February 8-9, 2009
Feb 08 00:42 Broadcaster Freedom Act vs. Fairness Doctrine Feb 08 11:14 Leading Indicator That Bloom is Off Obama's Rose Feb 08 16:03 The Audacity of Hope, The Sting of Reality? Feb 08 21:50 What If? Feb 09 03:05 To Trust or Not to Trust Obama's Economic Plan Feb 09 12:09 Sen Coleman on At Issue Feb 09 15:09 Are Democrats Out Of Touch On Stimulus Bill? Feb 09 19:53 **BREAKING NEWS** LFR EXCLUSIVE Feb 09 22:25 Important Townhall Meetings Scheduled
Prior Months: Jan
Broadcaster Freedom Act vs. Fairness Doctrine
Mike Pence and other First Amendment-loving conservatives submitted for consideration the Broadcaster Freedom Act. By contrast, Sen. Debbie Stabenow thinks holding hearings on the Fairness Doctrine is worthwhile. After reading this official statement , it's easy to understand why Rep. Pence is on the side of the angels:
"Every American who cherishes the freedom of our radio airwaves should be troubled to learn that Democratic Senators are planning hearings to show why we need to return censorship to talk radio.I'd just add this to Rep. Pence's statement: If this bill gets a final vote, it will pass because no sane-thinking representative will oppose it because their opponent will beat them into submission by running commercials branding politicians that vote against the BFA as opposing the First Amendment.
Congress has no business pursuing hearings on censorship of our radio airwaves. While I denounce any call for censorship, this comes as no surprise since leading Democrats in the House and Senate have openly advocated a return of the Fairness Doctrine.
Congress should reject any hearings on The Fairness Doctrine or any form of censorship of the American press. Congress should bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the floor for a vote immediately and send this Depression era censorship to the ash heap of broadcast history.
Now is the time for every American who cherishes the dynamic forum of American talk radio to make their voices heard and demand that the Broadcaster Freedom Act be brought up for a vote.
If the Broadcaster Freedom Act is brought to the floor of Congress it will surely pass because every time freedom gets a vote in the People's House, freedom always wins."
Posted Sunday, February 8, 2009 12:43 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Feb-09 12:48 PM
If the Fairness doctrine comes up for a vote, fair-minded representatives simply need to amend it to include newspapers and TV. Can you imagine CBS giving 30 minutes of "60 minutes" to Rush Limbaugh?
Leading Indicator That Bloom is Off Obama's Rose
It isn't news that Republican politicians and conservative pundits have criticized President Obama. It's definitely news when a New England Democrat writes a stinging column criticizing a series of things about the Obama administration. I'll give Ms. Venocchi credit for not pulling her punches in this column :
As he approaches the three-week mark of his presidency, it's not surprising that Obama remains somewhat in campaign mode. But it's campaign mode without an obvious game plan and some of the eloquence that defined him as a candidate.It's difficult figuring out President Obama's economic strategy other than his undisciplined free-spending bent :
"So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)"Mr. President, I'd doubt that the American people would agree that spending unprecedented amounts of money without having an overarching economic plan is "the point."
I agree that there's an overarching strategy behind the spending. It's just that it's an overarching political strategy, not economic strategy. Had President Obama not campaigned as a 'pure-as-the-driven-snow' postpartisan reformer, people wouldn't be criticizing him.
It isn't pretty seeing postpartisan presidents descend from Olympus to play the role of pork-barrel, business-as-usual Democrat president. In fact, it's downright difficult to watch. Ms. Venocchi also unloaded this:
As a candidate, Obama did many things right. His thinking was always strategic and his speeches were smartly timed. One thing he didn't do was draw any lines within the vast universe of Democratic interest groups; he never said "no" to anyone.Highlighting the fact that President Obama and congressional Democrats can't forever run against President Bush must be a cold slap in the face for Democrats. Highlighting that realization strips away one of the Democrats' most successful, time-tested tactics.
Now, he must. Otherwise, Republicans will keep on tapping into the ideological talking points that didn't work during the presidential campaign. They are bound to work better now that George W. Bush is no longer president. Obama ran against Republican John McCain. But he beat Bush, not conservatism.
Ms. Venocchi is right, too, in saying then-Sen. Obama didn't defeat conservatism, that he defeated President Bush. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's administration revitalized conservatism, though I'd find it ironic and delicious.
I think it's important that we remind Senate Republicans that (a) people prefer tax cuts over spending increases by close to a 3:1 margin and that (b) President Obama didn't defeat conservatism. Republicans like Mike Huckabee and Ed Rollins and others have said that Reaganism is dead. I suspect that they believe this because they don't understand what Reaganism is.
These paragraphs explain why President Obama hasn't closed this deal with the American people:
In his speech to House Democrats in Williamsburg, Obama said that unless the stimulus package is passed quickly, more jobs and homes will be lost; more families will go without healthcare; and the country's dependence on foreign oil will continue. "That is the price of inaction," he said.TRANSLATION: The American people (a) know that they're being sold a bill of ideological goods masquerading as an economic package and (b) are reading things like the CBO analysis, or at least reading reports of it, in the newspaper.
But even the supposedly nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is challenging Obama's premise. It put out word that his plan would help in the short run but would hurt over time, by vastly increasing government debt.
It isn't helping that President Obama isn't able to put together a coherent rationale for spending this money. If he was able to do that, he wouldn't rationalize the spending by saying "We won" or by "That's the point" or other similar arguments.
One thing that's becoming clear is that President Obama can't keep ceding control of legislation to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I don't know that the White House's legislative proposals will be better but I'm certain it can't get worse than this legislation.
I'd bet that President Obama won't cede authority for his agenda to Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Reid again. If he keeps ceding his authority, his will be a one term presidency because Speaker Pelosi's agenda isn't America's agenda.
Posted Sunday, February 8, 2009 11:19 AM
Comment 1 by Jeff at 08-Feb-09 12:11 PM
I'm not sure if it makes sense. Economies go through cycles and recession is part of the cycle. I read the history of cycles at http://www.recessioninfocenter.com
The Audacity of Hope, The Sting of Reality?
Then-Sen. Obama campaigned on the slogan "Audacity of Hope". Unfortunately, he isn't living up to being a post-partisan, hopeful president. He campaigned on going to Washington to clean it up, something that I knew was pure rhetoric. Now comedians are making jokes about the inability of President Obama's nominees to pay taxes. They haven't started with the waivers signed by President Obama allowing lobbyists to serve in his cabinet but that's probably coming soon.
So dominant is the story of the tax cheaters being nominated to serve in President Obama's cabinet that Jack Kelly and Salena Zito focused on that subject their columns. Here's what Mr. Kelly wrote:
When in the last election Democrats spoke of a "culture of corruption" in Washington, few realized they were making a promise. The Obama administration is not yet three weeks old but already features a growing collection of ethically challenged officials.It's pretty embarassing for the pure-as-the-driven-snow president has nominated one of the most, if not the most, corrupt cabinet in recent history. Sen. Daschle at least had the decency of removing himself from consideration as HHS Secretary. That's more than can be said about Timothy Geithner, the head of the IRS who still hasn't paid all of his back taxes from his IMF days and who tried deducting his son's stay at summer camp because they qualified as dependent-care.
The late-night comics have noticed. "There was a huge scientific breakthrough today," said Jay Leno. "Researchers say they are very close to finding someone from Obama's Cabinet who's actually paid their taxes."
Mr. Leno was referring to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whose nomination for secretary of health and human services was withdrawn after it was disclosed that he didn't pay $101,000 worth of taxes owed for a car and driver, or $83,000 on consulting income, and Timothy Geithner, who was confirmed as treasury secretary despite his failure to pay payroll taxes for four years.
Salena Zito summarizes things nicely here:
Unfortunately for Obama, a little brand-tampering has occurred in the past two weeks: the tax challenges of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; the domestic-help tax issue of first-ever "performance czar" Nancy Killefer; the pay-to-play legal issues of Commerce nominee Bill Richardson; and the car-and-driver tax issues of Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle. Three of those four did not survive. And don't forget the Obama White House's all-lobbyists-are-bad-except-my-lobbyists exemptions.This isn't the comprehensive list, either. Here's one that's flown under the radar...so far:
The most recent candidate in the malleable ethics sweepstakes is Ron Sims, chosen Monday to be deputy secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As King County (Seattle) executive, Mr. Sims was fined $124,000 for "blatant" violations of Washington state's public records act for failure to release documents having to do with the financing of the stadium where the Seattle Seahawks play. Last month, the state Supreme Court said the fine should be increased.It's pretty bad when a public official is fined $124,000 for trying to keep public documents secret. It's quite another thing when the state Supreme Court says that steep fine wasn't steep enough.
One of the harshest bites of reality comes from the Charlotte Observer:
The Charlotte Observer endorsed Barack Obama for president, but is having second thoughts:That's before we talk about "Chris Dodd, (D-Countrywide)" or Charlie Rangel, (D-Dominican Republic). If you want corruption experts, there's no better place to find them than in the West Wing or in the chairmen suites in the House and Senate office buildings.
"Two weeks into the Obama presidency, we like his campaign better than his administration," the Observer said Wednesday. "While some of his appointments are outstanding, others were either badly botched or reflect a half-hearted commitment to the change principle central to his ballot box success."
As for President Obama's promise to be a post-partisan president, check on that with Speaker Pelosi's Office of Civility. (It's rumored that Ms. Pelosi wrote the manual on civility...in 10 seconds.)
Posted Sunday, February 8, 2009 4:04 PM
No comments.
What If?
Nancy Huddleston, the editor of the Savage Pacer recently asked Rep. Mark Buesgens to write a "What If" op-ed on the less-than-stimulating federal stimulus legislation . Here's what Rep. Buesgens wrote:
Dear Nancy,Rep. Buesgens makes several interesting points worth discussing. Let's start with this:
Thank you for the chance to share my "What if" wish!
What if every elected official in Scott County banded together to send the following message to Washington:
"Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress:
While we here in Scott County, Minnesota appreciate the well intentions behind this spending package, we respectfully ask that you reduce the amount of your planned debt by the amount proposed for our area.
You see, we believe in individual liberty which means that we believe in personal responsibility. Yes, we are facing some tough times now, but we are committed to making the tough decisions today so as to ensure a prosperous tomorrow. Saddling our children and grand-children with a crushing debt because we were too timid to do the right thing now would be an awful legacy that we as elected representatives of a wonderful people will not participate in.
And so we respectfully ask you to keep your borrowed money and pork spending and we will keep our pride, honor and dignity."
Sending this letter would help us regain our collective character and help bring good from these trying times.
Sincerely,
Mark Buesgens
Yes, we are facing some tough times now, but we are committed to making the tough decisions today so as to ensure a prosperous tomorrow.Setting priorities isn't something that you'll hear from Democrats whether they're stationed in Washington, DC or in St. Paul, MN. There isn't a hint of proof that Democratic majority in St. Paul has any inclination towards setting priorities or making difficult decisions. They won't even put a budget together so people know where they stand.
As for Washington, DC, all you need to know about the priorities of the Democratic Party of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is shown in the stimulus bill. It appears that Pelosi's Democrats' toughest decision is whether they'll fight to make the stimulus bill $850,000,000 or if it should be $1,000,000,000,000.
Here in Minnesota, the Democrats' idea or making hard choices is whether the impending tax increases will balance the budget or pay off one of their special interest allies. (I know that the DFL hasn't announced their tax increase agenda but it's imminent. Like I said here , raising taxes is genetic with Democrats:
Democrats on the SCTimes story chat are so aware that Democrats all but automatically raise taxes that they don't hide their love of tax increases. They've tried raising Minnesota's taxes too many times to maintain any credibility on the subject. That's why they don't try.Hatch gave his task an initial shot in a rambling acceptance speech that punched some of the right buttons. He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, "we can do this without raising taxes."I agree that restoring education funding can be done without raising taxes. That said, does anyone in their right mind think that Democrats won't raise taxes? I'll believe that the day I get photos of a leopard rearranging the spots on his fur. Believing that a Democrat won't raise taxes instinctively is like believing that making sudden movements towards a cobra won't get you bit. You can believe it all you want but reality is reality.
Here's something else that Rep. Buesgens wrote that's worth discussing:
Saddling our children and grand-children with a crushing debt because we were too timid to do the right thing now would be an awful legacy that we as elected representatives of a wonderful people will not participate in.Politicians that don't hesitate before dramatically increasing the debt their children will pay aren't leaders. Politicians that won't hesitate before saddling the next generation with debt aren't handing over much of a legacy to that generation.
In the truest sense, governing is part smart policymaking based on facts, part willingness to make difficult decisions. Being willing to make difficult decisions necessarily includes the ability to say no to appealing wants.
In 2007, the DFL in Minnesota showed a willingness to say yes to their special interest allies. This year, Democrats in Washington have shown an extraordinary willingness to say yes to everything on their special interest allies' wishlist. The Democrats' unwillingness to say no is the shortest path between economic stability/surpluses and economic instability and unprecedented deficits.
Here in Minnesota, a number of House Republicans told the DFL majority that we shouldn't spend the entire $2.2 billion surplus because the economy was slowing down. (Rep. Buusgens was among the legislators arguing against spending the entire surplus.) They argued that a deficit was in our immediaate future. The DFL spent the entire surplus in 2007 anyway. When the 2008 session started, legislators were told that there'd be a deficit before the 2008 session ended.
As a result, Gov. Pawlenty and Republicans forced the DFL into saying no. Before this year's session started, it was announced that the 2008-2009 biennium would close with a $426,000,000 deficit and that there'd be a $4,800,000,000 deficit for the 09-10 biennium.
In the end, Gov. Pawlenty, Rep. Buesgens and the rest of his House GOP colleagues had the right priorities. The DFL didn't.
When we look back on President Obama's stimulus bill, I suspect that we'll conclude that Republicans, led by the entire House GOP Conference, John McCain and, surprisingly, Lindsey Graham set the right priorities and that neither Pelosi's Democrats nor Sen. Reid's bunch set the right priorities because they thought their election victory gave them a blank check to do whatever they wanted.
Posted Sunday, February 8, 2009 9:57 PM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 08-Feb-09 11:37 PM
The following is Rep. John Lesch's reply to my e-mail when I asked him about the DFL raising taxes this year. The arrogance and ignorance of the DFL is staggering.
Methinks I mightn't have characterized your "proposals" any better than did our new President who, in taking hill Republicans to task for stalling the economic recovery bill, pointed out that their criticisms of it "echo the failed policies that helped lead us into this crisis."
If your only lamentations of our new direction are that it doesn't mimic those same old, failed policies, then I might suggest you wait patiently until another plutocratic mortgager of America seeks the throne when you may again wax endlessly about a "compassionate conservative" who bankrupts the American dream with voodoo economics and wars that would be silly if they weren't so destructive to our great nation.
Now kindly stand aside while the rest of us clean up your mess.
Sincerely,
John Lesch
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Feb-09 09:47 AM
Isn't it simply too early to tell much of anything. We know the situation the last chief executive left was a mess, but one has to think they'd have not deliberately created a mess, yes, no? So, the current "opposition" ran up record deficits and paid free billions in Wall Street welfare, and why, exactly, should the present majority take that track record seriously? It was Phil Gramms, after all, who engineered the Enron loophole and other deregulatory mischief that dwarfs government spending pork. Non-governing proved a disaster. A much greater disaster than doing governing with flawed people who are at least trying, vs. the prior folks who said turn it into the wild west, fastest riskiest gunslinger [Madoff?] wins until shot down dead, etc.
What's the alternative your side has articulated, consistent with how it behaved when in control of the White House?
Zippo.
You simply act as if Bush-Cheney never existed and never made a mistake. Sure, many have such a short attention span it works in part, but ---
That's disingenuous.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-09 10:29 AM
Eric, The plan our side has put together is simple:
1)Cut income taxes for small businesses so they have money to invest in their businesses. Think in terms of buying equipment, hiring workers, etc.
2) Cut payroll taxes for working people so they keep more of the money they earn.
3) Spend money on rebuilding America's infrastructure. This will create temporary jobs but, more importantly, will make our economy more efficient.
To Trust or Not to Trust Obama's Economic Plan
Late last week, President Obama announced the formation of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which will be chaired by Paul Volcker. In addition to Volcker, renegade GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt and SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger will serve on this board.
This past year, all under Immelt's control, GE stock lost 68 percent of its value. This despite their doing business with Iran. Not only that but, as we all know, owns the Obama Network, aka MSNBC. A presidential economic advisor with a network to tell the world that President Obama's economic plan is great. What could be cozier?
Wasn't that the type of thing President Obama was going to get rid of if elected?
Anna Burger is an important liaison between the SEIU and various Democratic organizations. Predictably, she favors the Union Thug Full Employment Act, aka EFCA. Not only that but she's openly campaigned for President Obama. There isn't anything illegal about that but it does raise questions on whether she was picked for her political connections or her economic expertise.
This video doesn't eliminate my fears that her participation on this board is because of her economic expertise:
Thus far, I haven't seen proof that she's anything other than a Democrat crony, something else President Obama was supposedly going to eliminate.
To be accurate, there are people on this newly minted board that have some expertise in economics, starting with Chairman Volcker.
Rich Lowry isn't convinced that President Obama has the chops to handle the economy either:
As far as political arguments go, "I won" has its power - provided it's made on behalf of an agenda ratified by the American electorate. But Obama didn't campaign on a sprawling, nearly $1 trillion new spending plan.Does this sound like the outline of an economic plan? I know that it's appealling to his political base. That alone doesn't qualify it as an economic plan however.
If he had pledged in October to double federal domestic discretionary spending in a matter of weeks, including increasing the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by a third, spending hundreds of millions more on federal buildings and throwing tens of billions on every traditional liberal priority from job training to Pell Grants, he'd have been hard-pressed to win at all.
The president should read the transcript of the third presidential debate. He claimed his program represented "a net spending cut." He called himself "a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches." He added, "We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work."
Let's compare President Obama to the newly elected President Clinton. Back then, President Clinton announced that VP Al Gore would be tasked with reinventing governmnet. President Clinton talked about ending welfare as we know it, though it took a Republican congress to help achieve that. After the election, President Clinton talked about cutting the deficit. He was a big free trade advocate. The message his agenda sent was that Clintonomics was all about creating jobs, jobs, jobs. Even his foreign policy focus was about creating jobs, almost to the exclusion of national security.
I certainly didn't agree with President Clinton's policies but at least he'd outlined what he'd do during the campaign. That helped voters trust him.
Has President Obama talked seriously about growing the economy and putting people first? President Obama talked about reforming health care but that likely won't happen now that Tom Dashle's taxes went unpaid for years.
Let's remember that President Obama thinks that stimulus is spending lots of money :
"So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)"That isn't the point of a stimulus bill. The point of a stimulus bill should be to give an instant jolt to the economy, to create jobs and inspire entrepreneurs to invest in pro-growth strategies. Anything short of that is just wasting money that we don't have.
What in this stimulus bill indicates that President Obama has a coherent economic plan? Does his giving unions prominance in his legislative agenda and on this board indicate he supports protectionist policies? That's a major worry with businessmen I've talked with.
The fact that he hasn't come up with a more persuasive argument than "I won" sets off all sorts of red flags with me. It's disconcerting to Rich Lowry, too:
Obama himself seems confused on what exactly "I won" means. In a meeting with Republicans, he brandished "I won" as a defense of his version of tax relief. But he later used "I won" to push back against an excessive reliance on tax cuts, claiming that it had been repudiated during the campaign even though he talked every day on the trail of cutting taxes for "95 percent of working people" and never once mentioned a commitment to extreme deficit spending.In this post , I laid out 4 questions I wanted President Obama to answer. He hasn't come close thus far. Here are those questions:
- Why is a bill that doesn't create jobs "absolutely necessary"?
- Why is a bill that's filled with pork and political payoffs to the Democrats' allies "absolutely necessary"?
- Why is a bill that the CBO says does more harm than good "absolutely necessary"?
- Why is a bill that doesn't set America's economy on a sustainable growth footing "absolutely necessary"?
Another thing that's bothering me was his over-the-top op-ed where he said that we're in a crisis and that if we didn't act fast, it would turn into a catastrophe:
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs . Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that , at some point, we may not be able to reverse ," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."President Clinton and President Reagan created 40,000,000+ new jobs during their 8 years in office. The characteristic they shared (they shared little else) was their calm confidence with which they spoke about the economy. President Obama sounds panicked and uncertain. That doesn't inspire confidence in investors or consumers.
If President Obama doesn't prove that he's got a plan to put us on the road to prosperity, the American people will lost faith in him. I don't wish that on us or him. It's just that I can't be certain that he's got a coherent plan.
Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2009, revised 15-May 10:12 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Feb-09 08:42 AM
Coherent plan? On what possible basis can you expect a coherent plan from this inexperienced socialist prattle-monger? Even if he DID have a plan, wouldn't it be designed, or at least have the effect, to make the country less free, less secure and less prosperous?
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Feb-09 09:37 AM
I like your plan a lot better, Gary.
And it's so detailed.
Sen Coleman on At Issue
Sen. Coleman took time last week to tape an interview with KSTP's Tom Hauser. That taped interview ran yesterday. Here's the video of the interview:
Here's the transcript of the interview:
TOM HAUSER: Welcome back. As you know, the 2008 senate race continues to dominate the headlines, and joining me now, one of the men responsible for that, Senator Norm Coleman. Now you're in kind of this limbo. Senator is a title you will have even if you were just retiring and for the rest of your life.The first thing that came through for me was that Sen. Coleman is accessible. That's a stark contrast to Mr. Franken, who declared victory a month ago, then left for the sunny climate of Florida.
SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: But I'm not being paid by the United States Senate.
TOM HAUSER: But you are still entitled to the title senator, but it has to be strange being in this limbo, you see the action going on in Washington and you're not part of it.
SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: I feel like in a Kafka novel or something like that, the race that never ends. I have stayed in contact with my colleagues; I have been in touch with folks talking about the stimulus. I have had to close up my office, but assuming that this thing gets done, at some point you will have to move quickly to provide citizen service. So I am spending some time to try to ensure that when this is over that we can get moving as quickly as possible, whoever the winner is, I believe I will win when all votes are counted. But I do think that it is important to get moving very quickly and I am certainly doing everything in my power to be able to do that when this recount is concluded.
TOM HAUSER: Now in the second week of this recount trial, you did have some success in court. The judges say they will review up to 4,800 ballots you would like to be reviewed, and possibly included, a few missing ballots have turned up here and there, some of which favor you. Still, despite that, isn't it still a daunting task to try to overturn a 225 vote margin?
SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: Not really. Every single election official who has come before the panel has said that there are valid votes that haven't been counted. We opened up, the canvassing board opened up 953 ballots from predominantly Democrat areas. We went back and looked at the nature of those ballots; and said you have over 4,000 similar kinds of ballots in the rest of the state, so open them, and count, figure out, make sure that nobody's ballot is counted twice, the double counting of some ballots and then you will have a winner. And so there's no question, I don't think anyone disagrees that it is not going to be 225 votes that is going to separate whoever wins this race. That is an artificial number. It is down somewhere from 223 even as we speak because they found some Coleman votes that weren't counted. But the bottom line is you have thousands of absentee ballots that have not been counted and so who the winner is, we don't know at this point, Tom. But it is important for Minnesotans that we figure out who won by making sure that every validly cast vote is counted and that no vote is counted more than once.
TOM HAUSER: Now those 4,800 that your campaign is kind of focused on, it appears that those largely come from Coleman-friendly territory, and now Franken is looking for ballots from Franken-friendly territory, so if you both do that, is it going to be somewhat of a wash and getting back to the 225 vote margin.
SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: Well, firstly, it shouldn't be cherry picking, it really should be by category. And you look at the 953 that were opened, the reality Tom is that the first group of ballots came principally from Ramsey, Hennepin, St. Louis Counties; they've been counted, those heavily Democratic areas. The ones that haven't been counted come from areas other than that. And as a result they are predominantly Republican, there's no question about that. Bottom line, let's count every validly cast vote. Figure out who the winner is, if it's me I go back to work, if it's Al Franken, he becomes a Senator. I think Minnesotans deserve to get it right, I think we need to get it right. We're apparently on the course to make that happen.
TOM HAUSER: Now again, by the time we taped this show late Friday afternoon, we did not have the Supreme Court decision yet in Al Franken's attempt to get seated immediately, provisionally until the recount trial is over. I know you are opposed to that motion obviously ;
SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: It's not just me being opposed, the law is very clear, in fact Tom, if I was to go out on a limb, we could presume that is not going to happen.
TOM HAUSER: Alright, good. You predicted it. We will find out if you are right.
SENATOR NORM COLEMAN: The law is very, very clear. Minnesota law says you cannot certify a winner until the contested case is concluded. Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Senate Democratic leadership are not going to seat the next senator from Minnesota. And so when we make sure every validly cast vote is counted, no votes double counted, we will have a winner, they will be certified, and that is the person who will serve as the United States Senator.
SIDENOTE: Franken says that he's getting daily updates on the issues from DC Democrats, which I believe. What's disconcerting about his vacationing in Florida, though, is that he isn't staying in touch with Minnesotans.
The contrast couldn't be more stark.
The second thing that's apparent to me is that Sen. Coleman is the definition of a statesman. Yes, he wants to expects to win, but he also knows that the laws have to be followed for elections to have integrity. That's another stark contrast to Mr. Franken, who wants the Minnesota Supreme Court to rule that he's Minnesota's senate, which would essentially end the election contest trial.
While Sen. Coleman is the embodiment of statesmanship, Mr. Franken is the embodiment of an ill-tempered petty tyrant who carries alot of hate inside him.
Finally, it's important to note that Sen. Coleman laid out his case for why he thinks he'll win and why the courts must intervene to eliminate the mistakes and injustices involved in the recount. Sen. Coleman put together a flawless, compelling logical argument.
That's the final stark contrast between Sen. Coleman and Mr. Franken. Mr. Franken hasn't tried enunciating a coherent, compelling rationale for his 'stop the recount' lawsuits.
Mr. Franken can't enunciate a coherent, compelling rationale for his lawsuits because there isn't a coherent, compelling rationale for his lawsuits.
PS- I've attended a debate that Tom Hauser moderated & I watch At Issue each week. In my opinion, Mr. Hauser is the best interviewer in the Twin Cities political press corps.
Posted Monday, February 9, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment 1 by johnny b at 09-Feb-09 05:31 PM
you've got to be kidding. The Republicans have historically tried to suppress the vote with onerous registration, id requirements, etc. Now that they are behind, the bogus Gore v Bush ruling is being pulled out of the cesspool as a precedent? The amercian people voted for change and it's not Norm Coleman.
Comment 2 by Minnesota Central at 05-Apr-09 11:43 AM
Do you have an opinion on Coleman's future as discussed At Issue program broadcast this morning ?
The two guests seemed to agree that Coleman would lose and then face the question how hard to press the appeal process. Larry Jacobs stated that Coleman has to weigh his potential candidacy for Governor into the equation.
The theory is that by fighting on, Coleman will "turn-off" many Independent voters.
My question is, assuming that Franken is seated, does Coleman have a strong enough support to win the Republican nomination for Governor ?
Personally, I think Jacobs is not reading the MN-GOP activists correctly based on Coleman's reaction at the MN-GOP Convention and the opinion that Minnesota Conservatives were stuck with voting for him. If Pawlenty doesn't run, I would think that any of the following might generate significant support :
Pat Anderson ; former State Auditor
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
Laura Brod - State Rep. 25A
Tony Cornish ; State Rep. 24B
Tom Emmer ; State Rep. 19B
Former Congressman Mark Kennedy
Phil Krinkie -- President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota
Marty Seifert - House Minority Leader 21A
Brian Sullivan - GOP national committeeman
Steve Sviggum ; Former House Minority Leader
Are Democrats Out Of Touch On Stimulus Bill?
Suppport has been fading for the Democrats' political payoff bill, aka the stimulus package. This morning, Rasmussen reports that people support the principles behind the Republicans' plan over the Democrats' plan. Here's what they're reporting:
With the Senate poised to vote Tuesday on an $827-billion version of the economic recovery plan, 62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.If Democrats continue to ignore the will of the people on the biggest issue of the day, they will pay a price in 2010. More important than just the raw statistics is the intensity factor. Rest assured that the people that comprise the 62% feel that way intensely.
Just 14% would like to move in the opposite direction with more government spending and fewer tax cuts, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty percent (20%) would be happy to pass it pretty much as is, and five percent (5%) are not sure.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly want to see more tax cuts and less government spending. Democrats are more evenly divided: 42% agree with the Republicans, 32% want to pass the plan as is, and 22% would like to see more government spending and fewer tax cuts.
I just took a quick visit to a message board I frequent. This comment is typical of the commenters' questions:
I'd like to know how many of the supposed jobs that would be created will end up going to the types of jobs where people are currently unemployed or are in danger of soon becoming unemployed? Somehow...the types of jobs that are mentioned in this article seem to be jobs that would be done by people who work for government already and so already are employed. Sign replacement is simply done by highway or street departments. Have they lost people due to layoffs in those departments? And the skate park idea seems to me to be something where federal funds shouldn't have even ever been requested. That is a strictly local project that if built should be done with either St. Cloud city money or private fundraising to complete it. That isn't even something I would consider of regional significance in any way. If these are examples of the types of projects that the stimulus bill will fund...I think we are screwed.The commenter asks several important questions, questions that I think people across America are asking. This is the hardest hitting question:
Somehow...the types of jobs that are mentioned in this article seem to be jobs that would be done by people who work for government already and so already are employed. Sign replacement is simply done by highway or street departments. Have they lost people due to layoffs in those departments?I've called this bill the Political Allies Payoff Act because it's a comprehensive wishlist from the Democrats' special interest allies. In this instance, the commenter is talking about rewarding the unions with public works projects. The commenter rightly asks whether these people are laid off or if they're in danger of being laid off. The answer to both questions is no.
In other words, this doesn't even meet President Obama's criteria of creating new jobs or saving existing jobs. I haven't read where any city's street department is laying people off.
Support for this bill will shrink after people hear this:
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C) has further ingratiated himself with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi...not...by declaring that Pelosi and Harry Reid "failed" the bipartisanship test on stimulus.Bully for Heath Shuler. Though he'll be in Pelosi's doghouse, he's spoke what's on his mind. She's a tyrant and an autocrat. Eventually, people rebel against that type of leadership style. It's about time she was replaced by someone who's interested in making America the best it can be. we've done nothing to deserve a Speaker who's biggest interest is in accumulating power and paying off those that keep her in power.
"In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.
"We have to have everyone, Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration, saying, 'We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.'" Here's the kicker: " I truly feel that's where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed ."
Shuler, rumored to be mulling a '10 Senate run, was one of 11 House Democrats to vote "no" on the stimulus and was already deep in Pelosi's doghouse. Now he'll have to build a Harry Reid wing.
All these indicators tell me that the DC Democrats aren't in synch with America. That isn't the position to be if you're trying to win elections.
Posted Monday, February 9, 2009 3:16 PM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 09-Feb-09 03:37 PM
You know here's the problem. Last October in part because of the credit crisis and in part because of something negative that showed up which I consider not to be my fault two credit cards reduced my available credit to match my balance.
Too bad Congress doesn't have a credit card company that is cutting back their credit so they don't get on the trillion dollar spending spree.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
**BREAKING NEWS** LFR EXCLUSIVE
What you are about to read is an LFR exclusive. When Americans with integrity read this, they will be outraged.
What you are about to read is how one of the attorneys working for the Franken campaign tried to eliminate a legally cast absentee ballot because it was a vote for Sen. Coleman. What you are about to read is a firsthand report from the man who witnessed this play out right in front of him. Sit down and read Chris Tiedeman's account of an eventful episode in the recount process. Just be prepared to get very, very angry.
I was a volunteer attorney for the Coleman campaign during the recount phase of the post election attempt to figure out exactly who won the US Senate Race in 2008. I helped recruit local MN attorneys in counties around the state, I helped examine ballots accepted on Election Day during the recount, and for the sake of this story, I assisted in reviewing some of the rejected absentee ballots at the end of the recount process.Mr. Franken said all the right things in public. "Count every vote" sounds noble. In this instance, however, Chris Tiedeman can state without hesitation that the Franken campaign's attorney tried to disenfranchise his fiance Sara's vote because he's the eyewitness.
For much of New Year's Eve and the day before, I spent my time in Anoka and then Dakota County. In Anoka County, because there was a group of potentially wrongfully rejected absentees that the Franken Campaign did not want reviewed, the process broke down entirely and no ballots were examined from either Anoka or Isanti counties at that time.
I spent the rest of the next two days in Hastings working with Carver, Scott, Goodhue and finally Dakota County. The purpose was to look at rejected absentee ballots that the counties felt were either wrongfully rejected by the counties themselves, or at least were worthy of scrutiny by the campaigns to determine whether the ballots were wrongfully rejected.
Dakota County had nearly 200 ballots for the two campaigns to review together (compared to 4 brought by Carver). Dakota County officials pulled the ballots together into categories; meaning that within each category, presumably each of the ballots should be treated the same by the two campaigns. In other words, if one ballot in a category was deemed wrongly rejected by the two campaigns, it was likely that the remainder in the same category were also wrongly rejected.
Towards the end of the second day, the county officials and the two campaigns were examining a category that the county officials said were wrongly rejected because of a legitimate error by a county elections official. If my memory serves me, there were approximately 15 or so ballots in that category. They were ballots where the voter was registered to vote, and the county official mailed an envelope with the ballot that should have been sent to a non-registered voter. Apparently there are two distinctly identifiable envelopes mailed to voters depending on whether they are already registered or need to register when casting their ballot.
Towards the end of that category, I saw my fiance Sara's name on the list. I tried, at first, to examine the ballots leading up to hers with my best poker face in hopes that we'd examine her ballot as we'd examined the others in the category, and not discuss it based on who she was as an identifiable voter.
I had no such luck.
When we came to examine Sara's ballot, the Franken attorney (who I had been working with for two days) recognized my name as a witness to her absentee ballot.
As I wrote above, we were looking at a category of ballots that the county and both campaigns agreed were wrongly rejected as a result of an error made by a county worker, not the voter.
I recall the smug look, and devious grin on the face of the Franken attorney as looked at my witness signature on the ballot envelope. I openly admitted then that the ballot was my fiances, and that I had served as a witness for her so she could cast her ballot absentee. She was scheduled to be in California on business on Election Day.
Among the other reasons an absentee ballot can be rejected is when the signature on the request for the absentee ballot and the signature on the absentee ballot submission don't match. For the obvious reason of protecting voters against having their ballot cast absentee by someone other than themselves, this reason for rejection makes sense and is something I fully support.
Knowing specifically that I (a Coleman attorney) was a witness to her ballot, and suspecting that her ballot was cast for Coleman, the Franken Attorney said he believed that the signatures on her absentee ballot did not match the signature on her absentee ballot request, and that it was his position (the position of the Franken campaign) that her ballot should not be included in the recount.
The Franken lawyers rejected her ballot with that same smug grin, which caused the county staff (head of elections and the county attorney) to roll their eyes in disgust. It was clear that the signatures did match, but the courts gave the two campaigns absolute veto power. A "signature mismatch" provided the most "grey area" and creative interpretation for lawyers like those Franken Lawyers who vetoed my fiances vote to prevent an otherwise wrongly rejected absentee ballot from being counted by the canvassing board.
The Franken line, for about the first third of this process, was that "every vote should be counted." And if that is their sentiment, I agree. Every legally cast vote should be counted. And no ballot should be counted more than once.
After all, one of our most cherished rights is the right to vote.
Franken's campaign took that right away from my fiance because they could identify that a supporter of Senator Coleman witnessed her ballot.
The fact that Al Franken's campaign was willing to disenfranchise a specific voter (any specific voter) for raw politics should give every voter, regardless of party, reason to be outraged.
It is certainly reason for people, regardless of party, to support seeing this process through to the end.
Fortunately, the story won't end there. Last week, Hennepin County Judge Denise Reilly made this declaration about rejected absentee ballots:
"The panel is going to make sure that every legally cast and wrongfully rejected ballot is opened and counted," Reilly said in court today.This means that the ballot that the Franken campaign tossed out will be counted because it was improperly rejected.
Let's summarize things here because a number of important points must be made:
- Chris Tiedeman's fiance Sara filled everything out properly.
- Chris witnessed the fact that Sara filled out the absentee ballot properly.
- When Sara put the ballot in the envelope, she signed her name on the envelope according to Minnesota election law.
- After Sara signed the envelope, Chris signed the envelope, thereby testifying to the fact that the ballot was properly filled out in his presence.
- Despite the fact that the ballot was properly filled out, one of Al Franken's attorneys rejected it, with the likely reason that Franken's attorney didn't want to count a vote for Sen. Coleman.
Without Judge Denise Reilly's ruling, the Franken campaign might have gotten away with disenfranchising a legal voter. It isn't a stretch to think that the Franken campaign tried this because they didn't want to count a vote for Sen. Coleman.
There are genuine heroes in this story, starting with Chris Tiedeman and his fiance Sara. Sara played by the rules. She took her voting responsibility seriously. She cast her vote properly.
Chris knows this because he witnessed Sara fill out the ballot and put it in the envelope, at which time Chris signed it, in essence testifying to the fct that it was properly cast.
The other hero in this is Judge Denise Reilly for ruling that every properly cast ballot would be counted. That's the only way of ensuring the integrity of close elections.
Without heroes like Judge Reilly, Chris Tiedeman and his fiance Sara, we wouldn't have known what the Franken campaign did.
Posted Monday, February 9, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment 1 by Freealonzo at 10-Feb-09 08:24 AM
Really? You're going with this?
Given the fact that the Coleman campaign has done similar, only wanted to count every vote once they found out they were behind, only wants to count votes in counties that are favorable Coleman terrain, and had many many more frivolous challenged ballots, I'd think you would be a little more sheepish before you go off on the Franken campaign and their recount strategy.
Guess I was wrong.
Comment 2 by Minnesota Central at 10-Feb-09 09:54 PM
Interesting story, but why is this coming out now ? Wouldn't this story have been more appropriate when it happened ? Please note that Mr. Tiedeman's story takes place on New Year's Eve ... and the Star-Tribune reported that day that Coleman team had rejected 59 of 60 ballots including an Election Judge's ballot (who had voted for Mr. Coleman) in one county. Could this have been a reaction to how Coleman's team had been rejecting ballots ? Overall, hasn't the Coleman team rejected more ballots than the Franken team ?
The other question is : why was this ballot rejected initially ? Could it be that the county thought the signature did not look like a match ? The unnamed Franken attorney stated that he did not think the signature's matched ... could he be honestly stating his opinion ? Factually, he may be wrong, but his opinion is still his opinion. Personally, if I look at my signatures they vary quite frequently ... over time and if I am in a hurry ... is it possible that Ms. Banks' signature varies enough that it is questionable ? Did Ms. Banks submit her ballot in sufficient time such that the county could have asked her to supply another ballot (typically if a ballot is received five days prior to the election the county may be able to correct the problem) ?
Initially many ballots had objections raised by both parties, but in the end weren't many accepted ? Do you know if Sara's ballot was eventually accepted ?
If not, a number of Dakota County voters filed petition to have their votes counted pursuant to MN Stat. 204B.44. This is the procedure that a number of Franken supporters followed and the Court ruled today that some ballots may be counted.
Why isn't her name on the list ?
Coleman has provided a list of witnesses that he may call. Is Mr. Tiedeman or Ms. Banks on the list ?
In the end, I suspect that the Franken team can probably point to a number of questionable rejections by the Coleman team ... and vis-versa.
And that's the biggest problem that Minnesotans should really be having with this process ... the candidates are reviewing who the voters are and determining which ballots they wish to push ... that is making the process really suspect.
In the end, even if Mr. Coleman is awarded the seat, he is not a winner. When 58 % of the people review your work for the past six years and believe that someone else could do a better job, you are not a winner. Mr. Coleman really has to ask himself why so many Republicans rejected him. It was his race to lose, and the voters were not enthusiastic supporters.
Comment 3 by steve thompson at 13-Feb-09 02:19 PM
Franken alone would be enough for any sane person.
The fact that the Chicago political model has gone national is a virus that needs to be confronted in the most serious manner by everyone.
Acorn, NEA, etc... are just the tip. Dont lose the country to this kind of scum.
Important Townhall Meetings Scheduled
This weekend, I learned that the date, time and location of a townhall meeting concerning the state budget deficit. This townhall meeting will be held at the St. Cloud City Hall chambers on Thursday, Feb. 19, at 6:00 pm. A number of area legislators will be attending. Thus far, I can confirm that Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, House Minority Whip Dan Severson, Rep. Larry Hosch and Assistant Senate Majority leader Tarryl Clark are confirmed to attend.
I expect that list of confirmations to grow in the coming days.
This Friday, Rep. Steve Gottwalt will hold a townhall meeting. Rep. Gottwalt will be joined by King Banaian, the chairman of the Economic Department at St. Cloud State. This townhall will be held at the St. Cloud Public Library. The meeting starts at noon. The meeting is scheduled to end at 1:00 pm.
Both meetings are open to the public. Participation is encouraged.
SIDENOTE: I will attend both meetings. I plan on liveblogging both events.
Posted Monday, February 9, 2009 10:25 PM
Comment 1 by AC at 10-Feb-09 12:50 PM
Anyone who wishes to speak at any of these townhall meetings must "register" so that the DFL majority can screen you, so that only people who want to raise taxes will be able to speak. You can sign up an the MN House homepage.
