February 7-9, 2010
Feb 07 03:03 Sarah Palin's Tour de Force Speech Feb 07 13:40 They Built a Better Idiot Feb 08 02:28 Time to Change Directions Feb 08 01:21 Real Negotiations or Presidential Photo Op? Feb 08 08:47 Unallotment Deadline Looming Feb 09 00:29 The Obama Administration's Misuse of Miranda Feb 09 02:51 Is Seifert Running From Energy Vote? Feb 09 04:47 Plouffe's Losing Strategy Feb 09 18:40 Brennan Is Today's Talking Points Messenger
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Time to Change Directions
Anyone that thinks Minnesota's economic model makes sense needs to get in touch with reality ASAP. What's worse is that the DFL's tax proposals, especially their targeted tax credits, would make Minnesota's economy worse, not better. Small business tax credits are nothing more than picking winners and losers.
Let's be candid about Minnesotans. We're natural-born innovators. It's part of our genetics. When the DFL proposes tax credits for green jobs, etc., what they're really doing is they're telling Minnesota's innovators that they'll benefit if Minnesota's innovators do things that the DFL wants you to do.
The other side to the DFL's tax credits is that Minnesota's innovators will get hit by the same high taxes that we currently have. In other words, if Minnesota's innovators have an idea that doesn't fit into one of the DFL's tax credits, they'll actually get punished by Minnesota's high individual income tax rates.
That isn't the way to prove that Minnesota is business friendly.
To illustrate just how out of touch the DFL is on economic issues, I'll simply point to Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's quote from her debate with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak on Almanac. Here's what Speaker Kelliher said:
This is about the future. This is about jobs and I'm proud to have passed with bipartisan support the largest job-creating bill the state has seen, the comprehensive transportation bill .I've said before and I'll repeat it again that the DFL is the party that tries to fund a twentieth century government and that the GOP is the party that wants to create a twenty-first century economy. When construction is the heart of anyone's economic plan, that isn't about the future. That's about doing the same thing year after year after year.
David Strom was right when he told KSTP's Tom Hauser that tax credits was a new way for government to pick winners and losers. I've said before that government's record at identifying the next Microsoft, the next Fedex or the next Dell has been terrible. Still, the DFL insists that it knows best. Follow this link to read the DFL's plan. Naturally, the DFL's plan includes the state paying for remodelling the MOA. That's Twentieth Century thinking, especially compared with North Dakota.
The 3 biggest employers in Minnesota are the state government, the U of M and the federal government. Meanwhile, 13 of North Dakota's 15 biggest employers are in health care-related industries :
NDSU employs 4,500 people, followed by Altru Clinics and Altru Health Systems, with 3,500 employees each, Children's Hospital Mericare and Medcenter One Hearing Ctr. with 3,000 employees each, followed by the University of North Dakota with 2,600 employees, then Medcenter Health Systems and Medcenter One each employing 2,200 people. You get the picture.
Unfortunately, the DFL leadership doesn't get it. It's apparently stuck in the mindset that shovel-ready construction jobs remodelling megamalls is the pathway to creating high-paying jobs that will be around a generation or more.
The DFL's plan last year was to rely on tons of stimulus dollars to save their bacon. Now that President Obama's stimulus plan has failed, the DFL is looking for a new plan to trick Minnesota voters. They can't afford to be painted as the party that couldn't create jobs just like they can't afford to be proven that they're the part of annual tax increase attempts.
Unfortunately for the DFL, that image fits them as perfectly as the glass slipper fit on Cinderella's foot.
This is just the DFL's latest desperate attempt to not look the party of big government.
Posted Monday, February 8, 2010 2:37 AM
Comment 1 by mnpolwatcher at 08-Feb-10 03:11 PM
Your post is a scathing indictment of Tim Pawlenty and his administration's do-nothing approach to economic development.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Feb-10 06:09 PM
What type of drugs are you using??? The DFL's economic policies have been to expand the public works budget (2007-08) & to pray for manna from Heaven, aka stimulus money, in 2009.
The DFL still remains the party whose primary objective is to fund a twentieth century government. The MNGOP is the only political party in Minnesota that's intent on building a twenty-first century economy.
The DFL will weap when Minnesota voters render that verdict the first Tuesday in November.
Comment 2 by Walter Hanson at 08-Feb-10 06:37 PM
Gary:
Hasn't Minnesota unemployment shot up dramitically since that transportation bill was passed? Where's the jobs it created?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by The Lady Logician at 08-Feb-10 09:27 PM
mnpolwatcher - you are either being sarcastic or you have no clue as to how our government works. I certainly hope it is the former, because if it is the latter, you need to go back to middle school.
LL
Comment 4 by eric z. at 09-Feb-10 06:18 AM
The issue you all are ducking is how the sulfide mining is to be done.
Either regulate it for the environment the capital providers share with the rest of us, and make the process more costly; or do it on the cheap, as private sector left alone would opt for - socializing the costs of not spending sufficient private capital to do it cleanly.
Any thoughts, twenty-first century economic gurus?
Let them rip it all asunder with Pinkertons to handle any malcontents?
Sarah Palin's Tour de Force Speech
Saturday night, I watched Sarah Palin deliver a spell-binding, stirring speech that, I suspect, reached well beyond the GOP's traditional conservative base. In doing so, Sarah Palin demonstrated that this movement isn't confined to the Republican Party, though she emmphasized that the "Republican Party would be very smart to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible."
One of her best lines was about Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts:
The White House blamed the candidate, their candidate, and Nancy Pelosi, she blamed Senate Democrats, and Rahm Emanuel, he criticized a pollster. And yet again, President Obama, he found a way to make this all about George Bush. When you're 0-for-3, you'd better stop lecturing and start listening.Gov. Palin spent a substantial amount of time during opening portion of her hour-long speech criticizing President Obama's foreign policy, first saying this:
Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risk. To win that war, we need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.After that, she leveled this shot on President Obama's SOTU speech:
It's no wonder that our president only spent about 9 percent of his State of the Union address discussing national security, foreign policy, because there aren't a whole lot of victories he can talk about.The best tweak she gave to President Obama, though, was this line:
Well, a special hello to the C-SPAN viewers. You may not be welcome in those health care negotiations but you have an invitation to the TEA Party.NRO's Robert Costa reminds us in this post of another Palin tweak of President Obama:
" The tea-party movement is about the people" and "it's a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter ."Here's another great snippet from her speech:
I am a big supporter of this movement. I believe in this movement. I've got lots of friends and family in the lower 48 who attend these events and across this country knowing that this is a movement and America is ready for another revolution and you're all a part of it.Simply put, Sarah Palin is in touch with the American people. She knows how worried people are about the Democrats' lack of spending discipline. She gets it that there are times when bipartisanship is overrated, that there's times when fiercely defending the principles that our Founding Fathers and our great leaders since have espoused isn't just the right thing to do but the only thing to do.
Most important in Gov. Palin's speech was her exhorting those gathered in the hall and those watching on TV to make the movement about policies, not personalities. During her speech, she also talked about returning to free market principles and living within the limits of the Tenth Amendment. She staked out solid federalist ground.
During the speech, I couldn't help but think that having Sarah Palin visit your district will yield more positive results than visits from President Obama or Speaker Pelosi.
A post on Gov. Palin's speech simply wouldn't be complete without mentioning her tweaking the Obama administration's secretiveness. At one point, she criticized Vice President Biden's transparency committee on tracking stimulus money, saying that she tried getting information on the meeting, only to find out that the transparency meeting "was held behind closed doors."
Simply put, the GOP nomination is her's barring something unforeseen happening. She's a rock star. More importantly, she's shown an ability to connect with people of all political stripes since entering the national stage 18 months ago. Her fiscal conservative credentials are solid. Her willingness to take on corruption wherever it's found is well-documented. Her pro-life credentials are impeccable. Federalists, constitutionalists and libertarians won't have any difficulty supporting her.
Whether she runs or not in 2012, there's no denying the fact that she'd start with an incredible GOTV army and impressive base of support, not to mention the fact that she'd have incredible fundraising abilities.
In summation, there's no question that Saturday night's speech to the National TEA Party Convention will elevate her standing with middle class voters and people who've become frustrated with government's desire to control people's lives.
After last night, there's no questioning where the pecking order starts with in the GOP.
Posted Sunday, February 7, 2010 3:09 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Feb-10 09:12 AM
"I couldn't help but think that having Sarah Palin visit your district will yield more positive results than visits from President Obama or Speaker Pelosi."
I don't know about that; Sarah pillow would be a big boost for any Republican candidate, certainly, but I think president Obama could do a Republican candidate a lot of good, too. :-)
They Built a Better Idiot
There's an old saying I learned years ago from my uncle, who said that "There's no sense making anything idiot-proof. They'll just build a better idiot." That appears to be the case with the Twin Cities media scene.
For years, bloggers like Mitch Berg and John Hinderaker have ridiculed Nick Coleman with their dissections of his mentally incoherent columns. Many is the time I've enjoyed watching these talented bloggers turn Nick Coleman's writings into examples of deranged liberal incompetence.
There comes a time, though, when a torch is passed. In this instance, it isn't so much passed as it's snatched from Coleman's hands by someone who makes Nick Coleman almost look reasonable. ALMOST. The newest useful idiot on the deranged liberal scene is the CityPages' Hart van Denburg. This morning, Hart's column states that Gov. Tim Pawlenty mischaracterized something that President Obama:
So Gov. Tim Pawlenty is making a trip to Las Vegas to help defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. That part's fine. Politicians do this stuff all the time. But in announcing his trip on Facebook, Pawlenty says he's going to "defy President Obama's orders" by making the trip.I thought about saying something like "if the Marxist shoe fits...", then thought better of it. Then our newest deranged liberal launches into a factcheck of what President Obama said:
Orders? Cute line. Probably aimed at, well, "misinformed" folks who think that a democratically elected president is actually a Marxist dictator.
What he's alluding to, while leaving out the crucial, actual truth, are some impolitic remarks that Obama made just about a year ago in Indiana, when he was asked at a town hall meeting what he thought about the lavish bonuses enjoyed by corporate CEOs bailed out by taxpayers. Thanks to the Reality Based Community we know what Obama actually said :First, it's time that Hart learned something that politicians occasionally use. It's called a sense of humor. In this instance, Gov. Pawlenty used a very dry, sarcastic form of humor It's worth noting that this isn't uncommon with Gov. Pawlenty.
"You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you pay taxpayers back. You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime. There's got to be some accountability and some responsibility."
Second, I'm fairly certain that Gov. Pawlenty wasn't referring to President Obama's year-old comments. Rather, I'm betting that Gov. Pawlenty was referring to President Obama's ill-advised comments last week :
"You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. It's time your government did the same."Gov. Pawlenty simply highlighted President Obama's ill-advised, boneheaded really, criticism of Las Vegas. Van Deburg needs to not get his undies in a bunch over something this trivial. More importantly, he needs to get a sense of humor.
Most importantly, van Deburg needs to get a life. Whining about a politician's tongue-in-cheek comments isn't likely to attract readers.
Posted Sunday, February 7, 2010 1:40 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Feb-10 02:48 PM
All liberals are like the line from Men In Black: "Ma'am, we're with the FBI and we do not have a sense of humor of which we are aware."
Real Negotiations or Presidential Photo Op?
The first reaction I had when I read that President Obama has finally invited Republicans to the White House to talk about health care was "What took you so long?" The next thought I had was whether he'd insist that some of their ideas be included in a health care bill. Anything's possible but I'll stay skeptical until there's proof that this isn't just a presidential photo-op.
The Feb. 25 meeting's prospects for success are far from clear. GOP leaders demanded Sunday that Democrats start from scratch, and White House aides said Obama had no plans to do so.Considering the fact that the Democrats' special interest groups fought for the public option in the Democrats' bill, I don't see how a bill passes if it has a number of provisions in it that the Republicans must insist on. The Democrats' special interest allies will fight against lawsuit abuse reform, which the Republicans must insist on being part health care legislation.
"If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio also threw some jabs while accepting Obama's invitation. He said he was glad the White House "finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation," adding that Americans have rejected "the job-killing, trillion-dollar government takeover of health care bills passed by the House and Senate."
Republicans must insist on that as proof that these negotiations are serious. In fact, the Republican negotiators should present President Obama and congressional Democrats with specific language for lawsuit abuse reform. Republicans should play hardball in insisting on this provision because the American people overwhelmingly support lawsuit abuse reform.
President Obama is already laying out a few pre-conditions for the negotiations:
Asked if he was willing to start from square one, the president said he wants "to look at the Republican ideas that are out there. And I want to be very specific. 'How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance markets so people with preexisting conditions, for example, can get health care?'"President Obama knows that greater competition and less governmental interference will lower costs. That isn't opinion. It's historical fact.
When Rush Limbaugh talked about his stay in a Hawaiian hospital after suffering chest pains, he told America that whenever a patient pays for the bill himself, hospitals offer a substantial discount to those patients because they don't have to deal with insurance companies or government bureaucrats. That isn't unique to that specific hospital either. That's true at every hospital in America.
I'm more than a little skeptical of President Obama's statements. When he visited the House Republicans' retreat 2 weeks ago, President Obama said that he'd read Paul Ryan's health care plan and knew what was in it. If President Obama was telling the truth that day, then he'd know that Ryan's Patients' Choice Act (PCA) legislation addresses insuring people with PECs :
SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS.President Obama's statements this weekend lead me to believe that his complimenting Paul Ryan were more for effect than they were sincere compliments.
(4) LIMITATION ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS- The State Exchange shall ensure that health insurance coverage offered through the Exchange meets the requirements of section 9801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the same manner as if such coverage was a group health plan.
The PCA is the result of Rep. Paul Ryan, Rep. Devin Nunes, Sen. Tom Coburn and Sen. Richard Burr investing their time and their intellect. It's a good faith effort to reform health care. Having interveiwed Paul Ryan and knowing how serious a man Tom Coburn is, there's no reason for me to think that this is anything but serious legislation whose goal is to fix what's broken in the health care system while keeping what's right with the system intact.
Another reason why I'm skeptical that President Obama isn't serious about bipartisan health care reform is because he can't afford to differ with his special interest allies:
White House officials said Sunday that Obama does not intend to restart the health care legislative process from scratch. Many liberal groups and lawmakers want congressional Democrats to use all the parliamentary muscle they have to enact the measure that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, employing rules that could bypass GOP filibusters to make changes demanded by House Democrats.I've said many times that universal health care is the Democrats' Holy Grail. Achieving that would put eternal smiles on their faces. This White House statement further adds to my skepticism:
A White House statement Sunday said Obama repeatedly has made it clear " that he's adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate ."In other words, his invitation is just another opportunity for him to talk bipartisanship while acting in a totally partisan way. There's nothing in that quote that says bipartisanship. The only message emanating from that quote is 'It's all about hardball partisan politics.'
"He hopes to have Republican support in doing so, but he is going to move forward on health reform," the statement said.
Finally, this post wouldn't be complete without Harry Reid's quote on bipartisanship:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "we have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one."That's hilarious. Obviously, Sen. Reid thinks of bipartisanship as locking Republicans out while Max Baucus, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel combined the Finance Committee's bill with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill. Sen. Reid might think that voting on a bill without letting any senator read the bill is an exercise in bipartisanship. (I'm betting that Nevada voters will tell Sen. Reid that that isn't their picture of bipartisanship but that's another story.)
This is a test of President Obama's seriousness and sincerity. If these negotiations aren't serious, he'll pay a hefty price for it in terms of credibility. If people reach the conclusion that his words are meaningless, they won't trust him. Once that's gone, everything is an uphill fight.
Personally, I think this is a political ploy aimed at attracting independents. I don't think it's a serious attempt at bipartisanship because the Democrats' special interest allies can't afford for it to be a serious attempt at bipartisanship.
That's why these negotiations will fail.
Posted Monday, February 8, 2010 1:28 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 08-Feb-10 06:40 PM
Gary:
I got an idea for a bill and it can fit on this web post.
In the United States any company or individual can buy a health care policy with no mandates at all.
Wow what a simple and easy bill. You think Obama and the Democrats will want to support something to revolutionary.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Unallotment Deadline Looming
According to this AP article , Gov. Palwenty's administration has until Tuesday to explain why it chose to unallot:
State lawyers representing Pawlenty have a deadline for filing a brief to the high court over his so-called unallotments. Pawlenty is appealing a lower court ruling that said he went too far in balancing the budget on his own.I quoted Minnesota's unallotment in this post . Here's the language of the statute:
If the commissioner [of finance] determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated , and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed, the commissioner shall , with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue.I said then that the legislature was told that, had the DFL's budget become law, the budget surplus would've been a whopping $3,625 at the end of the biennium. In other words, the commissioner of finance's best estimate couldn't guarantee that the DFL's budget would've balanced. In other words, there isn't proof that the DFL legislature met its constitutional responsibility.
Based on the unallotment provision's language, Gov. Pawlenty was obligated to unallot.
I've talked with numerous State Capitol insiders. Without exception, they think that, though the DFL publicly says that Judge Kathleen Gearin's ruling was a great victory, privately, they're scared to death that Minnesota's Supreme Court will uphold Judge Gearin's ruling. The people I've talked with say that the only thing coming out of this trial is additional scrutiny on the DFL's budget.
Speaker Kelliher certainly doesn't want this scrutinized because she couldn't hold her caucus together, with Reps. Poppe and Pelowski abandoning her on overriding Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the Tax Omnibus Bill.
Vulnerable DFL incumbents certainly don't want the additional scrutiny. First, their vote for a major income tax increase won't sit well with small businesses. Second, The fact that the tax increase didn't even come close to closing the deficit won't sit well with many voters. Third, this just gives their opponents ammunition to label DFL incumbents as disorganized and pawns of the DFL leadership. That isn't where they want to be, especially heading into an election cycle with them running into a stiff wind.
This is a test of Minnesota's Supreme Court, too. The unallotment provision's language is unambiguous. If the Finance Commissioner determines that Minnesota's biennial budget spends more than they'll take in, the statute says he will, "the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission," reduce state's rainy day fund first, then, if necessary, start unalloting until the budget balances.
There was no money in Minnesota's rainy day fund after the 2008 budget agreement.
If Minnesota's Supreme Court rules according to the letter of the law, then Judge Gearin's ruling will be overturned. That's because, in past rulings, the Supreme Court has held that unallotment is constitutional because the legislature was ruled to have given the executive branch the authority to unallot.
Here's the bottom line: Whether Minnesota's Supreme Court rules in Judge Gearin's favor or not, Gov. Pawlenty will unallot. Judge Gearin admitted in her TRO that current conditions would allow Gov. Pawlenty to unallot.
Finally, this puts a gun to the DFL leadership's head. Either they pass legislation that meets with Gov. Pawlenty's approval or he vetoes the bill, then unallots. If the DFL proposes anything remotely similar to the budget that they proposed last year, they'll suffer more defections than they experienced last year. If that happened, Speaker Kelliher's gubernatorial hopes would be essentially be extinguished.
Posted Monday, February 8, 2010 11:30 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Feb-10 10:14 AM
I hope you are not counting on Squeaker Kelliher's rational behavior, looking after her own political aspirations. First, because they aren't that great to begin with, but more importantly, because wild-eyed liberals like MA-K aren't rational. It remains to be seen whether or not the MNSC is rational, or whether they think the State can spend money it doesn't have and can't get.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-Feb-10 10:29 AM
Jerry, Why would I start relying on MA-K's rational behavior after watching her the last 3 years?
Even though she's an egomaniac, she isn't stupid enough in private to not know that she doesn't want voters to scrutinize the last-minute budget that the DFL passed.
As for the Supreme Court, there's already precedent on the constitutionality question. Unless this court rules that unallotment is unconstitutional, Judge Gearin's ruling will be overturned.
Comment 3 by joe repya at 08-Feb-10 11:06 AM
Gary wrote: "I said then that the legislature was told that, had the DFL's budget become law, the budget surplus would've been a whopping $3,625 at the end of the biennium".
Gary, Did you mean to say "budget deficit would've been a whopping $3.625"?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Feb-10 11:29 AM
Joe, I said what I meant & meant what I said. The Finance Commissioner's projection was that, had the DFL's legislation become law, Minnesota would have had a surplus of three thousand six hundred twenty-five dollars at the end of the biennium.
Comment 4 by Duke Powell at 08-Feb-10 11:27 AM
"Speaker Kelliher certainly doesn't want this scrutinized because she couldn't hold her caucus together, with Reps. Hoppe and Pelowski abandoning her on overriding Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the Tax Omnibus Bill."
Gary, its Rep Jeanne Poppe, not Rep Joe Hoppe, that I believe you are referring to here.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 08-Feb-10 11:31 AM
Duke, Good catch. I got it right the first time with the Technorati tags but got it wrong in the text of the post. That's now been corrected.
Comment 6 by joe repya at 08-Feb-10 11:41 AM
Gary, Sorry you took my question as an insult. Have a nice day!
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Feb-10 12:03 PM
Joe, I didn't take your comment as an insult. I just wanted to make clear what I'd said. Feel free to stop back anytime.
The Obama Administration's Misuse of Miranda
Last week, the Obama administration went to great lengths that they were still getting information from Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab despite the FBI's Mirandizing him. Frankly, that's missing the point. Here's what Wikipedia says about Miranda rights:
The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).First, it's worth noting that, prior to this administration, Miranda only applied to criminals. Second, it's worth noting that, since terrorists never have to be released, there isn't a need to Mirandize a terrorist. That's only important if the federal government thought it was important to prosecute terrorists in federal criminal court. Third, it's important to note that the Obama administration is using a double standard.
When Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his bomb over Detroit on Christmas Day, Abdulmutallab thought that that airplane was his battlefield just like the mountains of Tora Bora were was for bin Laden. The American people wouldn't accept this, or any other, administration Mirandizing bin Laden. Clearly, the American people have rejected as failed policy the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.
Marc Thiessen is right in pointing out that, even after a terrorist has been captured and he's been stripped of his weapons, he's still a threat to our national security because he still has knowledge of (a) future terrorist plots, (b) existing terrorist networks and (c) where terrorist training camps are hidden.
Until they've drained every bit of information about these things from a terrorist, neither the CIA nor the FBI should think about anything other than interrogating the terrorist. Even after that, in the interest of national security, no administration should consider Mirandizing a terrorist because we always want to keep open the option of interrogating him.
Let's further stipulate that the Obama administration's use of drones to kill terrorists is bad policy. Furthermore, President Obama says that it's important that terrorists captured on battlefields above the United States should receive due process rights with a full set of constitutional rights. Why should terrorists captured on the battlefields of Yemen, Afghanistan or Pakistan be summarily executed? Why should someone monitoring UAV flights be given the authority to play judge, jury and executioner?
I'd further suggest that killing high value terrorists without interrogating them is stupid. By killing high value terrorists like a KSM or abu Zubaydah, you lose an opportunity to gain insights into terrorist networks, their financing and training, and potentially into upcoming terrorist attacks.
Isn't that information significantly more important than bragging that we're killing terrorists with high tech toys? In fact, shouldn't this administration be asked why they aren't putting a high priority on gathering intel? I wrote about President Obama's alleged commitment to gathering as much intel as possible in this post :
In our ever-changing world, America's first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively.I questioned then President Obama's commitment to that principle because this statement was made after Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and after the American people criticized his administration for its mishandling of that intel opportunity.
This administration's tactics and strategies in gathering intel on the jihadists has been lackluster at best and foolish to downright dangerous at worst. This administration should put a higher priority on gathering intel than it's putting on giving terrorists constitutional protections. Until that changes, we won't be as safe as is possible.
Posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 12:35 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 09-Feb-10 06:06 AM
A presumption you make is that intelligence once attained is presented cleanly and in an unbiased way to decision makers.
Like the yellow-cake and weapons of mass destruction still in Iraq stories fed the nation by war mongers.
Flow of information free of agendas within the gathering and distribution machinery is a premise that some might challenge as more dream and fiction than reality among the people and institutions involved.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-10 06:23 AM
Eric, Eric, Eric. Still dwelling on the 'Sixteen Words' SOTU, are you? The 'Sixteen Words' SOTU that's been vindicated, I might add:
The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information - from several sources - that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Nigeria's exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.Question the intelligence that was gained after KSM was waterboarded if you'd like but that's the sworn testimony given under oath by half a dozen people of varying political leanings, from Robert Mueller to James Woolsey to Condi Rice.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 09-Feb-10 05:55 PM
Follow the yellow cake road?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-10 06:50 PM
This isn't that difficult, Eric. The trick is to see what was said in the SOTU, not what was said in Joe Wilson's NYT op-ed. What President Bush said in his SOTU is accurate. Joe Wilson's accusation was that President Bush had said that Iraq had bought yellowcake from Nigeria. President Bush didn't say that. Here's what President Bush actually said:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ."That's entirely different than what Liar Joe Wilson accused President Bush of saying.
Is Seifert Running From Energy Vote?
DISCLAIMER: I am a member of Tom Emmer's Steering Committee.
During Monday's livechat , Marty Seifert was asked this question:
I have heard some talk about your views on cap and trade, that you would not vote for that...but how come you voted for an energy bill while serving in the state legislature?Here's Mr. Seifert's response:
Marty Seifert: The energy bill you are referring to was not a cap and trade bill. 39 of 49 House Republicans voted for the bill, including Rep. Emmer's supporters Laura Brod and Matt Dean. I am not for cap and trade any more than those two solid Republicans are. Governor Pawlenty negotiated this bill which started out much worse than the final product. My energy plan is to lift the nuclear moratorium and expand affordable energy choices. I am absolutely opposed to any cap and trade scheme.I wanted to gather some information on M-RETS before forming an opinion so I did some research into M-RETS, (which stands for Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System). Here's one of the first tidbits of information I found out about M-RETS:
The Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (M-RETS) tracks renewable energy generation in participating States and Provinces and assists in verifying compliance with individual state/provincial or voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and objectives. M-RETS is an important tool to keep track of all relevant information about renewable energy produced and delivered in the region.In other words, the legislation authorizes the tracking of how much reneewable energy is being generated and the creation of something called a renewable energy credit. This sounded suspiciously similar to the carbon credits that will be traded if Cap and Trade is ever enacted so I contacted an expert in the energy field. This expert said that this type of infrastructure could turn out to be a preliminary step towards establishing a Cap and Trade program.
Currently, several States and Provinces participate in M-RETS: Illinois, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have policies in place requiring or strongly encouraging utility development of renewable resources. Additional States and Provinces in the region are expected to join M-RETS after launch. M-RETS uses verifiable production data for all participating generators and creates a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) in the form of a tradable digital certificate for each MWh.
To be fair, this expert said that establishing a Cap and Trade program isn't a guarantee. During this exchange, it was confirmed that this legislation isn't about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just about increasing renewable energy production.
The next logical step, I was told, was enacting legislation mandating a certain level of renewable energy production. While that might sound good, the reality is that renewable energy is significantly more expensive than energy created by coal-fired or nuclear power plants.
According to this website , there are some benchmarks that they want to achieve. Here's a couple of interesting tidbits of information that should be considered:
The standard for Xcel Energy requires that eligible renewable electricity account for 30% of total retail electricity sales (including sales to retail customers of a distribution utility to which Xcel Energy provides wholesale service) in Minnesota by 2020. Of the 30% renewables required of Xcel Energy in 2020, "at least" 25% must be generated by wind-energy or solar energy systems, with solar limited to no more than 1% of the requirement. The solar provision was added by S.B. 550 in May 2009. In effect, this means that the wind standard is at least 24%, solar may contribute up to 1%, and the "remaining" 5% may be generated using other eligible technologies.In other words, if legislation passes that changes the goals to mandates, Minnesotans' utility bills will significantly increase. It's important to remember that this isn't about controlling greenhouse gas emissions, though the activists that push Cap and Trade are the activists that pushed this legislation through.
Finally, Seifert's mention that Matt Dean and Laura Brod voted for this legislation is irrelevant. First, this is about the voting decision Marty Seifert made as opposed to the voting decision Tom Emmer made. In this instance, Tom Emmer voted against more expensive energy bills for Minnesota's taxpayers. Second, according to the House Journal's recording of the final vote , Matt Dean voted against the final passage of the bill along with Bruce Anderson, Mark Buesgens, Chris DeLaForest, Mary Liz Holberg, Paul Kohls, Mark Olson, Ron Shimanski and Kurt Zellers.
The information in this paragraph can't be ignored:
Utilities are required to file annual compliance reports with the PUC detailing their retail sales, REC retirements, and REC trading activities. If the PUC finds a utility is noncompliant, the commission may order the utility to construct facilities , purchase eligible renewable electricity, purchase RECs or engage in other activities to achieve compliance. If a utility fails to comply, the PUC may impose a financial penalty on the utility in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of achieving compliance. The penalty may not exceed the lesser of the cost of constructing facilities or purchasing credits and proceeds must be deposited into a special account reserved for energy and conservation improvements. The PUC is authorized to modify or delay the implementation of the standards if the commission determines it is in the public interest to do so.I'd love hearing Mr. Seifert explain how this mandate is substantially different from a cap and trade system. Specifically, I'd like to know whether this isn't just another way to wean us from fossil fuels.
Posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 2:51 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 09-Feb-10 06:02 AM
Well, you have convinced me, Gary.
Siefert has a better head on his shoulders.
Emmer wants to continue shipping wealth to middle east tinder box states with oil in the ground.
Or to rip up Wyoming to create fly ash and acid rain problems east of Wyoming.
Siefert wants something better, you say.
Okay, I believe it. Siefert's the better choice and Sutton says, thanks.
Comment 2 by Green Tips at 09-Feb-10 01:31 PM
I guess you'll never hear him explain that. It's all corrupted.
"If the PUC finds a utility is noncompliant,..." and trust me, they certainly will.
Comment 3 by Average Joe at 10-Feb-10 08:52 AM
So what you're saying is that, even though you want this to be about cap and trade you couldn't make a connection without a bunch of "if this happens" conjecture it *could* help a *future* c/t bill.
I am so disappointed in Emmer supporters. In an attempt to find differences they're turning to simply making stuff up. The fact is, a whole list of very conservative House Republicans voted for this who'd never support a real cap and trade bill. If this bill - granted, not a perfect bill - had even the whiff of being a cap and trade bill not one of them, including Seifert, would have supported it.
It's sad but I'm starting to see a dishonest streak in Emmer and his supporters with this made up "issue".
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Feb-10 09:05 AM
Joe, If you ever make the accusation that I've been dishonest without presenting proof again, I'll ban you from this site. What I said is accurate because it's based on what's posted on the relevant parties' websites, including the State of Minnesota website.
It isn't that I have a problem with people voting differently than myself. It's that I don't much like it when people won't defend their taking an unpopular vote.
Comment 4 by Cindy at 10-Feb-10 01:28 PM
Bravo, Gary! Thank you for sharing the truth! (And why does Seifert feel compelled to bring Rep. Matt Dean into this?)
Comment 5 by John Anderson at 10-Feb-10 01:54 PM
Gary, you are a big supporter of Laura Brod. If she ran for Governor, would you be hatcheting her like Marty Seifert, since she voted the same way he did?
Marty Seifert is a solid, conservative leader and after reading many good items on your blog, I have to say that this is disappointing. You are being used by the Emmer campaign to smear a good man over one single vote.
It looks like the only way Emmer can win is to bend the truth and trash Marty Seifert. Answer me this: did 39 House Republicans including great people like Brod, Severson, and Gottwalt vote for Cap and Trade when they voted for that bill?! Yes or No.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Feb-10 02:03 PM
John, When did pointing out differences turn into smearing someone? This wasn't a personal attack. That's my definition of smearing someone.
Yes, I'm a fan of Laura Brod's. She's a great legislator, as are Dan Severson & Steve Gottwalt. I simply disagreed with their votes this time.
When I disagree with Marty, I'll point that out. I won't attack Marty on a personal basis because I agree with you. Marty is a good guy. I just prefer Tom over Marty.
Comment 6 by Gipper at 10-Feb-10 04:26 PM
I like how the Seifert supporters don't actually dispute the substance, they just try to change the subject.
Here are the facts: The Next Generation Energy Act, which Seifert championed and voted for, imposed renewable energy mandates on utilities. This is another way of saying that it "capped" the percentage of energy that utilities could produce from proven energy sources like coal, oil, and natural gas.
It then created a "trading" system of renewable energy credits that utilities could use to buy and sell.
Sure sounds a lot like cap and trade to me. The only difference is that the federal cap and trade legislation places caps on the total amount of carbon emissions and the Seifert-backed Next Generation Energy Act places caps on the percentage of energy produced by fossil fuels. But they have the same effect.
Bottom line, when Seifert says "I am absolutely opposed to any cap and trade scheme," he needs to explain whether he's changed his mind since he voted for, and advocated for, the Next Generation Energy Act.
Comment 7 by Gipper at 10-Feb-10 04:35 PM
Here's the bill, for those of you who have been misled by Seifert: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=law&year=2007&sn=0&num=3
Comment 8 by W.J. at 10-Feb-10 10:41 PM
Doesn't anyone see a lack of leadership in the approach Seifert is using to try to make it seem better that he voted for cap and trade. It is an approach common to what happens when children get caught doing something bad ... "well, they did it too."
In fact, it is that type of behavior that we too often in politics which has gotten Republicans into trouble by simply following along rather than standing on principle. That is not leadership. Any candidate who tries to use what others did to explain their own actions is a follower, not a leader and that is not someone we need as governor.
Seifert might want to let the whole whisper campaign and childish antics go and focus on something that matters. Seifert is not being attacked, his votes are being questioned. Lets all move on.
Plouffe's Losing Strategy
Prior to the 2006 midterms, Karl Rove highlighted the plan to maintain control of Congress. The Architect said that 2006 would be about presenting the electorate a choice between the Democrats and congressional Republicans. As they say, the rest is history.
That's what makes me curious why David Plouffe would want to turn this year's midterms into a choice election :
Ask David Plouffe how Democrats can recover from their electoral setbacks over the past few months and he has a simple answer: Republicans.In my opinion, that's a foolish strategy, especially in light of this polling :
"Politics is a comparative exercise," Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama's presidential campaign, told the Fix in his first extended interview since he took on a broadened political role for the White House in advance of the midterm elections. "This isn't just a referendum on Democrats or our party. It's a choice."
That choice was made explicit far too late in last month's special Senate election in Massachusetts between then-state Sen. Scott Brown (R) and state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), Plouffe noted. "Everyone would agree that the definition of Brown should have happened a lot sooner and a lot more clearly," he said.
Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.On health care, Republicans are trusted more than Democrats by 49-37 percent, a 12 point margin. Republicans lead Democrats by a 50-34 percent on the issue of taxes, which will grow in importance as the expiration date of the Bush tax cuts draws near.
But the latest national survey finds that the two major political parties are much closer this month on the top issue of the economy. Forty-six percent (46%) of voters trust the GOP more on economic issues, while 42% trust Democrats more. Another 12% are undecided. Last month, Republicans held an 11-point edge on the issue and had a 12-point lead in November.
This statistic should scare Democrats the most: Likely voters trust Republicans by a 45-35 percent margin ON SOCIAL SECURITY !!!
What is clear, however, is that Plouffe has been assigned to apply his meticulous, detail-oriented approach to competitive races across the country, ensuring that the White House and the DNC do everything they can to sniff out problems and offer solutions, and not be surprised by another Scott Brown.The DNC better raise alot of money quickly because Mr. Plouffe will need lots of staff this year. There's gonna be alot of races needing Mr. Plouffe's attention this summer.
Plouffe, aware of the challenges for Democrats, said that if people know both the "positive" Democratic story and the "comparative" message against Republicans, the predictions of political Armageddon will be far short of the reality this fall.Here's what Dick Morris said on Hannity Monday night:
"The wisest thing to do is prepare for a very tough election," Plouffe advised members of his party. "But in this kind of turbulent electoral environment, I don't think any of us should presume an electoral outcome."
This weekend, I'm doing the final revisions on my new book "2010: Take Back America, a Battle Plan" and I finished writing the section on the House races last month. And now they sent me the galleys for me to correct. And I listed 35 possible tight races. I went through it again, looking at the modern polling and we're up to 60 tight races. Like Kirk in Illinois was 6 points behind and now he's 6 points ahead. It's unbelievable the changes.It's important that we remember that GOP candidate recruitment is still a work in progress. As more polling shows that the Democrats are in trouble, the easier candidate recruitment gets for Kevin McCarthy and John Cornyn. If things keep improving for Republicans but at a slower pace, Plouffe will have 75 competitive races to deal with on a daily basis.
Recently, Michael Barone, the man who's forgotten more demographic information in every House district in America than I can imagine accumulating, said this in the aftermath of Scott Brown's improbable victory in Massachusetts:
Anyway, there's a pattern here: Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.Right now, Democrats have north of 250 House members. Assuming that Barone's pontifications are accurate, that means there are approximately 150 Democrat seats that are in play. While I'm skeptical of that high of a total, I'mcertain that there are far more seats in play than the Democrats are letting on. I'm partially basing my opinion on this information:
Let's extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103.
Some troubling news for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN? Maybe. A poll conducted for the National Republican Senatorial Committee shows that the two-term senator may be vulnerable to a challenge, presumably from former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.), largely because of voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic health-care legislation and the flight of independents from the Democratic Party.Sen. Bayh has always touted himself as a centrist. That isn't possible anymore because after voting for President Obama's failed stimulus bill and for Pelosicare. Saying that you're a fiscal hawk after voting for a pork-filled stimulus bill that was about paying off the Democrats' political allies and voting for a huge new entitlement program isn't the way to maintain credibility as the taxpayers' watchdog.
The survey, which was conducted by GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, showed that six in 10 Indiana voters oppose the health-care plan and 32 percent support it. And the opposition to the legislation is passionate, 48 percent said they strongly opposed the measure passed by the Senate.
Independents, who voted heavily for Obama and helped him shock the political world by carrying the Hoosier State in 2008, have swung in the opposite direction in the Conway poll; 40 percent said they would vote for an unnamed Republican candidate for office and 19 percent chose an unnamed Democrat.
In normal years, Sen. Bayh's seat wouldn't be on the radar. Now, his seat is definitely in play. That's the bad news. The worst news is that his isn't the only seat where an established Democrat is in trouble. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray are in trouble, too, to varying degress.
Whatever happens this fall, Mr. Plouffe will work his behind off trying to stave off a disaster.
Posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 4:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 09-Feb-10 05:56 AM
Trustworthiness? Who to trust more, Siefert? Emmer?
Any thoughts there, Gary?
Second point, what's the trust level for politicians? I trust them more than car thieves. More than Wall Street CEO's.
Beyond that, neither party is very trustworthy, beyond a handful of largely marginalized individuals. Everyone else is in play.
I have even trusted some people close to me who ended up not treating me as decently as I'd have liked.
Why trust strangers who are balancing their money sources' interests against money source intreests in the second of two parties our politics has offered us?
I even once trusted NBA officiating.
Brennan Is Today's Talking Points Messenger
Republicans must've gotten under President Obama's skin with their questioning of the non-interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. I suspect this because John Brennan's op-ed in USA Today has a rather defensive tone to it. Here's what I'm talking about:
Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.This is such a compilation of Barbra Streisand. Brennan is insulting our intelligence by saying that they conducted a thorough interrogation. What Mr. Brennan isn't admitting is that it's impossible to conduct a thorough interrogation in less than an hour, during which time the captured terrorist was in extreme pain and not consistently coherent.
The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation.
It's naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.
Second, it wasn't "standard procedure" to Mirandize terrorists. Prior to this administration, it's been standard policy to make that type of decision on a case-by-case basis.
Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community.Mr. Brennan, why should be think that terrorists will be "dismantled and destroyed by our military" when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted in a recent press coference that she was surprised that al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula was so well organized? It's next to impossible to destroy things that you don't know exist, isn't it?
I almost feel sorry for Mr. Brennan. Clearly, he was the Obama administration's sacrificial lamb on this, sent out to spew the administration's talking points, talking points that were incredibly easy to discredit.
Posted Tuesday, February 9, 2010 6:44 PM
No comments.
