January 7-11, 2010
Jan 07 01:29 Conventional Wisdom? Jan 07 08:56 Charlie Crist's Crashing Credibility Jan 07 12:45 Where's the Urgency? Jan 07 15:45 Bad & Getting Worse Jan 07 23:25 The Prince Of Hollow Words Jan 08 03:15 Tom Ellenbecker Announces For Minnesota House vs. Larry Hosch Jan 08 16:44 More On Judge Gearin's Ruling Jan 10 12:33 Almanac's Political Roundtable Jan 11 02:11 Norm Coleman & Local Activism At Its Finest
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Conventional Wisdom?
I always try and block off time at 6:00 pm Wednesday nights because I enjoy watching Special Report Online. The gang was back together tonight for the first time since before Christmas. With all of the retirements the day before, and with Shannon Bream joining with TV panelists Steve Hayes, Mort Kondracke and Charles Krauthammer, a healthy portion of the show was spent talking election politics.
One of the things that Mort said was that Democrats might avoid a disaster if the economy improves. He isn't alone in that belief. I'm skeptical of that, though not totally. I think an improved economy might help save a couple House races for the Democrats but I think that's marginal.
I think that because people have figured out that whatever economic recover there is will be in spite of this administration's and the Democrats' agenda, not because of it. Deeper than that, though, is that people have seen that there's no such thing as a moderate Democrat.
Moderates like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh voted the same way on health care as Bernie Sanders. The minute those votes were cast is the minute that the so-called moderates lost all credibility on issues like fiscal restraint. They threw their reputations on fiscal responsibility away with that vote.
Short of these senators voting against cloture, this trio's reputations as moderates is history.
Still, there's something deeper than that at work with this election. Specifically, the American people have seen Democrat after Democrat ignore their constituents at townhall meetings and at TEA Parties. While Democrats falsely accuse Republicans of being the 'Party Of No', it's accurate to say that the Democratic Party is the 'Party of shut up, I'm not listening and I know better than you.'
Democrats are digging themselves a huge hole by ignoring their constituents and by pushing a radical agenda that has as its centerpiece giving government ultimate control over our lives through their health care legislation.
Majorities of people have rejected every major initiative this Democratic administration has signed and every major piece of legislation this Democratic congress has passed. The American people understand that this group of Democrats (a) are a group of Saul Alinsky radicals and (b) won't change their habits.
That's why the American people are quickly reaching the conclusion that they have to take matters into their own hands and change Washington's direction ASAP. Holding rallies and writing emails isn't guaranteed to stop the Democrats' radical agenda.
Electing a GOP majority in the House will stop this Democratic administration's and this Democratic congress's radical agenda dead in its tracks.
The reason that an improved economy won't play the dominant role in the upcoming elections isn't because people wouldn't appreciate economic growth but because the people understand that the stimulus bill has done nothing besides causing deficits to skyrocket.
I think it's possible that people will put a higher priority on electing people whose ecnonomic policies make sense than on voting for politicians who've voted for questionable policies, regardless of whether the economy is growing again or not.
The transparency issue transcends traditional issues because people have seen that their government willingly lied to them without hesitation. It's one thing for people to question an administration's policies. It's another, much worse thing, if the people think that they can't trust their elected officials.
Finally, people are figuring it out that they need fiscal conservatives in office to stop the runaway deficits. They've figured out that Democrats won't hesitate in voting for irresponsible budgets and irresponsible spending bills.
There's only one way they'll get that under control and that's by giving enough Democrats unexpected early retirements. That's why this is going to be arough year for Democrats.
Posted Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:32 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 07-Jan-10 08:51 AM
But for one, perhaps two cooperative Republicans ...
Charlie Crist's Crashing Credibility
In this article , Charlie Crist is quoted as saying something that utterly destroys his credibility. Here's what he said:
Yet the presumed purity of Republican primary voters dictates that candidates emphasize their ideological fitness. "I am the true conservative in this race," Crist has been doggedly reminding people. He says he is a pro-gun, anti-abortion, small-government conservative who worships Ronald Reagan. He says he is against gay marriage, frugal (he pays off his single credit card every month) and despised by criminals (he once proposed that chain gangs be reinstituted, earning him the nickname Chain Gang Charlie).Crist might well be "pro-gun" and "anti-abortion" but a small government conservative he isn't.
At a time when fiscal conservatism was most needed, Gov. Crist sided with the most reckless spender in U.S. history. Then he claimed that he didn't "endorse" Porkulus. That was followed by him telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer that, had he been in the Senate, he would've voted for Porkulus. That was followed by his attempted defense of getting called on that statement by Marco Rubio that he didn't have a vote on Porkulus.
Gov. Crist, we know you didn't have a vote. That's irrelevant because the people are upset that you would've exercised poor judgment by voting for it had you had the opportunity.
It's one thing to make a principled compromise. It's another to completely throw principle out the window.
Crist's willingness to abandon principles to be popular is disturbing, especially on a bill as awful as Porkulus. People with a brain knew that the only thing that bill was going to create was debt and bureaucracy. People with a brain knew that it wouldn't create jobs.
Yet there was Gov. Crist sliding his plate forward to get a heaping helping of Porkulus, possibly because he wanted to be seen with a popular president. The question that I haven't gotten an answer to is why Gov. Crist wasn't more concerned with doing what's right rather than what's popular.
I suspect Gov. Crist will never address that type of question.
The reporter couldn't resist throwing in this dig at conservatives:
None of this has made Crist any less of a target to conservatives who view him as a coveted Florida marlin to reel in. (Or if you prefer hunting analogies, the prized RINO.) Nor has it thwarted Rubio's growing conservative cachet. Rubio, who has been dominating straw polls of conservative advocates across Florida while pulling even in real ones, is Hispanic, uses Twitter and listens to Snoop Dogg, not your grandmother's Republican, in other words.The reporter's insinuation is that conservatives are thoughtlessly angry because that's who they are. The media's stereotype of conservatives hasn't been flattering. That's typical. If this reporter took the time to think things through, though, he'd understand that President Obama's radical agenda is a threat to America's economic well-being.
"There are people who believe the way to be more successful as Republicans is to be more like Democrats," Rubio told me early last month, essentially distilling his case against Crist, whom he keeps describing backhandedly as "a really nice, pleasant guy." "And the people who believe we need to be more like Democrats will vote for Charlie Crist." There is also the more stylistic question of whether Crist's conciliatory approach fits with the basic tenor of an impatient opposition party. He may not be angry enough to win a Republican primary this year.
Frankly, I'd worry about people that saw money getting spent on pork and said nothing about it. The American people understand that spending money to grow government isn't the way to strengthen the economy.
Had he been a senator, Marco Rubio would've been an eloquent adversary of President Obama's extravagant spending spree. He would've fought against it. He might not've defeated it but he would've made things uncomfortable for Democrats who supported the bill.
Most importantly, Marco Rubio would've forced the Senate to have a conversation about fiscal responsibility. If the Democrats were going to spend like crazy, Sen. Rubio would've forced them to own their votes for irresponsibility.
By contrast, a Sen. Crist would've voted for fiscal irresponsibility, then told Floridians that he voted for a great bill. Months later, Crist would've been forced to admit that he'd made the wrong vote.
This nation needs people to be right. They don't need more people who'll do the popular thing rather than the right thing. That's possibly the best argument against Gov. Crist.
Posted Thursday, January 7, 2010 9:01 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 07-Jan-10 09:15 AM
When you say "small government" activism, or policy, I presume you are excluding military adventuring; true or false? In effect, are you with Ron Paul that way, or with Michele Bachmann?
Or do you "agree with your friends?"
Would you say the airplane thing might alter Ron Paul's position, or enhance his saying reactive pressures would lessen if the US were to be less aggressive? And, am I correct in seeing the bulk of rhetoric from the Ron Paul camp as arguing that the reactive nature of things should not be ignored or downplayed? Is he saying that, or something else, in your reading of things?
Where's the Urgency?
When people read that the head of the NCTC stayed on the slopes after the attempted terrorist attack , they're gonna be mightily upset. Here's what the NYDN is reporting:
The top official in charge of analyzing terror threats did not cut short his ski vacation after the underwear bomber nearly blew up an airliner on Christmas Day, the Daily News has learned.Mr. Leiter will rightfully get excoriated for his disinterest in investigating what went wrong and what needed to be done to tighten his operations up. Unless I miss my guess, I'm betting that the American people will have steam billowing out their ears over this.
Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center since 2007, decided not to return to his agency's "bat cave" nerve center in McLean, Va., until several days after Christmas, two U.S. officials said.
" People have been grumbling that he didn't let a little terrorism interrupt his vacation ," said one of the sources.
While it's important that Mr. Leiter is held accountable, I hope it isn't lost on the American people that President Obama took the same nonchalant approach as Mr. Leiter took. I hope the American people notice that President Obama's anti-terrorist policies aren't focused on gaining important intel on the terrorists' networks and operations.
This is bombshell news. President Obama's mantra since the foiled terrorist attack has been that the system failed. That's BS in the sense that this terrorist getting as far as he did had more to do with this administration not putting a high enough priority on fighting the jihadists.
The perception is growing that this administration just isn't serious about fighting a smart fight against the jihadists. It's disheartening to see the head of the NCTC and the commander-in-chief take such a nonchalant attitude towards gathering as much information about what happened prior to the attack.
It was disheartening, too, to hear President Obama speak about Abdulmutallab as an "isolated extremist" days after it'd been reported that Abdulmutallab admitted that he was tied into al-Qa'ida. Most disheartening, though, was the fact that President Obama didn't sound serious about this until the public outcry started mounting. Only then did he get upset.
Mr. Leiter's actions are just a symbol of the lax attitude this administration has towards thwarting terrorist attacks. The drone killings make for nice headlines but there's alot of nuts-and-bolts types of things that this administration obviously isn't engaging in.
It isn't a system failure that Abdulmutallab was Mirandized. That was just a failed Obama administration policy. That wasn't system-related. That was, to use Janet Napolitano's words, a man-caused disaster.
Let's not forget that the State Department played a role in this, too. They knew about Abdulmutallab's father telling the Nigerian embassy that his son had been radicalized. The State Department did nothing to revoke Abdulmutallab's visa after getting that information. THEY DID NOTHING with that information.
If President Obama meant that his administration dropped the ball when he said that the system failed, then I'll agree with him. If he's essentially saying that it's President Bush's fault, then I'll have to ridicule him.
I suspect that this story got leaked for a purpose. I suspect that that purpose is that this guy will be the scapegoat with the additional bonus of being able to say that Leiter was part of the NCTC during President Bush's term in office.
But Leiter's decision to stay close to the ski slopes instead of his headquarters , ground zero for defending the nation against terror, has raised eyebrows among intelligence officials , who have been scrambling since Dec. 25 to figure out what went wrong and plug the holes.It's time that the Obama administration started focusing on jihadists like a laser beam. It's time that this administration got serious about things other than their ideological agenda.
Let's put things in focus. President Obama focused 29 speeches on his radical health care takeover. He delivered a dozen speeches on why Congress needed to pass the stimulus bill without reading it. By comparison, President Obama didn't insist that the bill actually created jobs. By comparison, President Obama took 3 months before giving Gen. McChrystal half of the troops he said he needed to avoid defeat in Afghanistan. By comparison, President Obama didn't overrule Attorney Gen. Holder's decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab.
It's time that Mr. Leiter, the State Department and this administration prove that they aren't utterly incompetent.
Posted Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:02 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 07-Jan-10 04:10 PM
I don't see your getting traction on this. Compared to the Bush-Cheney-Rice screwup on 9/11, reading the goat book - where was your criticism then Gary - people will not jump that, with the economy bad. If the Dems have to push against another unified GOP front in creating jobs, all your theories are for naught. The GOP will have to get real on the jobs and economic situation since the fan loaded up during Bush-Cheney and everyone knows that and how the Dems went along when the Bushco folks said give free money to Wall Street to make things okay. The Dems did not get obstreperous. They went with the President, and it failed. Now, when the Dems have a plan that will work, the GOP will be seen throwing in the sabots. Or not, that's to be seen. They may get wiser than they've been.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-10 06:09 PM
Eric, You're BADLY misreading this. It's one thing if President Obama had just said this once. The American people would've let that slide. Repeatedly saying it, then essentially telling people that they're getting shut out of a secretive process is entirely different.
Republicans are serious about creating jobs. Before the stimulus bill was passed, the House & Senate GOP put together an alternative stimulus bill. CBO said that the GOP bill would've cost half the money of the bill that President Obama signed & that it would've created twice as many jobs.
I suspect that the American people would agree that it would've been better to pass the GOP bill than the Democrats' bill.
That's why I reject the notion that the Democrats have a plan that'll work.
Bad & Getting Worse
A couple weeks ago, Ed and I agreed that things can't be going good when you lose Maureen Dowd.
Ed correctly noted that Democrats are in trouble if they've lost the Maureen Dowd vote. I heartily concur with Ed's opinion.
Imagine then what type of trouble this administration is in if they're now losing the Jack Cafferty vote:
Hot Air has the transcript :
How dare they? President Obama, Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal...that's another word for secret...negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.Check out that last sentence. OUCH!!! That message is directed solely at Democrats. They're the people with the aurhority to authorize C-SPAN's cameras. With media outlets like CBS and CNN now howling about the Democrats' secretiveness and the bribes that senators like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu accepted for their votes, this is a lose-lose situation for Democrats.
What a far cry from the election, when then candidate Obama pledged to, quote, "broadcast health care negotiations on C-SPAN, so that the American people can see what the choices are", unquote.
President Obama hasn't even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected. The head of C-SPAN wrote a letter, asked Congress to, quote, "open all the important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage", unquote. When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether the administration would support televising the negotiations, he refused to answer, instead mumbling something about, well, I haven't seen the letter.
That wasn't the question, Mr. Gibbs. You either support openness or you don't. The Democrats insist this is all on the up-and-up, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, quote, "There's never been a more open process for any legislation.", unquote.
Really? This is the same Nancy Pelosi who you may recall, after becoming speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have, quote, "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history", unquote.
Here's hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.
In fact, I'd argue that it's an explosive situation with the potential to turn a difficult election cycle for Democrats into a landslide of historic proportions.
It's entirely possible that Speaker Pelosi and President Obama decide to keep the process secret. It's entirely possible that they're willing to lose their majority to pass this legislation. It's long been known that universal health care is the Democrats' Holy Grail, the one thing that they're willing to die for.
What I will tell you is this: Democrats aren't just going through a difficult situation. They're in deep trouble. Travis Childers is in trouble in Mississippi. Phil Hare is in trouble in Illinois.
Progressives are getting upset with President Obama on a range of issues. They're upset that he hasn't shut Gitmo. They're furious that he agreed to the individual mandate because they see it as a windfall for 'big insurance'.
Meanwhile, Democrats will suffer from what they see as the Democrats' incompetence in preventing terrorist attacks. It isn't fair but that's what happens when government malfunctions this badly.
The national mood was already sour following Congress's secretive behavior on the stimulus and Congress essentially ignoring the things they heard during the townhall meetings. Following those fights, the Senate Finance Committee wouldn't let the public see the bill that they'd put together, saying that it wasn't written in legislative language.
The bottom line is that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are willing to force people to walk the plank for their radical agenda. If secret negotiations are what's required to pass their agenda, then that's what they'll use. It's worth noting that transparency is easy if you're pushing appealing legislation. The only time secrecy, bribery and limited debate is needed is when you're pushing unpopular legislation and you need to buy votes.
My message ot President Obama and Speaker Pelosi is simple: Welcome to the revolution.
Posted Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:49 PM
No comments.
The Prince Of Hollow Words
Pundits nationwide have used the name of The One in reference to President Obama. After listening to his speech on how they'll improve airline security , I think a more appropriate nickname for him is the Prince Of Hollow Words. Here's what I'm talking about:
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. That's what the intelligence reforms after the 9/11 attacks largely achieved. That's what our intelligence community does every day. But, unfortunately, that's not what happened in the lead-up to Christmas Day. It's now clear that shortcomings occurred in three broad and compounding ways.I agree with President Obama's words. It's his actions that I question. If "America's first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared", which I believe it is, then why is it Obama administration policy to Mirandize terrorists upon capture? That doesn't make sense if they're putting a high priority on intelligence. Mirandizing terrorists, which they did with Abdulmutallab, gives the terrorist the legal right to stop giving us important information that might prevent other terrorist attacks.
This part of President Obama's statement stood out, too:
First, although our intelligence community had learned a great deal about the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, called al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that we knew that they sought to strike the United States and that they were recruiting operatives to do so, the intelligence community did not aggressively follow up on and prioritize particular streams of intelligence related to a possible attack against the homeland.Simply put, that didn't happen during the post-9/11 Bush administration. They were great at connecting the dots because President Bush put a high priority on connecting the dots and protecting the American people. Thus far, the Obama administration gets a failing grade on gathering intel, mostly because they've put a higher priority on closing Gitmo than on gathering intel.
Sean Hannity often ridicules the Obama administration for calling terrorist attacks "man-caused disasters" and for calling the war on terror an "overseas contingency operation." He's right to highlight those things because it highlights a lack of intensity and focus on a potential life-and-death situation.
When Bill Clinton promised during the 1992 campaign that he'd "focus like a laser beam on the economy", people didn't question whether he was committed to repairing the economy. When President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, he held a police officer's badge and said that he'd have it on his desk for the rest of his presidency as a reminder of the terrorist attacks.
In those administrations, people questioned the policies. They didn't question the commitment. In this administration, there's reason to question this administration's policies AND this administration's commitment.
Second, I'm directing that intelligence reports, especially those involving potential threats to the United States, be distributed more rapidly and more widely. We can't sit on information that could protect the American people.That's nice-sounding but it still leads to this question: If they're intent on making gathering intel our highest priority, why hasn't President Obama told Attorney Gen. Holder to stop Mirandizing terrorists? That's the only way the FBI can interrogate them and get the information we need to stop the next attack.
Third, I'm directing that we strengthen the analytical process, how our analysis, how our analysts process and integrate the intelligence that they receive. My Director of National Intelligence, Denny Blair, will take the lead in improving our day-to-day efforts. My Intelligence Advisory Board will examine the longer-term challenge of sifting through vast universes of intelligence and data in our Information Age.
Until President Obama directs Attorney Gen. Holder to stop Mirandizing terrorists, I won't take President Obama's words seriously. The time for words is over. It's time for results.
Posted Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:30 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 08-Jan-10 09:15 AM
The rank-and-file people who screwed up, Gary, are all Bush carryovers. Obama only made leadership appointments. The screw-ups were in the field, not headquarters.
Try a different story.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 08-Jan-10 10:24 AM
Sorry, Dude, but it's new personnel in the Nigerian embassy. It's new leadership at the State Department. It's new leadership at DHS. They're the people that dropped the ball.
Please explain how people that did a wonderful job post-9/11 have now suddenly become screwups.
There were alot of things that President Bush didn't do a great job at but protecting this country wasn't one of those things.
THAT'S JUST REALITY. DEAL WITH IT.
We've now had a number of terrorist attacks in President Obama's first year. If that keeps going at the same pace, there will be more attempted terrorist attacks in President Obama's first three years than in 7 years of the Bush administration.
Many were the terrorist plots that were thwarted before they got fully planned during the Bush administration.
THAT'S REALITY.
Comment 3 by Eric Austin at 08-Jan-10 07:30 PM
I wasn't going to comment on this but this and a couple situations like it have been weighing on me and are the subject of a recent post.
I know you don't like the President and he is bad and all of that stuff but how is the situation with this Christmas Day attack any different than the shoe bomber in late December of 2001?
I mean really honestly without an additional slam on Obama, how are they different aside from your reaction to them?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jan-10 08:33 PM
EA, First, let's just be clear that I don't hate President Obama. I disagree with him. Thus far, I haven't seen proof that his policies have helped at all. The lack of evidence that his policies are working are driving the negative commentary from LFR. I didn't like Bill Clinton but I respected him in terms of his economic policies because the results simply couldn't be denied.
I'm glad you brought up the difference between Richard Reid & Abdulmutallab. When Reid was captured, the military tribunal system DIDN'T EXIST.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 08-Jan-10 08:25 PM
Yup. You got me Gary.
This is entirely different than the shoe bomber, during Bushco.
Yup.
Totally different scenario. In the air, allegedly trying to detonate something; all saved because it failed to work.
Yup.
Sorry I even questioned anything.
Comment 5 by Eric Austin at 08-Jan-10 09:07 PM
"I'm glad you brought up the difference between Richard Reid & Abdulmutallab. When Reid was captured, the military tribunal system DIDN'T EXIST."
I haven't heard people yelling about not using military tribunals. I have heard just blanket criticism about every aspect of how this was handled when it was handled in almost exactly the same way. It sure does seem like this is just one of those things you are capitalizing on to criticize.
Tom Ellenbecker Announces For Minnesota House vs. Larry Hosch
Thursday night, Tom Ellenbecker announced that he will be seeking the GOP endorsement to run against Assistant House Majority Leader Larry Hosch for the HD-14B seat.
Ellenbecker said that "it's fitting to mqke this announcement in Sal's. Rep. Larry Hosch used to work here and hopefully, a year from now, I will be at another place where Larry Hosch USED to work at."
Ellenbecker is a small businessman who's been active in Republican Party politics for years.
Mr. Ellenbecker was right in saying this "HD-14B will be at the forefront of the effort to re-setablish a Republican majority in the State House." He noted that HD-14B is the "most Republican district with a sitting Democrat."
Rep. Hosch is serving in his third term. He'll face a stiff fight to return for a fourth term. Rep. Dan Severson noted that "Tom's the right man for the district. He's a small businessman who understands the importance of low taxes and small government." Rep. Tom Emmer and Sen. Michelle Fischbach also attended the event. Now a gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Emmer pledged his support for Ellenbecker.
Being an incumbent won't help Rep. Hosch this cycle. As I noted in this post , Rep. Hosch voted against Rep. Keith Downey's amendment to create an "angel investment tax credit" that would've helped high tech companies raise money at start-up. I suspect that that won't play well in college towns like Collegeville and St. Joseph, home of St. Johns and St. Benedicts respectively.
Another thing that might not help Rep. Hosch is the Green Acres tax issue. As I explained here , Green Acres is a BIG THING in rural Minnesota:
Green Acres was meant to reduce property taxes on family farms. The farmer's house and yard would be assessed at city prices but the rest of the land would be assessed at the per acre price that farmland was going for. In Central Minnesota, that's approximately $800 per acre. I suspect it's much higher in southern Minnesota where the big cash crop farms sell for $2,000-$3,000 per acre.During the summer of 2008. Rep. Hosch told farmers that undoing the damage of the 2008 'reform' of Green Acres property tax laws would be a high priority for him. Early in the session, Rep. Hosch voted against a GOP bill that would've repealed the 2008 changes to Green Acres before voting later in the session for a bill that improved things but still left farmers with a bigger property tax liability than they had prior to 2008.
The 2008 Green Acres bill changed that dramatically. Lands that were tilled or were used for pasture would be assessed as at per acre prices. Any land that wasn't tilled or wasn't pasture land would be assessed at the same rate as the house and yard. What's onerous about that is the fact that lands enrolled in the RIM set aside program, which are clearly farmland, would be taxed the same way that the house and yard would be taxed.
In monetary terms, that might mean a farmer's property value might jump $250,000 or more here in Central Minnesota, leaving these farmers with dramatic increases in their property tax liabilities.
Stay tuned to this blog for news of this campaign and other St. Cloud area campaigns.
Posted Friday, January 8, 2010 3:15 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 08-Jan-10 08:44 AM
"Ellenbecker is a small businessman who's been active in Republican Party politics for years."
Is he short, a lightweight, or an owner of a small business? That sentence does have ambiguity.
Seriously, what's he do?
Is he the windmill guy, this link:
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.3778
If so, I hope the business is prospering. I know you, Gary, are a skeptic of alternative [aka green] energy and have supported Gingrich and Bachmann when saying drill here, drill now, deplete the reserves.
Now you are boosting a green energy person?
We all can learn and change, eh?
Or does GOP trump all else?
Or is this a different Tom Ellenbacher from the one promoting alternate energy solutions.
I recall that when Bob Olson was a DFL hopeful, some tried to marginalize the sensible approach of promoting wind energy as having a future, and offering possibilities of future jobs.
Is Ellenbacher a manufacturer, creating jobs, or only a sales outlet with less job creation potential?
Any info on the question?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jan-10 10:08 AM
First, when I call someone a small businessman, it's that he owns a small businessman. You'll note I've devoted one of this blog's categories to small business because they're so important to a healthy economy.
I'm not certain what type of business Tom owns but, based on the link you sent, that you've got it nailed. As for him manufacturing wind turbines & my attitude towards green energy, I've never said we shouldn't use green energy per se. I've just been a realist who knows that green energy can't replace fossil fuels. Further, I've always believed that technology will make using fossil fuels more efficient over time.
I can't support Mr. Ellenbecker because I live in HD-15B & he's running in 14B. If Tom & I lived in the same district & he had the same list of priorities & beliefs, I'd enthusiastically support him.
It really is time for you to get over some of your preconceptions of conservatives, my friend. Alot of them are outdated or just plain wrong to start with.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 08-Jan-10 09:12 AM
I think it's the wind turbine guy. He is advertising himself on the web as a manufacturer's rep, meaning what exactly, I don't know.
The name "WindReps" is a dba name registered with the SoS office.
The address from that registration
130 6th Avenue Northwest, Saint Joseph, MN
(320) 363-1010
gives a Google map entry for a
Thomas Ellendecker Development
Note: Ellendecker, not Ellenbecker. But the news reports identify the candidate as from Saint Joseph. So if it is the same guy, he should correct the Google entry. It can be done fairly easily. The WindReps page on other sites has it as Ellenbecker, at that same address. E.g.
http://northamericanwindpower.com/buyersguide/index.php/nawbg?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=30&sobi2Id=4529
There's no entry yet at the CFB:
http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/campfin/candleg.html#14
I hope that's helpful.
More On Judge Gearin's Ruling
To say that Tom Emmer isn't a fan of Judge Kathleen Gearin's unallotment ruling is understatement. It doesn't take long for Rep. Emmer to explain himself:
In a nutshell, when Democrats did not do their job last session, Governor Pawlenty had to balance the budget by reducing spending "unallotments." Now a district court judge has violated the separation of powers and told the Governor, "No, you can't balance the budget, you have to go back and negotiate some more with the Democrats in the legislature."Earlier this week, I wrote that the DFL leadership didn't meet their constitutional responsibility . I added that Gov. Pawlenty didn't overstep his authority and that Judge Gearin got the basic facts wrong.
First, Judge Gearin's ruling said that Gov. Pawlenty unallotted before the end of session. That's wrong. Gov. Pawlenty announced that he'd be forced to unallot if the DFL-controlled legislature didn't put together a budget that balanced. I know because I posted about it here :
This afternoon, Governor Tim Pawlenty announced there will be no special session and no government shutdown. The 2009 session will definitely end Monday night at midnight. The governor has decided to take the bills the DFL majority has put on his desk, line-item veto in some places, and sign them. The DFL bills irresponsibly leave a gap of $3 billion, and the governor is in a position to unallot to cover the gap, although he said he would prefer a negotiated solution with the DFL leadership. They now have a few days to do that.Scott Johnson cites from the unallotment statute:
We face a $6.4 billion budget deficit and the Constitution states we must balance our bottom line by July 1. But the legislative majority has failed to get the job done, so the governor's announcement today says he will do the hard work of erasing the deficit with or without DFL cooperation.
... the legislature delegated plenary authority to the governor when "the commissioner [of revenue] 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 [.]" See Minn. Stat. 16A.152, Subds. 4(a) and (b). The commissioner of revenue made the necessary determination and the governor exercised his unallotment authority pursuant to it.The Department of Revenue quickly determined that the DFL's budget wouldn't balance at the end of this biennium. That's THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA in the unallotment statute. Judge Gearin's TRO is really a joke because she admits in her ruling that conditions currently exist that will allow Gov. Pawlenty to unallot. That's painfully obvious because we've got a $1,200,000,000 deficit.
The DFL found a sympathetic judge to interfere in the legislative process. Gov. Pawlenty had leverage because (a) the DFL didn't have the votes to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the tax bill, (b) he alone had the constitutional authority to call a special session and (c) the DFL leadership were foolish enough to send him all of the spending bills for funding government.
That meant that he had a loaded gun and he was pointing it at the DFL. The DFL's lawsuit really was their admitting that they got outmaneuvered by Gov. Pawlenty.
Despite that, DFL leaders are hailing Judge Gearin's ruling as a victory:
"Today's ruling represents a victory for all Minnesotans concerned about the overreach of executive authority. I applaud Judge Gearin's order and look forward to a full hearing on this case early next year," said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher in a press statement issued shortly after the ruling was announced.It's laughable to hear Leader Sertich say that Judge Gearin's ruling upheld the Constitution. Tucked inside Judge Gearin's ruling was her statement that unallotment is constitutional. That essentially reduces the argument to whether Gov. Pawlenty followed the letter of the statute. Based on the statute's language, the answer to that is yes.
"It's good that the judge upheld the constitution," agreed House Majority Leader Tony Sertich in an interview with the Timberjay. "It bodes well for continuing the separation of powers in the future, no matter who the governor is."
That's why Judge Gearin's ruling doesn't make sense. Had Judge Gearin's ruling said that unallotment was unconstitutional, her ruling would've been somewhat defensible.
Finally, it's worth considering the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that the DFL leadership is crowing about this to (a) deflect attention from the fact that they didn't meet their constitutional responsibility of balancing the state's budget and (b) plant in the public's mind that a possible Supreme Court ruling is illegitimate.
The minute the TRO is struck down or expires, Gov. Pawlenty will unallot. PERIOD. The DFL knows that. The DFL also knows that they can pass a tax increase but they can't override Gov. Pawlenty's veto. That puts them right back to square one.
Rep. Emmer makes important points here:
In fact, the court goes to great length to explain the importance of the separation of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. It then proceeds to butcher the concept with the judge's decision.When you boil Judge Gearin's ruling down to its essentials, it essentially tells Gov. Pawlenty how to do his job. Judge Gearin's ruling said that unallotment is constitutional. She said that, but for her TRO, conditions now exist that would meet her criteria for unallotment. Finally, Judge Gearin's ruling got the basic facts wrong.
It isn't a stretch to thing that Judge Gearin's ruling will be overturned.
Posted Friday, January 8, 2010 4:44 PM
Comment 1 by Benjamin at 08-Jan-10 08:08 PM
Emmer released a video a few days ago of his reaction to Gearin's ruling. He also gives his solution to budgeting delays - a bill he introduced last session called "First Things First".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX0NZ9VhwsU
Comment 2 by jeremya at 08-Jan-10 08:22 PM
Speaking of judicial activism on the part Judge Kathleen Gearin, does anyone remember the 4th of July shooting when a 14 year old boy was shot twice in the back by a sniper who was perched in his front yard? The alleged shooter was arrested later in the evening while hiding in his garage.
After his arrest the alleged shooter was released without restrictions when Judge Kathleen Gearin declined to sign the original criminal complaint, citing a lack of evidence (which BTW, was complete B.S., the search warrant found a .22 rifle and three spent shell casing in the guys front yard). Enough evidence was present to at the very least continue to hold the suspect. Not accord to Gearing - she felt that an "in plain sight" .22 caliber rifle and three spent shell casing was not enough evidence of the crime.
Shortly after his release, the alleged shooter, free with no restrictions, fled the state and was arrested a week after he disappeared in Louisiana.
This judge sums up all that is wrong in our judicial system.
Comment 3 by eric z at 09-Jan-10 08:18 AM
You may not have seen Rebel Without a Cause, the auto "chicken" scene.
One went over the cliff, the other stopped just short. It was the hero who stopped short. The pushy, brash, bullying one perished.
Why I think of that is something I need to figure out. But something in the synapses triggered.
How would unconstitutional bullying go over with differing voting blocs, that might be worth a thought or two also.
Gearin is only stage 1. GOP venom should be saved for ultimate judicial reckoning.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 10-Jan-10 03:29 PM
Reports are the appellate process is being expedited:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/81025932.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
Almanac's Political Roundtable
Panelists for Friday night's political rountable discussion on Almanac were Stacey Hunter-Hecht, David Schultz and Larry Jacobs. What they said was so enterrtaining that I trascribed a portion of their discussion. Here's that partial transcript:
WURZER: Stacey Hunter-Hecht, we'll start with you first & go national with you first. Byron Dorgan, Christopher Dodd not going to run for re-election. How tough might the upcoming elections be for Democrats in Congress?I haven't seen that much worthless information in one place in ages. First, Hunter-Hecht says that too much is being made of the Dorgan and Dodd retirements, which begs the question of what she thinks is worthy of attention. Sen. Dorgan's retirement stunned everyone and with good reason. In both North Dakota and Nebraska, support for Sens. Dorgan and Nelson is roughly equivalent to the support for Obamacare. Ditto with Blanche Lincoln's support in Arkansas. Ditto with Harry Reid's support level in Nevada. Ditto with Arlen Specter's support in Pennsylvania.
HECHT: Well, midterm elections are always bad for the president's party. That's the old saw that we need to make clear. I think the North Dakota, Connecticut is basically a wash. It's probably good news that Dodd isn't running. There are 11 members of the Senate that are retiring. In terms of numbers of seats that are in play, the Democrats have probably 1 more seat that's in jeopardy than Republicans so it's gonna be close. It's gonna be real close but I think there's been too much made of this in the national media & there's been way too much attention's been given to this.
WURZER: Too much ado about this?
SCHULTZ: I think it doesn't look as bad for the Democrats as many people think. There's 37 senate seats up at the current time. Democrats have 1 more than Republicans but more Republicans have announced that they're stepping down than Democrats so the numbers,I think Stacy's right,two seats that the Democrats might not have held, which now have a little bit better chance especially in Connecticut might not look quite as bad as they did. And while the Democrats are on the defensive, let's remember that the Republicans haven't exactly come up with a new message that's gonna help them in 2010.
JACOBS: I think that's really the main theme here. You can easily see it going both ways. The usual loss for Democrats, at least on the House side, is 22. That is on the midterm elections. So I would say you could see it going down 10 or 15, some say it could be as high as 30 or 40. It's gonna depend,the economy. I think that the key thing here is there's some ambiguity as to whether unemployment drives congressional elections or whether it's on overall economic growth. And on that story, that could really be what happens. We could see 2.5, 3, 3.5 percent growth while unemployment still remains high. The other key part here is what's happening in the Republican Part. They've got a civil war going on. If NY-23 repeats itself in Ohio, Florida & other states, the Republicans could well squander a great opportunity to pick up a number of seats.
HECHT: And another thing that hasn't been real clear here, & it's part because of the divisiveness in the national parties & the partisan rancor that we're hearing about is that 60th vote is a procedural issue, not a,it gets co-muddled with the policy issues. But we're so focused on that 60th vote. It's terribly important for procedural issues, right, but it's not as important from a policy perspective.
SCHULTZ: Larry made a good point & I want to come back to it because it's fascinating. Polling data still suggests that only about 20 percent of the American public still considers themselves Republicans or leaning Republicans at this point. They really haven't picked up any sort of a bump at this point that we see. So while Republicans have an opportunity to do something, they really need to articulate that message, that narrative for what they can do differently and not just simply be known as the party that says no to everything for the first year.
I can't say that all these senators' support is tied directly with supporting health care reform. In Sen. Specter's case, it's most likely tied to his supporting the stimulus, too. Reid's 'popularity' had disappeared long before the health care debate started. I can make a pretty strong case on Nelson's, Dorgan's and Lincoln's case, though. Then factor in Scott Brown's competitiveness in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. Brown is running as the 41st vote against Obamacare.
That's the pattern that these people aren't picking up on. That type of a pattern doesn't happen very often. When it does, it's wise to pay attention to it.
Another thing that Hecht, Schultz and Jacobs didn't take into account is the anti-Democrat mood there is in the country. They're completely ignoring the generic ballot polling of the past 6 months. According to Scott Rasmussen's polling, the last time the Democrats led the Generic Ballot Question was June 21, 2009. That's a long time since Democrats saw the positive side of that polling.
Schultz says that only 20 percent of the people identify themselves as Republicans. That's true but what Schultz doesn't say is that 40 percent of people identify themselves as conservatives. It's worth noting that only 20 percent of voters identify themselves as liberals.
That's the type of demographic information that shouldn't be left out of this type of discussion. It's too relevant to not include in this debate. The other thing that these geniuses didn't talk about was voter intensity. That's plain foolish. Voter intensity on the DFL/Democratic side isn't close to what it was last year. The voter intensity on the GOP side, however, is through the roof.
An example of that intensity came at last night's SD-15 GOP BPOU fundraiser. If enthusiasm could've been electricity, there would've been enough electricity in that room to light St. Cloud's homes for a decade.
Just looking at numbers this year won't cut it. It doesn't tell the entire story. This year, you have to factor in the TEA Party movement, the intense voter anxiety about America's economy and the Democrats' credibility. Right now, alot of supposed Democratic moderates got exposed as spineless puppets to Speaker Pelosi's and President Obama's leadership.
If the Democrats and the DFL don't start listening to the people about health care, tax cuts and spending, they'll be looking up from a very deep pit in the not-so-distant future.
Posted Sunday, January 10, 2010 12:33 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 10-Jan-10 03:36 PM
There's a lot of time between now and November, and the public attention span for "events" is so very short. What will commmand and sway public attention even three months from now is up for grabs.
The underwear bomber thing grinched Christmas, and some are bloviating about it still.
If there's another hurricane and no better response than for Katrina, it could change the landscape more than punditry or polls.
And the press is a wildcard. They're understaffed and inefficient, and too often do what they're told. But who will be telling them and be listened to, and what will the message be?
What's known is that overall congressional approvals, either house, have not yet reached single digits, but are trending.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Jan-10 04:28 PM
Eric, the Obama administration has been inept. Views are hardening about Congress's willingness to listen. In the past, issues came & went with varying degrees of impact. Not this time.
The people hate that Congress isn't listening to them about health care. They hate that this legislation has gotten as far as it has.
The TEA Party movement is attracting numbers big enough that it's essentially bypassing the media. Bloggers like me are covering candidate announcements.
That's why I'm calling us the REAL MEDIA. We actually do research. We actually ask follow-up questions, another thing that the Dead Tree Media doesn't do.
It's gonna be a difficult year for the Democrats nationally.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 10-Jan-10 07:30 PM
Gary:
Based on the talk of those three so called experts how come Scott Brown even has a shot of winning the MA senate race. And if they don't think the Republicans have a message will they think Republicans won't have one if Brown wins and MA won't certify so the US Senator who he is suppose to replace can stay in office long enough to pass the health care bill?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Norm Coleman & Local Activism At Its Finest
This past Saturday night, I had the privilege of introducing Sen. Norm Coleman at the SD-15 GOP BPOU fundraiser. The event was well-attended, even drawing the attention of MPR's Tim Pugmire . The event was attended by several gubernatorial candidates, including top tier candidates Tom Emmer and Marty Seifert.
In introducing Norm, I noted that "Tonight, I have the privilege of introducing a man doesn't need an introduction, a man who's voted for legislation that's actually created jobs, a man who's voted to confirm judges that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means and, most importantly, a man who's earned the reputation of listening to his constituents."
Norm quickly noted that he wouldn't have been there that night if not for Facebook, noting that that's how I contacted him, then noting that "kids probably won't think it's cool anymore because we're using it, too." In noting the Facebook connection, Norm suggested to the many local candidates that they needed to take full advantage of the social netowrking software.
Norm quickly noted that "2010 is our year." He said that Byron Dorgan wouldn't have retired if not for the unpopular votes he's made for health care. He quickly noted that "people are worried, maybe even a little afraid," about terrorism. The inference that Janet Napolitano isn't as competent as Tom Ridge wasn't lost on the audience.
Throughout the night, one local candidate after another made presentations to the activists attending the event. First amongst the candidates was John Pederson , who's announced in November that he's running for the SD-15 Senate seat currently held by Tarryl Clark. (It'll be a privilege being represented by John.) Next up was State Rep. Steve Gottwalt, who told the crowd that he "needs more reinforcements in St. Paul."
That's likely to happen now that Tom Ellenbecker has announced he's running for the seat currently held by Assistant Majority Leader Larry Hosch. I noted in this post that Tom is "a small businessman who understands the importance of low taxes and small government" and that Rep. Emmer has "pledged his full support for Ellenbecker." Larry's a likeable guy but he's facing a stiff challenge with Tom.
Sartell Mayor Tim O'Driscoll also spoke to the audience. Mayor O'Driscoll is running for the seat that Rep. Dan Severson currently holds. Mayor O'Driscoll tipped his hat to SD-15 for giving warm welcomes to SD-14 candidates like himself and Tom Ellenbecker, noting that it was a good sign that we're heading for a big year in Central Minnesota.
State Reps. Laura Brod, Matt Dean and Dan Severson also attended. Dan's now running for Minnesota Secretary of State. St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis and former Lt. Gov. Joanne Benson also attended Saturday night's event.
After the official program, I made the most of the opportunity to talk with a number of the out-of-town visitors, including Rep. Matt Dean, who is chairing the House Republican Campaign Committee and Rep. Laura Brod. Matt said that they've recruited alot of high quality candidates, including Tom Ellenbecker. He said that recruitment this year has been easier this cycle than in the past because it's shaping up to be a strong GOP cycle.
After introducing Norm, I was seated at Rep. Brod's table, where Laura had the opportunity to visit with some women from the Central Minnesota Republican Women's group. These women were impressed with Laura's understanding of health care-related issues.
Wherever I went, I found people excited about 2010. I told the candidates that I'd worked with Derek Brigham on this campaign slogan for this cycle:
The candidates that I talked with liked the slogan, saying that it described the differing mindsets perfectly. I think I can speak for Derek in saying that we heartily agree with these candidates.
Before leaving, I talked with King about the event. I thanked him for all the work he did putting the event together. We agreed that the enthusiasm level at the event was high and that it was a great way to kick off this election cycle.
Thanks also go out to Dan Ochsner for emceeing the event and to Barbara Banaian whose idea it was to hold a fundraiser heading into the new year. The point is that alot of people pitched in.
That's local activism at its finest.
Posted Monday, January 11, 2010 2:11 AM
Comment 1 by Leslie Davis at 11-Jan-10 08:45 AM
Your deliberate exclusion and failure to even mention that gubernatorial candidate Leslie Davis was in attendance Saturday night has not gone un-noticed. You sir, is what's wrong with our state and nation today because you think that you can pick the winners and losers. You are wrong and will be proven so at the primary in September. We Republic(m)an have had a belly full of folks like you.
Comment 2 by King at 11-Jan-10 06:34 PM
Best Norm line of the night: "We voted to change Washington. We did not vote to change America." And in November, we will vote to change Washington again, so that it FOLLOWS America rather than LEADS America.
Thank you to all that attended, including Mr. Davis and his guest.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 11-Jan-10 06:41 PM
Mr. Davis, does this mean you refuse to abide by the endorsement? Why should Republicans-- the grassroots activists-- respect your candidacy if you do not respect their endorsement process?
