July 1-2, 2008
Jul 01 08:47 I'm Stunned Jul 01 11:26 Energy Independence Day, A Year Later Jul 01 17:43 Hatch's Subterfuge Jul 02 08:36 A Ray Of Hope? Jul 02 09:48 Will Jesse Run? Jul 02 10:21 AP Spinning Good New From Iraq: Who Would've Think It? Jul 02 13:35 Will The Fur Fly Now? Jul 02 17:45 Was Franken Lying Then? Or Is He Lying Now?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
I'm Stunned
Yesterday, a union endorsed a DFL candidate . Who would've thunk it? Here's Mr. Tinklenberg's statement on getting the endorsement:
The Minnesota Nurses' Association has added their voice to a strong chorus calling for change in the Sixth District. I'm honored to receive their endorsement in my race to defeat Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has consistently voted to protect big insurance companies rather than patients and hospital staff.The Minnesota Nurses' Association is essentially endorsing Mr. Tinklenberg because he's the DFL candidate. Lori Swanson might be the exception. In case anyone's wondering what Mr. Tinklenberg's position on health care, here's what's posted on his website:
I applaud the commitment and tenacity of Minnesota nurses, who work day in and day out to provide the best possible patient care despite the many obstacles present in our current health care system. Registered nurses will play a key role in reforming this broken system, and I will welcome their input in working to bring down costs and improve access to care.
Healthcare coverage in the United States is exclusive and expensive. It is a major source of anxiety, not only for the 47 million uninsured Americans, but for millions more who are underinsured. Those with full coverage have watched their premiums increase an average of more than 10% per year over the past five years. Families whose wages have stagnated cannot afford these increases on top of soaring out-of-pocket and prescription costs.The last point is poorly thought out. If that's done on a federal level, profits of the pharmaceutical companies will drop precipitously. While that sounds good, it's a penny-wise, dollar-stupid type of approach. While people would pay less for their perscriptions, there would be less money going into R & D for new miracle drugs.
In Congress, I will work toward establishing universal healthcare coverage. A universal healthcare system will ensure access, lower premiums for families, and help American businesses stay competitive. It will also improve the quality and efficiency of care by taking the burden off overcrowded emergency rooms and emphasizing prevention and early diagnosis.
We must put aside our political differences and begin the transition to universal healthcare by expanding SCHIP to cover every American child. It is our moral obligation to make sure our children have access to care
- I will support the continued availability of private insurance options alongside a competitively priced public option, while insisting that no insurance company be allowed to deny coverage due to pre-existing health conditions.
- I will support long-term care benefits for the elderly.
- I will vote to allow direct price negotiations between the federal government and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The other thing that I've got questions about is what isn't talked about here, namely, mandates. What's Mr. Tinklenberg's position on various mandates? A major factor in the high cost of insurance is the various mandates that state and federal governments impose on insurance companies.
There's nothing in Mr. Tinklenberg's positions to distinguish himself from any other cookie cutter Democratic candidate so it's reasonable to think that he'd gladly impose other mandates.
That's change we can't afford to get near the levers of power.
Posted Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:17 AM
No comments.
Energy Independence Day, A Year Later
Captain Ed has a great post up skewering Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for their declaring last 4th of July Energy Independence Day. As Captain Ed notes, the Democrats' new direction is the wrong direction. Here's a video showing Ms. Pelosi's bold declarations:
During her criticism of the Bush administration's inaction, Ms. Pelosi said that Democrats would send money to "the Midwest, not the Middle East." While it's true that more subsidies are heading to the Midwest, they've failed in their goal of energy independence. In fact, they've taken us in another wrong direction, forcing us to import more foreign oil than ever before.
Here's something Ed said that's worth noting:
What Pelosi failed to mention was that gas prices at the pump were $2.24 per gallon in January of that year, and that under Democratic leadership, prices went up over 30%.Think about that. When Pelosi's Democrats took over, people were paying $2.24 a gallon at the pump. Eighteen months later, it's over $4 a gallon. The next question to ask is what's changed since Pelosi took control. For starters, they've made the prospect of making more known oil reserves available for exploration and production. Knowing that energy supplies won't be increased in any meaningful way, speculators wonder how high the price is going to go.
As I said here , there was a daily 9 million barrel cushion between America's needs and available supply when oil sold for $10-15 per barrel. That cushion is now 1.5 million barrels per day. A bit of sabre-rattling from Ahmadinejad or Chavez, a hurricane in the gulf or any number of other things can cause oil production to lag, thereby erasing whatever cushion existed.
As I said here , this is a crisis created by the Democrats' decisions. They've wanted this crisis so that more people would jump on the conservation/alternative bandwagon, which has happened. What's been proven, though, is that their policy won't supply America's needs.
Here's the transcript of Speaker Pelosi's speech on Energy Independence Day:
"This weekend, the nationwide average of $3.07 per gallon set a record, exceeding last August's previous record. And I'm particularly concerned because the highest price, $3.49 per gallon, is what is being charged in my district of San Francisco.On almost every point, the Democrats' plan has failed. Ethanol is a particular failure. Holding hearings into whether there's price-gouging have yielded the same results that they always have: nothing. The Democrats' energy plan does alot of things except address the need to increase oil supplies.
"With Memorial Day travel and the start of the summer driving season only a few weeks away, drivers are paying a heavy price for the Bush Administration's failure to enact a comprehensive energy strategy.
"Years of the Bush Administration's policies that have favored Big Oil over the consumers have resulted in record dependence on foreign oil, leaving American families and businesses to pay even higher prices.
"This Congress, under the Democratic leadership, is working to make up for years of inaction, taking America in a new direction that helps bring down the cost of gas and promotes energy independence. Energy independence is essential to reducing the price at the pump.
"In the first 100 hours of the new Congress, the House passed legislation to roll back $14 billion in subsidies for Big Oil, when Big Oil was already enjoying record profits. Our proposal reinvests that money at home in clean alternative fuels, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
"A number of House committees are taking action, holding hearings over the next few weeks to take a comprehensive look at how we can fight price gouging; the development of clean alternative fuels; the impact our dependence on foreign oil has on our economy; and how we can put new technologies to use to achieve greater energy efficiency.
"I've asked Chairman Waxman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to look into this issue. Chairman Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee will quickly mark up the Stupak bill on price gouging.
"We have our Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming moving forward with its recommendations, and we have Mr. Conyers, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, having anti-trust hearings on the subject of Big Oil.
"We have elevated this issue by creating the Select Committee, and we will make this July 4th Energy Independence Day with a package that will do the following things: provide economic incentives to develop and use clean alternative fuels; help our nation's farmers fuel our energy independence, we will send our energy dollars to the Midwest not the Middle East; encourage an energy innovation economy that will create new jobs and help small business; and enhance technology driven energy efficiency.
"We will lead our nation in a new direction toward energy independence that strengthens both our economic and national security."
My representative, Michele Bachmann, is one of the voices of sanity on this issue. Here's what she said with regards to the Democrats' approach:
In an effort to pass some kind of energy bill before the 4th of July recess and having failed with their price gouging bill , the Democrats brought H.R. 6251, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act sponsored by Rep. Rahall from West Virginia, to the floor last week. The bill is also know as the "Use it or Lose it" bill.In other words, Democrats have acted busy but they've been ineffective at getting anything meaningful done with lowering gas prices. Their ineffectiveness will be highlighted from now until Election Day. That's guaranteed.
Not only does it do nothing to increase oil production, this bill prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from issuing new leases for exploration for, or production of, oil or natural gas, unless the applicant certifies that he is "diligently developing" the leased lands or surrenders the leases. This bill would restrict the development of American energy, while sending a signal to the energy markets that petroleum had better come up quick or not at all, a move that could trigger higher energy prices and discourage investment in energy exploration.
19 Democrats joined 176 Republicans in defeating this "duplicate" piece of legislation. I say duplicate because Federal energy lease holders already must produce oil or natural gas within five to 10 years to live up to the terms of the lease and the law.
Anyone want to bet that farmers down in Minnesota's First District will buy into Rep. Walz's 'No New Energy' plan? BTW, Rep. Walz's plan is almost identical to any other Democrat's plan. They should sound the same. After all, the environmental extremists wrote their talking points.
One thing that's perfectly clear is that Senate Democrats will filibuster any bill that includes opening up the OCS or ANWR or the federal lands that President Clinton put offlimits. Another thing that's perfectly clear is that we'll use the Democrats' votes as a billyclub in the 2010 election. If gas prices continue climbing, which they will, and if the economy tanks because of the exhorbitant gas and diesel prices, which will happen, then Senate Democrats will pay a steep price in 2010.
What this really points to is that Democrats aren't on the side of working families. They're on the lobbyists' side of this important issue. Don't think that we won't point that out repeatedly. Democrats will be sick of getting beaten over the head with this issue long before November's election.
You can take that to the bank.
Posted Tuesday, July 1, 2008 11:27 AM
No comments.
Hatch's Subterfuge
The more we know about Mike Hatch, the more obvious it is that he isn't an ethical man. It's equally obvious that he won't hesitate to help his political allies. It appears as though that's precisely what Mr. Hatch did when he settled a case against Capitol One. Here's WCCO's reporting :
A Minnesota government investigator has questioned whether former Attorney General Mike Hatch was out to aid a political ally in a 2006 settlement with a credit card company that steered nearly $500,000 away from the state treasury and toward nonprofit groups.Mr. Hatch has some questions to answer. Here are a few suggestions:
According to an inquiry by the legislative auditor made public Monday, Hatch's office agreed to drop its deceptive-advertising case against Capital One Bank that February in exchange for $749,999, a dollar short of a statutory threshold for automatic deposit of settlement funds into state coffers.
Instead, Hatch's office and the defendant were able to pick other recipients for two-thirds of the proceeds: the Minnesota chapters of the Legal Aid Society and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN. The state got $250,000 to cover its investigative costs.
- What was Mr. Hatch's motivation for diverting the money away from state coffers and into the back account of an organization known for voter fraud?
- Why didn't Minnesota get the full amount?
- Why was even a penny directed to ACORN?
- What does a Democratic voter registration organization have to do with Capital One Bank's deceptive-advertising case?
Nobles discussed the Capital One case Monday before a panel of state legislators. He said he has found nothing illegal with the court-approved settlement but told reporters later that he hasn't ruled out further investigation if new information arises.Here's the part of Hatch's story that I'm not buying:
Nobles said the settlement amount was eye-catching and the circumstances demanded explanation. "I don't think anybody can look at that one dollar less than the legally allowed amount and not think it looks somewhat suspicious," Nobles said.
He justified the financial arrangement as vital to winning Capital One's approval because the company wanted to avoid paying a civil penalty to the state; it would only agree to pay the attorney general office's costs. Hatch insisted that ACORN was chosen by Capital One. Hatch said there was "no linkage" between the ACORN PAC endorsement of him and the settlement.Excuse me, Mr. Hatch? That's patently absurd. ACORN workers are paid based on the number of voters they register. In fact, ACORN workers pled guilty in Seattle of voter fraud:
" I think that most political commentators will tell you the last organization that could be influenced with money is ACORN ," Hatch wrote to Nobles. "If somebody truly believed such an allegation, they would not have waited 27 months to make the claim."
Elsewhere, four ACORN canvassers in Kansas City, Mo., have pleaded guilty in federal court to felony voter-registration fraud.Here's the video of people not getting paid by ACORN:
It's insulting to hear Mr. Hatch say that ACORN can't "be influenced with money." I've also hear but haven't verified that the original settlement was suggested by Hatch and that the figure was substantially north of $749,999.
I just spoke with someone from the Capitol that said that what Hatch did doesn't rise to the level of crime at this point. This contact did point me to something else that Jim Nobles is digging into:
Separately, Nobles said he is reviewing the office's spending from a federal Medicaid account in response to allegations that a small amount was improperly diverted to employee travel. Swanson's office disputes that money from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit budget was misused.This could be explosive. If someone steps forward and testifies that money was used on something other thatn Medicare/Medicaid items, then that's potentially the basis for a criminal investigation.
A larger point must be made about the ACORN settlement, too. The legislature needs to rewrite the law so that it isn't left to the Attorney General's discretion to direct settlements to any organization, whether it's to ACORN, a charity or an NPO. The legislation ideally would mandate that any settlements must go the state's accounts. PERIOD.
There should also be an accountability clause written into this legislation. Ideally, this legislation should mandate that the Legislative Auditor investigate when a lawsuit is filed by the AG's office but then is dropped. In other words, we should ensure that the AG's office doesn't threaten a lawsuit, then quietly drops the lawsuit but their favorite NPO gets some quiet cash.
I don't know how to write all those things into the legislation but that should be part of the legislation.
Originally posted Tuesday, July 1, 2008, revised 02-Jul 10:50 AM
No comments.
A Ray Of Hope?
The Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin says that Iraqis feel a ray of hope about their future. I don't doubt that they're feeling more optimistic but saying that it's only a ray of hope seems understated. Rubin says that whenever she wants to know how things are really going, he calls his friend Abbas. Here's how she describes their latest conversation:
Yet, in three recent phone conversations, he sounded more hopeful about Iraq's future than I'd heard him in a long time. Why hopeful? Because he finally sees some order returning to Baghdad. The Mahdi Army, the militia of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has been expelled from his neighborhood. "The Iraqi people are waking up from the Mahdi Army," he told me. "Iraqis know now that they are criminals."I'm glad that Ms. Rubin recognizes the improvement in Iraq. According to Ms. Rubin's bio , she's travelled extensively to the Middle East, including 9 times to Iraq. This isn't, as near as I can tell, some wet-behind-the-ears leftist ideologue. It sounds like she's serious about her work.
My difficulties start when I try reconciling Ms. Rubin's account with Col. Peters' account, which I wrote about here :
I think it's easy to get wrapped up with details but this isn't one or two little things going right. for the last eighteen months, the positive trendlines have been overwhelmingly positive. The Iraqi military has been doing a remarkably good job. Even last year, the Iraqi parliament passed more pieces of major legislation than the U.S. Congress. Our troops can now focus on killing the remnants of al-Qaeda, killing the key Shia militia leaders and Iranian special groups. Every major city in Iraq is now in the hands of Iraqi security forces, backed by the U.S. forces. And on top of all this, Geraldo, al-Qaeda suffered a collosal strategic defeat by declaring Iraq their central front , then having Sunni Arabs turn on them by the millions. al-Qaeda is a broken organization, not defanged entirely, but broken. These are big stories and I can tell you, Geraldo, that at the New York Post, that we found that people do want to hear positive things about our troops. They do want the news from Iraq and the last thing I'll say of this is that I'll say of this is that if in the Year of Our Lord 2014, that if Iraq is a perfect, peaceful democracy, better than Iowa, the NY Times will run an article above the fold, shoplifter arrested in Sadr City, surge failed.Ms. Rubin does note 2 major incidents that have changed Abbas' perspective. Here's the first change:
In Hay Salaam, Mahdi Army thugs from outside the neighborhood killed 19 Sunnis and two Shiite women who protested the slayings. Abbas was furious and looking for a way to fight back. His opportunity came when Gen. David H. Petraeus shifted the U.S. strategy for securing Baghdad and Iraq. As Sunni attacks on Shiites lessened, the Shiites felt less need for protection from the Mahdi Army and began to chafe at its shakedowns.This is a street-level evaluation of the surge. This doesn't come from a commander's PowerPoint presentation (Not that PowerPoint presentations aren't credible). It's just verified proof from someone who's been in the thick of things.
Abbas and his neighbors began tipping off U.S. soldiers to the location of Mahdi Army killers. That's when Abbas started getting threats. He never leaves home without being surrounded by armed relatives.
Here's another change that I thought noteworthy:
Another turning point came in April. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army to attack Shiite militias who controlled Iraq's second-largest city, Basra. Although the attack initially floundered, U.S. and British support enabled Maliki to recover, and Sadr's forces faded away. "After the battle of Basra, everything is changed," Abbas told me. "Now Iraqi citizens believe in the Iraqi army, not like before."Hearing an Iraqi say that "the Iraqi People believe in the Iraqi army" speaks volumes about the transformation in troop competence. They're turning into a real fighting force. That's a significant step forward because that makes militias one step closer to being unnecessary. Now that that's changed, attitudes shifted.
The bottom line to all this is that a number of people are voicing the same message: that Iraq is getting better on a variety of fronts.
That's sure to upset bloggers like this one . Here's what this lefty wrote about conservatives in general and me in particular:
The latest example of the farce that is our debate on Iraq is the "The Surge Is Working/No It Isn't" argument of the last week. In case you missed it, the Kuwait News Agency (whatever that is) reported last week that U.S. troop deaths were down by 60% . The Kuwait News Agency gave that story directly and exclusively to rightwing hack Matt Drudge ; from there it has become the GOP talking point du jour, appearing everywhere from The Economist to a wide variety of stupid right wing blogs . They are arguing, in other words, that the surge is working because U.S. deaths in Iraq are supposedly down--and that Democrats should get in line behind the brilliant Commander-in-Chief.
It's laughable reading, especially since this lefty thinks that my only argument about staying in Iraq is that US troop deaths are down. While it's true that US troop casualties are down, that's hardly the only criteria for supporting the surge. It's just that BDS-blinded lefties like that blogger can't think beyond their ideologies. That's their problem.
Just for the record, here's why my support for the surge is as staunch as ever:
- The US military is killing off AQI.
- The US military is wreaking havoc on the Shiite militias.
- The Iraqi security forces are controlling Iraq's biggest cities.
- According to Col. Peters, "Sunni Arabs turn on [AQI] by the millions.
- The Iraqi Parliament is more productive than Pelosi's pinheads in getting meaningful legislation passed.
- The Maliki government is showing a spine by treating Sadr's militias as harshly as they treat AQI. ( TRANSLATION: They've become a real government.)
The good news is that Abbas see firsthand that things have changed for the better. I'll trust Abbas' word over a lunatic lefty blogger anytime.
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2008 8:38 AM
No comments.
Will Jesse Run?
When asked about Jesse Ventura's possible challenge to Sen. Coleman, Dean Barkley says that he thinks it's more likely than not. According to this article , Jesse faces a number of obstacles, all of which can be overcome:
Ventura's 'straight talk' eventually resulted in 'Ventura fatigue' for many Minnesotans. Barkley and Jacobs believe he can overcome that.If Jesse runs, I'll personally remind people why they developed 'Ventura fatigue'. I'll remind them of his petulant rants. I'll remind them that Ventura's values aren't synched with Minnesota values. (Remember his anti-religion statement about religion being for the weak?) Mostly, though, I'll remind people that his policies created the biggest budget deficit in state history and that he cut license tab fees (with the help of El Tinklenberg), which shorted many a road project.
When Jesse first ran, he was more of a fascination. This time, that fascination is likely more of a revulsion.
"For Ventura, this would be the ideal race to jump into. He'd be running against two candidates, neither of whom is terribly popular," said Larry Jacobs with the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute.While it's true that 'Jesse being Jesse' is what got him elected, it's also what nauseated people, too. Minnesotans prefer stoic, intelligent political leaders over clueless egomaniacal candidates. Jesse is all bluster. People are wise to his schtick. They thought he was capable when he ran but that luster soon wore off. By the time he announced he wouldn't run for re-election, people knew that he was a buffoon.
Coleman and Franken have already spent millions of dollars on their campaigns. Barkley told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that Ventura would probably spend less than a million if he joined in. "He'll just have to go out and be Jesse. Just tell them the truth; tell people what he's thinking, what he thinks is wrong," said Barkley.
Frankly, I don't think he'll get in. He's eighteen points down to Sen. Coleman. It's one thing to come back from that deficit if you're an unheard of challenger. It's quite another to close that big of a deficit when you've got 100 percent name recognition with a bad record to defend.
It's worth noting that Jesse hates dealing with the media. He gained popularity by criticizing the Agenda Media. That's likely still an easy target. Unfortunately for him, the Right Blogosphere won't take his guff. Instead, we'll simply remind people of his disastrous policies as governor. Defending his policies won't be nearly as easy as running as a blank slate was in 1998.
In the end, I think that's why Mr. Ventura won't get in. Also, I think his ego couldn't take getting defeated.
For what it's worth, I think he would get more votes than Franken.
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment 1 by Mike at 02-Jul-08 05:33 PM
You remind them, I seem to remember meaningless individuals trying to do the same in 98 too.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Jul-08 05:51 PM
Mike, I don't recall that. I think you're kidding yourself. I know blogs weren't around then. The political media landscape's changed some since then.
The other thing that's changed is that Jesse could run as a blank slate then. Now he's got a record to defend.
As I recall, it wasn't a pretty record. Lotsa luck defending it this time.
Comment 3 by Mike at 03-Jul-08 06:15 AM
I just don't think Jesse will have much problem running against two Democrats.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 03-Jul-08 06:23 AM
Mike, There's a big difference between Coleman & Franken. Coleman votes for strict constructionist judges, votes for funding victory in Iraq & he's for increasing real energy production.
Those aren't things that any Democrat would get caught dead doing.
I know it's fashionable to call Norm a RINO but it isn't reality.
Besides, Jesse's a buffoon with a lousy record to defend. He was fine when the slate was clean. Now he's been exposed as just a flamboyant celebrity in way over his head.
Mayor was the most he was qualified for.
Comment 5 by Mike at 03-Jul-08 04:52 PM
The war will go the way of the president, as for the judges it soon won't matter because in 15 or 20 years it will take activist judges to make gay marraige illegal, as the under 35 crowd is not going to let organized religion crutch our morals into that of hate.
Comment 6 by Walter hanson at 04-Jul-08 11:52 PM
You know Gary one reason why Ventura won in 1998 was he ran on Norm Coleman's issues and than did other things.
He promised to sign conceal carry if it passed. It took Governor Pawlenty having to sign it twice.
Ventura ran as I think the surplus should be given back to the tax payers. Instead he spent a lot of it. Including the budget gimmick (he technically authorized a transfer of general revenue money to replace the tab money lost on the cap).
Norm will have a field day on that.
Another very important difference was in 1998 the position was open. In 2008 the person holding the office is asking to be reelected. Norm has don't enough to justify a large of enough voters (even if you count Franken and Ventura together) to throw him out. Ventura might get a lot of protest votes (that's sort of what happened in 1998)
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
AP Spinning Good New From Iraq: Who Would've Think It?
The thought of the AP downplaying improvements in Iraq isn't news. It's noteworthy, though, to see how they report the good news from Iraq . Here's how Anne Flaherty described the progress:
No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates. Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.I'd love to ask Ms. Flaherty a few questions. Here's a few right off the top of my head:
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory", almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks, enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues-are unsatisfactory.
- Why is dealing with significant, verifiable progress in Iraq a frustrating thing for the 44th president?
- Isn't the fact that the Iraqi government doubled the amount of benchmarks met in a year a sign that the government is finally getting its footing?
- Why is distriibuting oil revenues on this list? While it's true that they haven't passed that constitutional amendment, it's equally true that oil revenues are being shared. They've been shared for quite some time, in fact.
In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.Question for Ms. Flaherty: If "Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions", then why shouldn't we take an optimistic view of what's happening?
They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.
Lest you think that the rest of Ms. Flaherty's article is optimistic, here's the next three paragraphs:
But for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.Overall, this is just another AP article designed to create pessimism about Iraq. That's almost unnewsworthy.
Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.
Likewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year.
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2008 10:21 AM
No comments.
Will The Fur Fly Now?
Based on Britt Robson's article , I'd say that the fur might start flying inside Lori Swanson's office. Here's what Mr. Robson wrote that has me thinking that:
Workers in the Minnesota Attorney General's office have alleged under oath that current AG Lori Swanson and her predecessor, Mike Hatch, may have illegally diverted federal monies meant to investigate Medicaid fraud, and that a legal settlement negotiated by Swanson and Hatch financially benefited a nonprofit organization that later endorsed Hatch's campaign for governor.I posted yesterday that the ACORN revelations with regard to the Capitol One case were troubling but that the potential misuse of federal monies was potentially explosive. That was before I was aware of these alleged affidavits. That takes it to a totally different level. If those attorneys are effective witnesses, which I'm betting they are, then Mike Hatch isn't the only person who should be sweating right now. I'd have to think that Lori Swanson's stomach, deservedly, would be tied in knots at this point, too. Here's what I wrote yesterday about the possible Medicare/Medicaid charges:
If Mr. Robson is right and there are seven affidavits charging the Hatch and Swanson regimes with misuse of federal monies to investigate Medicaid fraud, then that has the potential of launching a federal investigation well outside Hatch's and Ms. Swanson's sphere of influence. Hatch's and Swanson's approach in dealing with adversity (this certainly qualifies as adversity) is through threats and intimidation. They can do that in Minnesota because they can potentially blacklist attorneys who speak out against them from practicing in the Twin Cities.Separately, Nobles said he is reviewing the office's spending from a federal Medicaid account in response to allegations that a small amount was improperly diverted to employee travel. Swanson's office disputes that money from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit budget was misused.This could be explosive. If someone steps forward and testifies that money was used on something other that Medicare/Medicaid items, then that's potentially the basis for a criminal investigation.
Let's remember that the Legislative Auditor can compel Ms. Swanson's and Mr. Hatch's testimony through answering questionnaires about these allegations. Filling out those questionnaires isn't optional but they are done with the understanding that their answers are under oath. Therefore, they're subject to perjury laws.
Let's not be under any illusions: Ms. Swanson and Mr. Hatch thrive on playing political hardball. They don't hesitate about hitting their opponents with threats and intimidation. That's their turf. Nonetheless, let's not underestimate the impact of this paragraph from Mr. Robson's article:
Nobles did say that when the OLA does its normal audit of the AG's office early next year, it definitely will "go out and pursue" allegations that the Attorney General's office had misused federal monies earmarked to uncover Medicaid fraud. According to the legislative auditor, some of the sworn testimony claimed that as far back as 2005 some of this federal money had been instead been "siphoned to other, more headline-grabbing" areas of investigation in the AG's office.If it's verified that federal monies were "siphoned to other, more headline-grabbing" investigations, then no amount of political hardball will help Ms. Swanson and Mr. Hatch.
Another thing that's noteworthy is the important things that Rep. Steve Simon, (DFL-St. Louis Park), has brought to light:
The specifics of those sworn allegations against Hatch and Swanson may have remained under wraps were it not for detailed questioning from Rep. Steve Simon (DFL-St. Louis Park). Simon, an attorney and former employee in the AG's office, was one of the legislators instrumental in getting Nobles to launch his preliminary assessment of potential wrongdoing in the office. His first question to Nobles was front-loaded with information about allegations that had been relayed to him. He then offered a legal rationale on why Nobles did not act on this information-and, then asked Nobles if his assumption was accurate.All Minnesotans should find this type of corruption appalling and unacceptable. If Lori Swanson won't leave voluntarily, then she needs to either be convicted of misappropriating monies intended to investigate Medicare fraud or Minnesota's voters should run her out of office in 2010.
Specifically, Simon spoke of an employee who said he had been approached by Hatch (who, after Hatch's gubernatorial defeat and Swanson's AG victory in the 2006 elections, was serving as Swanson's deputy) to create a blog post favorable to Swanson, a post Hatch had already composed for him. The employee said he refused to do this, but that Hatch posted it under the employee's name anyway-and then wanted the employee to falsify his vacation time to cover the period when the blog post was made. Simon surmised that Nobles believed this matter lay outside his purview because the vacation time in question belonged to the employee, not the State of Minnesota, and thus could not be seen as misusing public funds. Nobles then replied that Simon's account "was an accurate reflection of the testimony under oath," and one corroborated by other sources. But, Nobles added, "We just put the whole story on the record," and wondered what else about it would require further investigation-especially since the employee never changed his vacation time card.
As for Mr. Hatch, I'd love nothing better than to see him convicted for misappropriating federal monies and for him to be disbarred. Anything short of that will feel like Minnesotans got cheated. Mr. Hatch is a bully who's had other run-ins with the courts. If I recall correctly, he's the only sitting AG that's had the State Supreme Court investigate corruption charges.
Let's make one other point perfectly clear. Mike Hatch was the DFL's endorsed candidate for governor in 2006. He was a disgusting, unethical person then. The DFL shouldn't have endorsed him, much less supported him as heartily as they did. The fact that he came within 20,000 votes of defeating Gov. Tim Pawlenty is testimony that the DFL doesn't mandate ethical behavior from its endorsees. It's a far cry from being the party that Paul Wellstone loved.
In fact, I don't think it's a stretch to think that Sen. Wellstone would call for a federal investigation into the Medicare allegations if he were still alive.
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2008 1:35 PM
No comments.
Was Franken Lying Then? Or Is He Lying Now?
I was prepared to say that this Coleman for Senate press release called Al Franken's energy positions into question. Then I realized that isn't a harsh enough rebuke of Franken's energy policy. Here's what his website says about "gas prices":
Let's not fall for gimmicks and false promises. A "gas tax holiday" would take billions of dollars out of our already-under-funded national highway trust fund and hand that money directly to the oil companies, and it wouldn't reduce the price at the pump. And although I'm not categorically opposed to off-shore drilling if it's environmentally sustainable, Senator Coleman's proposal wouldn't increase production at all in the next decade, and thus wouldn't be any help to consumers at the pump. And the oil companies it would benefit already have plenty of drillable areas that they're not using. We need real solutions, not thinly-veiled giveaways to Big Oil.Here's what Mr. Franken said during his appearance on Don Shelby's show just 2 weeks ago:
Shelby: Okay. Now let's talk a little bit about energy. The President of the United States now has reversed himself in saying that $4 a gallon gasoline ought to be incentive enough to go and reserve himself on his policy against allowing offshore drilling in the OCS, the outer continental shelf. The Democratic presidential nominee says no he still doesn't like that. Do you think that there is anything in that policy that would bring the price of gasoline down below $4 if we allowed that?Let's first examine this Franken statement:
Franken: I very much doubt it. I'd certainly like to see what the environmental, the potential environmental impact of something of that would be. And I imagine that's why we haven't been doing it.
I'm not categorically opposed to off-shore drilling if it's environmentally sustainable.Whether he is or isn't, what's certain is that he thinks it wouldn't help gas prices. It's obvious that the first question he wants answered is whether it's environmentally safe. If he knew more about drilling on the OCS, he'd know that it's ecofriendly. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through the Gulf, the rigs were down for awhile but there weren't any spills reported.
SIDENOTE: Sen. Coleman already did his homework on that. Sen. Coleman wouldn't have put his legislation together if he wasn't certain of the construction safeguards.
When Franken says "the oil companies it would benefit already have plenty of drillable areas that they're not using. We need real solutions, not thinly-veiled giveaways to Big Oil", is he saying that increasing oil production is a giveaway to 'Big Oil'? That's what it sounds like to me. The truth is that Mr. Franken has a problem with capitalism until it benefits him. Then he's Mr. Capitalist.
By comparison, Sen. Coleman isn't an on-again-off-again capitalist. Sen. Coleman knows that we need to expand our energy supplies. Logically, that means oil companies have to increase production, which will help their bottom line. Unlike Mr. Franken, Sen. Coleman knows that you can't increase oil production without 'Big Oil' companies.
It's telling that Al Franken hasn't stopped debating himself on energy policy. It's telling that Sen. Coleman has a multi-faceted, thoughtful plan that will increase energy production, which will lower energy prices to consumers.
As an energy consumer, I'll vote for Sen. Coleman's plan because it's logical whereas Mr. Franken's plan is still 'evolving'.
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2008 5:48 PM
Comment 1 by MNObserver at 17-Jul-08 01:26 PM
"When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through the Gulf, the rigs were down for awhile but there weren't any spills reported."
You are so full of baloney. From News reports at the time:
"More than 500 specialists are working to clean up 44 oil spills ranging from several hundred gallons to nearly 4 million gallons, the U.S. Coast Guard said in an assessment that goes far beyond initial reports of just two significant spills.
The report comes nearly three weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, and reflects the fact that the Coast Guard and other agencies are able to only now tackle environmental problems since the search and rescue effort is winding down.
The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana.
That is about two-thirds as much oil as spilled from the Exxon Valdez tanker in 1989. But unlike the oil from the Valdez, which poured from a single source, these oil spills are scattered at sites throughout southeast Louisiana."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Jul-08 01:48 PM
MNObserver, Those spills happened inland.
Comment 3 by MNObserver at 17-Jul-08 03:22 PM
Inland in a delta state, Gary. But you're right, here's the info on the gulf oil platform damage, from the Minerals Management Service:
"MMS Updates Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Damage
NEW ORLEANS ; Minerals Management Service (MMS) today released an update of the assessment of damage to offshore oil and gas infrastructure caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
MMS Gulf of Mexico Regional Director Chris Oynes noted that "Today's assessment of damage updates the assessment MMS released on January 19, 2006. Based on additional industry assessments, investigations, and reports, the number of pipelines damaged has risen to 457 from 183. The number of larger diameter pipelines (10 inches or greater) that were damaged has risen to 101 from 64. Thirty-two have returned to service versus the previous number of 22." Table 1 and Table 2 list the major pipelines that were damaged.
MMS has also revised the number of platforms destroyed from 115 down to 113 (one well was mistaken for a platform and one platform was damaged not destroyed). Table 3 and Table 4 list the destroyed platforms. Of these 113, four replacement platforms have been proposed by the operators and approved by MMS to date. These replacement platforms will take the place of eight destroyed platforms with a pre-hurricane daily production of 16,700 barrels per day."
http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm
Yep, 115 platforms destroyed. "Down for a while" indeed.
