February 27, 2007
Feb 27 04:05 Tony Sertich: Pinnochiocrat-In-Chief Feb 27 10:46 Discord in Democratland? Feb 27 11:19 Selective Memory Feb 27 18:32 Biden's Unseriousness Is Showing Feb 27 19:44 Surge Trends Feb 27 20:24 The Rudy Revolution?
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Tony Sertich: Pinnochiocrat-In-Chief
This afternoon, I received an email alerting me to what was happening on the Minnesota House floor. What I saw in the nearly 3 hours that I watched via videostream was Tony Sertich in the role of 'Pinnochiocrat-In-Chief'. House GOP members offered a string of amendments for floor votes today, only to see their amendments & rule changes shot down on almost straight party line votes. Technically, most of the rules & amendments were sent to the Rules Committee, although some were just defeated outright.
Numerous GOP legislators called that tactic a way of not letting the members vote on the substance of their rule changes, instead sending them to the Rules Committee where most of the proposals will be voted down on straight party line votes, if they even get a hearing. Why do I predict this? Because Sertich chairs the Rules and Legislative Administration Committee.
Most of these amendments dealt with what I'd describe as transparency issues, ranging from making the per diem usage part of the House website to forcing former legislators to wait a minimum of a year before becoming a paid lobbyist. What was disgusting about the 'debate' on the lobbyist issue was hearing the DFL say that the best way for Republicans to gain influence was "to lose an election, then become part of Gov. Pawlenty's staff" as though serving in an appointed position is the same as being a paid lobbyist.
It was also disgusting to hear Sertich talk himself in circles on the per diem issue. When the issue was first brought up to make the per diem usage part of the House website, Sertich said that the information was "easily available" and that any Minnesotan could obtain that information. About 20 minutes later, he was confronted by a legislator who said that he just followed the procedure that Sertich had talked about. This legislator said that the "information wasn't easily available", which is why they should consider his amendment to create that webpage. Sertich then said that he wasn't sure if it was possible to do what the legislator was proposing, essentially saying that what he said was already being done couldn't be done.
The biggest thing I came away with was that Tony Sertich, though knew he had the votes to defeat the measures, which they did time & time again, he chose to defeat them procedurally by referring them to his committee, where they'll likely never see the light of day again. The reason he's doing this is because (a) he wants the GOP to know who's in charge & (b) because he doesn't want DFL legislators being held accountable for voting against governmental transparency.
I got the impression that Mr. Sertich was also a very smug, almost cocky, individual. He was rude to some GOP legislators, dismissive to others & accusatory to the rest. I also got the impression that he talked himself in circles several times. In other words, he came across as a total hypocrite because the logic to his answers was, to be kind, circular. What they weren't was persuasive nor honest.
So much for the spirit of bipartisanship.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:05 AM
Comment 1 by ryanT at 28-Feb-07 09:22 AM
Great post. It's hard to see how they cast the "rising star" crown upon Tony Sertich when he can't even stand up to legitimate debate.
I still want to know why he is protecting his freshman DFLers from taking a vote on actual issues. Is it because they lied during their campaigns and aren't the "independent" voices they claimed to be? Judging by the number of party line votes in support of his procedural tapdancing, it sure looks that way.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Feb-07 10:35 AM
I still want to know why he is protecting his freshman DFLers from taking a vote on actual issues. Is it because they lied during their campaigns and aren't the "independent" voices they claimed to be?
Ryan, The answer is an unqualified YES!!!
Comment 3 by Jamie at 01-Mar-07 07:03 AM
Great! The collegial DFL spirit of Tony Sertich has rubbed off on young democrats.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?district=05B
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/
Nice work Gary
Discord in Democratland?
After showing signs of unity of mission during the campaign, Democrats are splitting in all directions on Iraq policy. This was predictable because their Nutroots campaign contributions base is demanding that they end the war, a move that would cost them the 2008 elections. Their desire to please the Nutroots' demands is countered by the understanding that they'd be swept from office. That self-preservation instinct still runs strong.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops. The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), the former Marine combat veteran who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.Murtha's willingness to carry the anti-war Left's water has left him in no man's land. He's even lost Ms. Pelosi's support, who was his closest ally until she saw the polling that said that Americans want victory, not unilateral defeat, in Iraq.
Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops." Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure as Murtha has proposed Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.TRANSLATION: Don't get me tied into this. I'm heading for the hills. It's their responsibility.
The truth is that Ms. Pelosi's only conviction in this fight is to oppose everything that President Bush is for.
The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.Mr. Matzzie is half right. There is a risk that the Nutroots' frustration might boil over. He's wrong in saying that the public is pushing for ending the war in defeat.
"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."
"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."Manley talks tough but he's kidding himself if he thinks that they'll get this administration to change it's goal of victory in Iraq.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:47 AM
No comments.
Selective Memory
I used this post to tell you about Tony Sertich's dictatorial rule in the House yesterday. Isn't it interesting that the P-Press took a different tack with this article? Here's Bill Salisbury's article:
1-year lobbying ban proposed in HouseI wonder why Mr. Salisbury didn't mention the fact that the Dictatorial Democrats defeated almost every other rule change that Republicans offered. Thank God that the media isn't biased. Thank God that they believe in telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. I'm glad that I know these things because, otherwise, I'd think that they were biased.
Legislators would be barred from lobbying for one year after leaving office under a rule adopted by the Minnesota House of Representatives on Monday.
Rep. Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, proposed the ban, saying it would prevent former lawmakers from immediately cashing in on their public service. His proposal was approved, 83-50.
The new rule does not say how the House will enforce it. The Senate doesn't have a similar rule, so former legislators-turned-lobbyists would not be prohibited from lobbying senators during their first year out of office.
- Bill Salisbury
To be fair to Mr. Salisbury, I don't know if he included other information & it was edited out by his editors or if he was given a limited word count for the article.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:20 AM
No comments.
Biden's Unseriousness Is Showing
Slow Joe Biden fancies himself as a serious policymaker. After reading this Boston Globe op-ed, it's difficult to think of him that way. Here's a section of Biden's op-ed that shows his disinterest in defeating the terrorists in Iraq:
We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The weapons of mass destruction were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq. Together with Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will offer legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower and achievable mission for our troops in Iraq.Good luck garnering the votes, Joe. You couldn't even get enough votes to stop the filibustering of a meaningless resolution. I suspect that this is just another attempt to pander to the anti-war lefties that Democrats get their campaign contributions from.
Revisiting the 2002 authorization is the right next step but it cannot be the last step. The United States must also answer a two-word test: "What next?"Joe, Here's my answer: A) DEFEAT THE TERRORISTS. (B) STABILIZE IRAQ. (C) NEXT TARGET.
The Bush administration has bet everything on a future that will not happen: Iraqis rallying behind a strong central government that protects the rights of all citizens equally.I hate breaking this news to Joe but the Iraqis just decided to a oil revenue-sharing plan for the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, thereby incentivizing the parties to work together. This gives them reason to implement a government that holds together. I'd also remind Sen. Biden that it isn't our decision on what type of government they have. Iraq is a sovereign nation, giving us no 'final authority' on what they do.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6:33 PM
No comments.
Surge Trends
Rich Lowry posted this email at NRO's website. It's worth noting that there's some positive trends coming from Iraq even if the Agenda Media won't report them. Here's the content of Lowry's post:
My "Pentagon intel guy" writes in an e-mail:The next time a Democrat talks about the need "to change course", let's use this information to tell them that we've changed course to inevitable victory. Let's remind them that they pursue defeat at the risk of it destroying them in 2008.
Since my job at the Pentagon is to follow and report these kinds of things- there are several trends we are seeing lately.
1) Definite and measurable decrease in number of sectarian killings within Baghdad: From nearly 1,400 to 680 in the last two months.
2) We are killing and capturing increasing numbers of Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters. And when I say "we"- I mean Multi-National Forces Iraq as well as the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Police Commando, and the newer "National Guard"/Territorial Forces in Anbar.
3) The recent bombings in ANBAR demonstrate red on red kinetic operations. Something which has been rare until the last few months. More and more Sunni tribes are pledging fealty to the Iraqi government and the Coalition and turning their back on the insurgents/AQI. This has caused them to be targeted.
We have seen the enemy bomb police recruitment drives, and now mosques of "apostate" Imams and Sheikhs who have sided with the Americans. This has happened twice in the last week. While the mainstream media considers this more proof of failure, it is actually a sign of the precarious position the terrorists are in. They need the Sunni population to protect them and shelter them. If they are now butchering them like everyone else, this could be a turning point in the relationship. This is crucial to watch. We need to protect the tribal leaders who have come over to us, and AQI knows that it is a death sentence for them if they can't stop it.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:45 PM
No comments.
The Rudy Revolution?
I've been closely tracking how conservatives are reacting to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. I can't say that I've been surprised that Hizzoner has won over significant numbers of social conservatives, leading me to ask this question: Are we watching the first steps of the Rudy Revolution? I suspect we might be, especially if this John Podhoretz column is right.
Many on the right profess amazement at the lead he's opened up among Republican primary voters, considering his pro-choice views and sloppy personal life. Meanwhile, writers on the left express disbelief at the notion that a pro-choice Republican candidate might be able to win the GOP nomination. According to the best Leftist analyst of American politics, Michael Tomasky, abortion is simply "too fundamental an issue for most Republican caucus goers and primary voters (even in California, with its likely Feb. 5 primary) to work around."The truth is that Rudy has staked out some pretty conservative stands on issues like judges, tax cuts and defeating the terrorists. Here's what Rudy said at the Hoover Institute on taxes:
There's a perfectly simple answer to the Rudy paradox. When Republican voters look at Rudy Giuliani, they know one key fact about him: They know he's no liberal.
They may not exactly know why yet, but they know it.
And they're right.
"I don't think anything separates us more right now between Republicans and Democrats than how we look at taxes," the former New York mayor said. "What we understand as Republicans is that, sure, the government is an important player in this, but we are essentially a private economy. What Democrats really believe...is that it is essentially a government economy."That type of position will be immensely, and instantly, popular to the GOP base. Here's another position that he's taken that will be instantly popular to the faithful:
In the days of President John F. Kennedy, Giuliani said, Democrats understood the concept of the private economy and cutting taxes. But, he said, Democrats have "kind of lost that."
"It's one of the reasons that I used to be a Democrat and I'm now a Republican," Giuliani said before quoting Winston Churchill as saying: "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart, but if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain."
On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I'm a lawyer. I've argued cases in the Supreme Court. I've argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that's part of our freedom and when that's taken away from you that's terrible. President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. Somebody that,I think Chief Justice Roberts is a great chief justice and he's young and he can have a long career and that's probably the reason the President and Vice President chose him. I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint: Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.These are just a couple reasons why Rudy's gaining in popularity right now. It's still to early to give the nomination to Rudy but I don't think it's too optimistic to think that we're seeing the start of a 'Rudy Revolution.' Let's not forget what his candidacy does to the electoral map. George Bush couldn't open up New England yet a Rudy candidacy opens up all of the northeast. In addition to that, he also has a strong shot at winning Michigan and Pennsylvania.
The states that George Bush won in 2004 were worth 286 electoral votes, meaning that Hillary would have to flip 17 electoral votes out of the GOP column. That's possible against a traditional GOP nominee though I wouldn't call it likely. Democrats did better again Bush than what they'd do against Rudy because Democrats didn't have to spend money on New England states. A Rudy candidacy forces them to spend time and money in the northeast, which must scare Democrats to death.
Rudy also puts Michigan's and Pennsylvania's 38 electoral votes in play for the GOP, too. If Rudy took Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes, that would mean Hillary would have to flip 38 electoral votes out of 2004's red state maps. Frankly, that's a 'bridge too far scenario' for Hillary.
If you're in Giuliani's camp, you have to like what you're seeing thus far. If you're in Hillary's camp, you've got to be more than a little worried at this point. That's just how I like it.
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:25 PM
No comments.
