill affects a relatively small number of people; the people who are affected are almost all benefitting from it; and nothing much is going to happen until 2014 anyway. The tea partiers will stay mad, but they weren't going to vote for Democrats in 2010 regardless. Moderates and independents, I think, will end up voting on other issues.Health care will still be fresh in people's minds a year from now because of its pocketbook impact but also because it's a reminder of a bigger animating factor, specifically, that Democrats didn't listen to We The People. This health care debate has highlighted several things, none of which help the Democrats.
First, the policy debate hurt Democrats deeply. People quickly grasped that the Democrats' legislation was junk. People quickly understood that this was about a huge power grab; in fact, it was the biggest power grab in a generation. It was also a vehicle for increasing taxes, something that the Democrats are genetically predisposed to doing.
Secondly, the townhalls exposed the fact that Democrats didn't know what was in their legislation. If this legislation is signed into law, insurance premiums will jump. Every time that a person opens their paycheck, they'll remember the Democrats jamming their legislation down our throats. They'll see their paychecks not stretch as far, which will fire the people up.
It'll be like when a person opens up their 401(k). They'll remember that things aren't going well. They'll want to blame someone and since the Democrats are the face of Washington, that's who'll get blamed. ALOT.
Rest assured that I'll use this blog to remind people that the Democrats ignored them on the biggest issues of the day. I'll use this blog to remind people that the Democrats put ideology ahead of ideas and politics ahead of people. I'll use this blog to remind people that the Democrats' first priority was to pass the Holy Grail of their political movement despite the fact that their Holy Grail has ruined the health care systems in countries across the world.
Mr. Drum, welcome to the revolution.
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2009 3:20 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Dec-09 07:45 AM
I wonder what planet that person lives on? Does that person not understand that even though I currently have an employer who gives me insurance I find it very offensive that the congress wrote a fine (even if they said they will subsidize it for you) to get insurance. Was he not aware of that.
I can go on, but the person obviously believes in the dream of the bill not what is in it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 23-Dec-09 09:44 AM
You think that's bad? Suppose you go to another job, voluntarily or involuntarily? If it takes you more than 4 weeks to get onto that new employer's health care coverage, the employer can NOT give it to you, you MUST buy into the public system and can NOT buy private insurance! How's that for a "right" to health care?
Comment 3 by eric z. at 23-Dec-09 11:32 AM
"Rest assured that I'll use this blog to remind people that the Democrats ignored them on the biggest issues of the day. I'll use this blog to remind people that the Democrats put ideology ahead of ideas and politics ahead of people.
"Mr. Drum, welcome to the revolution."
Wow. "You have nothing to lose but your chains" rhetoric. I did not know you had that in you, Gary. I've viewed you as trying to be more insightful than inciting and igniting.
I'll have to revise and extend my opinions.
Happy holidays.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 23-Dec-09 11:32 AM
GOP Manifesto?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-09 03:07 PM
Eric, if there existed a true Democratic moderate, I'd talk different. We just saw that the so-called Democratic moderates cave like a house of cards.
They voted for increased taxes, an explosion of the deficits & higher insurance premiums.
I'm not going to suddenly praise them for causing the next round of layoffs.
BTW, they ignored health economists' predictions & the will of the people. In my books, that's justification for booting their ugly a$$es out of DC.
Tarryl's Already In Trouble?
It's ages before next November's election but it's starting to look like Tarryl Clark and Maureen Reed face steep uphill fights if they hope to defeat Rep. Michele Bachmann. According the Politico's article , Tarryl and Reed are trailing by high double digits:
According to a PPP automated survey of 719 district voters, conducted Dec. 17-19, conservative GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann has a 53 percent approval rating, compared to 44 percent who disapprove. Six percent were not sure.Andrea Mokros, Tarryl's spokeswoman, gave this reply in response to the polling:
In a head-to-head matchup with Democratic frontrunner Tarryl Clark, Bachmann gets 55 percent to Clark's 37 percent, with 8 percent undecided. The numbers are roughly the same when Bachmann is paired with Democrat Maureen Reed.
"It's plenty early. In a district with the state's highest unemployment rates and the highest foreclosure rates, people need more than a 'polarizing' figure, with almost half of those asked saying she's more interested in being a conservative leader than an advocate for them. Ask this question again when we've had a chance to cut through Congresswoman Bachmann's relentless FOX News spin and introduce ourselves to voters, and remind them of her efforts to block jobs and much-needed reform, and take a pass on any and all efforts to deliver real results for the district," Mokros said.Tarryl's name recognition will improve, though I don't think that it'll be a determining factor in this race. The reality is that Tarryl's a bad fit ideologically for this district. Minnesota's Sixth District is fiscally and socially conservative. Tarryl is neither. She isn't even moderate, though that's the image she's tried creating.
"Tarryl has already been elected in a district that is a microcosm of the 6th, proving she can win over Democrats, Republicans and independents. When people get to know Tarryl, this will be a race."
Ms. Mokros said that will warm to Tarryl when they get to know her, which will make this a competitive race. I'm sure she'll gain some support but I'm thinking that it'll be limited. Tarryl can't hide from the fact that she's enthusiastically voted for the 5 biggest tax increases in Minnesota history, including several tax increases when Minnesota had a $2,200,000,000 surplus.
When people find out that she voted for these tax increases after telling supporters that there wasn't enough money "to do many good things", voters in the Sixth district will get the picture.
When people find out that Tarryl's been part of the DFL leadership that focused on finding ways to fund government instead of figuring out how to improve Minnesota's business climate, I'm betting that people will understand that Tarryl's a typical liberal.
When small business owners are reminded that they've been targeted by Tarryl's tax increases, I'm fairly certain that these entrepreneurs won't support Tarryl.
Combine Tarryl's deficiencies with Michele's commitment to fiscal discipline at a time when the nation is crying out for fiscal sanity. If voters contrast Tarryl's commitment to green energy and Tarryl's tepid support for fossil fuels with Michele's commitment to American energy independence, including the lifting of the moratorium on nuclear power, I'm betting that more people pick Michele's view.
It's inevitable that the race will tighten. I'm just not convinced that it'll tighten to the point that it's among the most competitive races in the nation.
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2009 4:29 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Dec-09 07:50 AM
Gary:
For starters I think you have a typo. 53+44+6 adds up to 103%. What I'm shocked at is that the Clark campaign thinks they have to break through the Fox News cycle. Last year the news cycle tried to bury Michelle because of one comment on MSNBC that it even looked like Repbulicans weren't supporting Michelle and she survived that. She's even more popular now than last year's election day.
What on Earth do they think that they're going to do. The things that they will attack Michelle on will only increase that lead since it looks like the votes are the people who already disapprove of her.
It's still a year away, but it looks like she's going to cruise in terms of the margin.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-09 10:03 AM
Walter, If there's a problem with the numbers, it's because that's what the Politico article had in it. I just copy/pasted it into my post. (Frankly, I wasn't paying attention to anything but the big lead Michele has.)
When the campaign said that they have to "break through the Fox" cycle, that's because they think people have a negative image of FNC. What Tarryl hasn't figured out is that FNC's popularity in the Sixth District is high.
They've got their talking points & they're sticking with them, whether they're helping or hurting.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 23-Dec-09 11:24 AM
Few picked the Giants to win that one Super Bowl over the undefeated Patriots.
But quality and capability prevailed, head-to-head.
You've yet to have a DFL option, head-to-head against the incumbent.
The two most capable candidates face off first, before the general election.
And yes, sports analogy again, Detroit and Twins, down to the wire, a playoff game and its exhaustion and tension; and the Yankees marched on easily.
That could happen too.
What odds are you giving, on a bet on Bachmann? And, Gary, if you'd insist on even money, what does that tell people about your honest beliefs?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-09 11:56 AM
Eric, Check back with me in 3 months & I'll give you a more specific prediction.
I'll say this: I've told my conservative friends that it's inconceivable that Tarryl beats Michele.
I can't predict a 20 point victory but I can't predict a 5 point Michele victory either.
Comment 5 by Kevin at 23-Dec-09 12:15 PM
Tarryl has a lot of job to do to get Michelle... It won't be easy
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 23-Dec-09 01:37 PM
Eric:
This is very simple. the best candidate running in the sixth distract is:
M-I-C-H-E-L-E B-A-C-H-M-A-N-N
Got it. That primary is to determine who wants to waste months to get beat by more than 10 points.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Gov. Heineman Unloads Both Barrels
Last night on OTR, Greta asked a simple question of Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman about the now-infamous Nebraska Kickback. To his credit, Gov. Heineman gave a straightforward reply . Here's the relevant portion of the interview:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, now, you talk about "all these" special deals, and I take it that you mean, like, all the ones to Florida, to Connecticut. What about to your state alone? Are you willing to give up the...are you willing to say, We don't want the $100 million in our state, Nebraska?Anyone thinking that Sen. Nelson's troubles will soon be behind him doesn't know human nature. According to Frank Luntz, 72 percent of the American people "are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore." Dr. Luntz said that the anger that people are feeling right now is equal to what they felt in 1994.
HEINEMAN: Absolutely. Nebraska doesn't want a special deal. We only want a fair deal. We're embarrassed by what's going on. We're very surprised. Nebraskans are angry and upset about what occurred. And so they need to set this straight.
I've also asked Senator Nelson...I'm going to repeat it again tonight. He has a chance tomorrow to vote no on cloture. That would be the best thing for Nebraska, the best thing for America. Send this bill back to committee. Go home for Christmas and think about it and get it right.
Back then, huge numbers of voters felt like Congress didn't represent them, that Congress essentially ignored them. Another similarity between then and now is that people feel like politicians only hear the things said inside the Beltway echochamber. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
It's apparent that Sen. Nelson went looking for a deal with Sen. Reid so he could rationalize his support for the bill. It's apparent that Sen. Nelson was counting on the goodies to buy off the resentment coming from his constituents. Nebraskans figured out that those goodies don't mean a thing because they're going to pay higher insurance premiums and their taxes are getting raised.
I'm betting, too, that Sen. Nelson wasn't expecting Gov. Heineman and Sen. Johanns to react as strongly as they did. You can tell that because Sen. Nelson's speech on the Senate floor was totally defensive. He tried rationalizing his actions. He tried telling Nebraskans that this was a good deal for them.
During the course of his radio interviews yesterday, Nebraskans told him that the few trinkets given to the government wouldn't help them pay higher insurance premiums and higher taxes. Sen. Nelson essentially misread Nebraskans. They're a fiscally conservative state. They aren't as gullible as Sen. Nelson needed them to be. He needed them to think that a few trinkets would distract their attention.
Nebraskans, led by Gov. Heineman, emphatically responded by telling Sen. Nelson that they didn't want any part of his bribe. In 2012, they'll emphatically respond by giving Sen. Nelson an election night surprise retirement party.
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:52 AM
No comments.
Let's Use The Majority This Time
Based on Scott Rasmussen's generic ballot polling , it's looking fairly likely that Republicans will retake the majority in the House. I'd still put retaking the Senate as a longshot but still achievable. Here's what Rasmussen's generic ballot polling shows:
Republican candidates now have an eight-point lead over Democrats, their biggest lead of the year, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.That 8-point gap represents a 17 point swing this year. Democrats started the year with a 9-point gap on the generic ballot question. The 8-point gap represents the Republicans' biggest gap in years.
The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for GOP candidates held steady over the past week, but support for Democrats slipped by a point.
The Democrats' passing health care legislation won't be forgotten, especially if it triggers a new round of layoffs and when it triggers higher taxes.
Groups representing smaller businesses say the threat of increased taxes and premiums could outweigh provisions intended to limit the impact on small employers. The Senate bill "will not only fail to reduce and control the constantly climbing health-care costs small-business owners face, but it will result in new and greater costs on their business," said Dan Danner, head of the National Federation of Independent Business.This legislation is about controlling people. Improving health care has nothing to do with it. Last week, when I interviewed Rep. Thad McCotter , I asked him how much the health care debate was hurting the economy. I prefaced the question by saying that labor cost uncertainty was causing businesses to not hire. His response was interesting, saying that it wasn't just uncertainty driving business's hiring hesitancy but also the worry that labor costs would be too high as a result of the Democrats' health care legislation.
One of the campaign themes the GOP should employ is that the Democrats' moderates all voted for bigger government rather than represent their constituents. That plays into this Rasmussen polling :
Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes. That's the second highest finding of the year: In August at the height of the congressional town hall controversies over the health care plan, 70% felt that way.Finally, Republicans should jump all over this opportunity :
Greg Sargent of The Plum Line has an interesting bit of strategy from Senate Democrats on how they'll play healthcare reform in 2010. They want to force Republicans to say whether they support a full repeal of the bill , assuming it has passed.I'd love hearing Democrats defend their votes to raise taxes, increase health insurance premiums and exploding the deficit while turning America's health care system into a third world system.
"Republicans on the ballot next November who opposed the bill will be in the precarious position of telling voters they plan to rollback landmark health care reform which will have afforded coverage to hundreds of thousands in their state," DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz emails.
"We absolutely intend to make Republicans look voters in the eye next November and make it clear they want to take affordable health care reform away from them," Schultz continues, adding that they intend to press the case that "if it was worth filibustering" to Republicans, then surely it's "worth repealing."
Let's ask them on the campaign trail why their so-called moderates voted just like self-described Socialist Bernie Sanders and such noted out-of-touch liberals as John Kerry, Babs Boxer and Chuck Schumer. Let's emphasize the fact that there is no such thing as a true Democratic moderate, that there's only people that sound like moderates until they morph into spineless wimps.
When we regain the majority in the House, then it's time we started pressuring the remaining socialists in the Senate and that we started putting pressure on President Obama. If they think that their health care plan is so good, fine, let's force them to defend it.
Finally, it's time the Senate leadership actually got a few ruthless leaders. I've had enough of seeing Mitch McConnell getting rolled by a wimp like Harry Reid. What we need is a leader that won't hesitate to put the pressure on Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin. In fact, we need someone who'd relish the day-to-day battle with these idiots.
Welcome to the revolution.
Posted Wednesday, December 23, 2009 4:19 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Dec-09 07:14 PM
The generic ballot is not a good predictor of elections, IMHO. It's always easier to beat, in this case, a known flawed Democrat with an unnamed and unflawed Republican. It's a lot less easy to do when the Republican is real and has been under vicious attack by the Democrats and their MSM allies for months. Not only that, but Republicans hold their candidates to a higher standard, making it easier to justify not voting for the Republican andf allowing the Democrat to succeed while meeting a lower "standard of behavior." Finally, I think it's anybody's guess whether or not the health care debate will be remembered one way or the other by next November, and it will, as indicated, be deep in the "spin Cycle" by then. My advice to the GOP is to take up the challenge, and say that they want to repeal the whole thing so that they can start over, which the Democrats SHOULD have done. That sells, to me, since it puts the focus on the Dems process, rather than what the bill actually purports to do.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 24-Dec-09 01:01 AM
Gary:
Part of the Republicans problem is that we don't have some Al Franken's or Chuck Schummers. We might hate them but they want their party to win at any cost. Why can't we have a couple of those.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
