July 11-13, 2009
Jul 11 10:02 PFAW's Sleazy Tactics Jul 11 13:42 Obama's Kidding, Right? Jul 12 06:38 She's Half Right Jul 13 00:00 The Other Cost of Single-Payer Jul 13 07:57 A Political Portrait of Minnesota's Next Governor Jul 13 12:09 Troubles In Obamaland? Jul 13 22:22 Michele vs. Tarryl? A Tale of the Tape
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
PFAW's Sleazy Tactics
One of the most hard left organizations, People for the American Way (PFAW), is going after Frank Ricci for his "troubled and litigious work history."
Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling. On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.PFAW plays old-fashioned hardball politics. It's one of the most despicable organizations in DC. PFAW is a huge advocate for getting the most liberal justices confirmed for the Supreme Court. That's why they're focusing on Frank Ricci, though I don't know how wise that is. Ricci is the fireman who filed the lawsuit that Judge Sotomayor was just reversed on.
This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill. "The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.
On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines.
Specifically, the advocates have zeroed in on an earlier 1995 lawsuit Ricci filed claiming the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic. The advocates cite other Hartford Courant stories from the same era recounting how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn., allegedly, Ricci said at the time, because of safety concerns he raised.
Here's what Slate wrote about the case:
The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case.,This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."In other words, Judge Sotomayor's panel of judges tried their best to not give Ricci's lawyers any ammunition if they decided to appeal this case to the Supreme Court. If that was their strategy, it failed miserably.
Which brings us back to PFAW. They don't care whether Sotomayor was right or wrong. They don't worry whether something is on topic. If they find mud on someone, their attacks on their target are ruthless. That's what's happening here.
What's bothersome to me is PFAW's attention to Mr. Ricci's litigious history. Why does that matter in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing? This time, the Supreme Court ruled for him and against Judge Sotomayor. In fact, though the ruling was 5-4, the biggest shot across Judge Sotomayor's bow was that it was that all 9 justices said that the procedure that the Second Circuit used was flawed.
Expect PFAW to play a high profile role in Sotomayor's confirmation. They'll attempt to slime Mr. Ricci so he won't be the sympathetic figure he currently is. PFAW's tactics are driven by the racial spoils industry. Currently serving on PFAW's board are such racebaiting experts as Mary Frances Barry and Julian Bond.
PFAW's motivation is obvious. They're interested in keeping the racial spoils industry alive. That they would trash someone like Frank Ricci for that priority is disgusting.
Posted Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:04 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jul-09 08:16 AM
This is one of those ho hum, who cares things.
Sotomayor will be appointed. At some point Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will be replaced with the interesting question being which party is in power then.
I think the GOP can only discredit itself by being asses during the appintment hearings. Letting her sail through would be wiser. Probably they cannot help themselves and will make noise anyway. It will distract from real issues that way, and in the two party dominated systems both parties like to distract from real issues.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-09 02:08 PM
Eric, There's no question but that Sotomayor will get confirmed. That said, I think it'd be wise if Republicans asked her some pointed questions to show how wrong her judicial philosophy is so they can use that against President Obama in 2012.
Obama's Kidding, Right?
According to this article , President Obama says that his stimulus bill "has worked as intended."
President Barack Obama said his $787 billion stimulus bill "has worked as intended" as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.That's an outright fabrication. It doesn't resemble the truth. When he pushed the bill, he said, at various times, that it would create either 3,000,000 new jobs, 3,500,000 new jobs or 4,000,000 new jobs. I don't recall the Senate holding the vote open for Sherrod Brown so he could cast the deciding vote so they could extend unemployment and Medicaid benefits.
"It has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession," Obama, who is traveling today in Ghana, said in his weekly Saturday radio and Web address. "It has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to American working families and business."
I've watched Hannity play the tape of President Obama saying that failing to pass the stimulus bill would cause unemployment to rise above 8 percent. You don't stabilize unemployment by extending umemployment and Medicaid benefits. That only happens when the economy is creating jobs.
"We're moving in the right direction," Obama said. "We must let it work the way it's supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity."I might buy that if the economy was shedding 75,000-100,000 jobs a month. It isn't. It's been shedding approximately 500,000 jobs a month. That doesn't sound like we're heading in the right direction to me. Quite the opposite, actually.
If I were a strategist for the NRCC or NRSC, I'd be creating an advertisement contrasting Rasmussen's latest polling with President Obama's statements. Here's what Rasmussen's latest polling shows:
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Americans now oppose federal government bailouts for states like California that are experiencing major budget problems.That's a 3:1 ration against bailing out states. There isn't an appetite for more massive spending outlays at this point. I'd doubt that the average person will differentiate between bailing states out and extending unemployment and Medicaid benefits. The average taxpayer just notices that it's just a bunch more spending that they'll have to pay for.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 20% of adults favor bailing out financially troubled states. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure which course is best.
This set of statistics is the most important set in terms of the 2010 elections:
Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans and 61% of adults not affiliated with either major political party oppose federal bailout help for states with budget problems. A plurality (42%) of Democrats agree, but 31% think bailing out the states is a good idea.If I'm a Democratic strategist, I'd be worried when 4 of 10 Democrats like the bailouts and 6 in 10 independents dislike the bailouts. That's a huge red flag to me.
President Obama is a gifted speech reader but he isn't a persuasive person to people who pay attention to facts. He's left with a difficult task at this point. He knows that he can't lose more credibility on the economy because that's a potentially fatal problem for his administration. His only option is to try and convince people that things aren't as bad as they are.
I don't think that President Pied Piper is capable of changing people's minds on that.
Posted Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:46 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jul-09 07:37 AM
From what I have read, there's no traction in the stimulus bill fixing anything. Authorization's been done, so where are the dollars being spent?
In Minnesota, do you know any actual stimulus spending, its amounts, its impact, etc.?
Some analysis suggests it is not enough, and more is needed to move to a more prosperous national and global status.
But that's more opinion, smoke being blown without any apparent capability of anyone to give solid fact-based analysis.
Perhaps you might disagree, but I have the impression that economists are a bit like magic acts on stage - tricks and such, working with illusions, but we all know in our hearts there's no real magic there.
Economics as demonstrated in the public forum to me is a bit like lite beer - either watered down from a good product so that profits somewhere can be enhanced, or just a crappy product from people who don't know how to make a really good one anyway.
How bad is the economy?
Can you or anyone else really say beyond "On our block, two families have suffered job losses"?
Aggregate macroeconomics can be used to lie about a lot of stuff while some in the system are collecting paychecks or profits.
That seems to be a part of the Ron Paul criticism of the Fed.
Regardless of all else, he's advanced one unimpeachable idea; audit the beast. Yet there's a devil in details to that - who picks the auditor and how much trust can any "audit" of that institution earn?
Even so, across the spectrum in the GOP and beyond, I cannot see an audit of the Fed being unhelpful. And that's from the other end of the spectrum from either you or Ron Paul. Apart from all else I see only good to that idea.
Is it something you've thought much about?
Comment 2 by eric z at 13-Jul-09 08:10 AM
One last thought, Gary. The new Chrysler, the new GM, together they will save the world. Keeping the highways humming. Surely you agree. Bubblemania will never happen again. Globalization has made us immune from business cycles.
She's Half Right
The opening paragraph of Eleanor Clift's column is half right:
His poll numbers may be sinking, but six months into his presidency, Barack Obama retains the admiration and the trust of voters. To be sure, they're not as admiring of his policies. The attacks from critics about unsustainable debt and big government have taken their toll. Voters question whether his policies will work, and the legions of progressives who backed him wonder whether he has what it takes to work his will on Capitol Hill.That's a fanciful play on words. "They're not as admiring of his policies"? Don't climb too far out on that limb, Ms. Clift. Here's what Rasmussen's latest polling says:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.That's an indication that people don't trust President Obama as much as Ms. Clift would like us to believe. Then again, that's to be expected since she's one of the most unapologetic liberal apologists in the liberal punditocracy, which is saying something considering that's where Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews reside.
If there's anything reliable in this world, it's that Ms. Clift will defend anything that a Democratic president says, even if they've said something indefensible. I'm not convinced that Clift would recognize reality because she's obviously not paying attention to reality now.
There will come a tipping point, especially if unemployment keeps rising, at which the American people turn a deaf ear to President Obama's speeches. If that happens, which I think is imminent, Democrats will slam face first into a wall of angry voters.
The effects of Obama administration policy are already being seen in Rasmussen's Generic Ballot Question :
Republican candidates lead Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.I looked at the graphic charting the generic ballot question. It goes back to April, 2007. Democrats led at that point by 10 points. They'd been leading prior to that for quite some time. The March 7, 2009 poll was the first time Republicans led Democrats in a number of years. Now Republicans lead for the second straight week.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 41% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 38% would choose the Democratic candidate. Support for the GOP remains unchanged this week, at its highest level over the past year, but support for Democrats dropped one point to tie its lowest level in the same time period.
That polling reflects, I believe a sea change that's been shaped by the Tea Party Movement. What's fueling the Tea Party Movement is the Obama administration's irresponsible spending, especially the bailouts and the stimulus bill.
Last weekend, Dana Loesch said that the Tea Party Movement had switched from 'awareness mode' to action . I'd tell the people that questioned whether the Tea Party thing was a one time event or if it had legs that this thing's got legs and then some.
Couple the movement with the polling and it's credible to say that the playing field for 2010 is changing fairly dramatically.
If political capital is measured by popularity, Obama still has plenty. What he doesn't seem to have is a willingness to spend it.If political capital is measured by the support his policies get, Obama's political capital account will need a major infusion soon. Ms. Clift needs to realize that popularity is fleeting but that solid policymaking will always rebuild a politician's political capital 'account'.
Posted Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jul-09 07:24 AM
Gary, this is another one that raises questions with me - related to what you've posted, but a bit divergent.
Strib carried this story - some say they want a witch hunt even if it is clearly not going to be able to change what's already happened:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/50590342.html?page=2&c=y
Do you recall about police advisors speaking about pickpocket teams at crowded public events?
What I remember, one person bumps and distracts you, while another more skilled and professional and experienced, the team leader, picks your pocket.
It is like what was Congress doing besides the Lewinsky-Clinton antics, and what foreign events were then, while the press was handing out Ken Starr tidbits.
I distrust things enough to ask what real agenda is behind this "Let's rattle skeletons right now" situation.
Do you read it similarly, an intent to distract, or is it just two party sniping, business as usual?
The Other Cost of Single-Payer
If we each had a sawbuck for each time we heard that single-payer produces long waiting lines, we'd probably be able to retire. Glenn Reynolds rightly argues in this op-ed that that isn't the biggest problem with going to a single-payer system:
But there's another cost that isn't getting enough attention. That's the degree to which a bureaucratized healthcare system will squash medical innovation just as we reach a point where dramatic progress is possible. To see how important that is, I don't have to look any farther than my own family.When I covered the St. Cloud Health Care forumn that Sen. Tarryl clark hosted, I was astonished at how many people in the audience were single-payer activists. I felt like I was the only capitalist in the building. While there, I talked with someone from the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition. After the meeting, I returned home and visited their website. They had a study about the pros and cons of single payer by the American Medical Students Association or AMSA, which I wrote about here. This is what jumped out at me from AMSA's study:
Perhaps our medical history is more involved than most, but probably not by a lot. And yet many members of my family are living better, happier lives, or, heck, just living, because of medical innovations made in recent decades, innovations that probably wouldn't have been made under a government-run health system. And as medical technology progresses by leaps and bounds, the next few decades are likely to see much greater progress, unless it's throttled by bureaucrats.
3. Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.That second sentence is a verification of the exact things that Glenn Reynolds is talking about. Without capital investments, there's no incentive to create wonder drugs. There's no incentive to create mobile MRIs. There's just doing the same-old-same-old because technological advances simply won't happen as frequently. Here's something else that AMSA's study 'noted':
5. There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.This isn't rocket science. I asked a friend who's also a businessman, other than making something illegal, what the best way was to get a business to stop doing something. His reply was predictable: the fastest way was to remove a profit motive.
When I participated in the first blogger conference call on health care, it was suggested that we should talk about the loss of freedom if single-payer was part of the legislation. That's certainly a legitimate concern. Still, I suggested that the loss of innovation due to a dramatic downturn in profits would remove the quality from our current system.
Rep. John Fleming, (R-LA), is taking a wonderfully irreverent, yet serious approach to this debate:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.If the public option is such a good thing, let those voting for it lead by example. I suspect that these portraits in checking which way the political wind is blowing will say "Thanks but no thanks." This Democrat administration and this Democrat-infested congress are finding out alot of voters are taking the Show Me approach to governance.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
The bottom line is this: This Democratic administration and this Democrat-laden Congress know that the public option is junk. That's proven by the Democrats' unwillingness to accept what they'll attempt to force down our throats.
Remember who wanted to take away the best health care product in the world when you step into that booth the first Tuesday in November, 2004. Right now, health care reform and growing the economy should be the only things that voters should be worrying about.
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 12:07 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jul-09 07:17 AM
Gary, how do you figure Maureen Reed?
She's a background in healthcare, she wants to retire Michele Bachmann, she wants to bypass Elwyn Tinklenberg [bless that effort], and yet she's silent on issues - as if testing the winds as long as feasible before speaking.
With healthcare frontburner now, wouldn't you expect her to be speaking out? Sharing her perspective from within the present system, on what's best to move to the future?
I would.
Second idea, to not have an opt-in opt-out for that federal system but roll it into whatever public system emerges. If it is a new system for the public, who is more public than public servants - on the taxpayers' payroll, etc.?
You keep writing interesting stuff. And it is not your task to smoke out Maureen Reed on this issue. But why is the mainstream press giving her a free pass with her key experience in the "elect me" resume being as it is?
Any idea?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-09 07:45 AM
Eric, I think that the media won't "smoke out" Maureen Reed or any other DFL candidate against Michele. From what I've seen, the media is invested in seeing Michele defeated & that consideration is the only consideration that matters.
A Political Portrait of Minnesota's Next Governor
Based on people's distrust of President Obama's handling of the economy and based on Speaker Kelliher's mismanagement of this year's legislative session, I believe that Minnesotans are looking for several traits from their next governor.
First, they're looking for a governor that won't think raising taxes as their first, second or third option in solving budget deficits. Second, I believe that Minnesotans are looking for someone who actually sets sensible priorities. Third, I'm confident that Minnesota's next governor should be both reform-minded and driven towards policies that make Minnesota more prosperous. Finally, I'm confident that they're looking for a leader with common sense.
Poll after poll shows people are opposed to tax increases. That hasn't prevented the DFL leadership in the legislature from proposing one major new tax increase after another. I've talked to enough people to know that they don't like candidates that think of raising taxes as their first solution to the deficits. People want government to operate efficiently. Minnesota's voters want politicians who spend money on needs instead of rewarding political allies.
The DFL hasn't shown any fiscal restraint since retaking the majority in 2006. In 2007, with a $2,200,000,000 surplus, the DFL leadership tried raising taxes by $5,500,000,000. They tried increasing spending for the biennium that ended on June 30, 2009 by 17 percent over the spending done for the biennium that ended on June 30, 2007.
Too many Minnesotans are unemployed. They want real jobs that will be there for more than a year. They want jobs that are the result of sustained entrepreneurial activity. They want real prosperity, not a volatile public works-oriented economy that the DFL is always focused on.
When I attended this year's Cherrypicked Testimony Tour event in St. Cloud, I didn't hear a word from the DFL activists about creating prosperity or reforming how government delivers essential services. By comparison, Republicans offered one reform after another.
When the GOP's endorsed candidate starts running, that person will tout the long list of GOP-offered reforms that they intend on enacting. That list of common sense reforms will transform the debate. I think that's what Minnesota's voters are waiting for.
The candidate that is most credible on being the taxpayers' watchdog, especially on taxes, will have a huge leg up in the governor's race. If that candidate also gains credibility on keeping spending under control, then that candidate will have a strong wind at his or her back, especially in the Tea Party environment we find ourselves in.
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 7:57 AM
Comment 1 by Shoebox at 13-Jul-09 08:38 AM
A simple "no new taxes" will work for the endorsement fight. However, the general election fight needs to be focused on the hows and whys a more streamlined State government is the best thing for Minnesota families. The candidates for Gov. need to start that education and discussion line today or risk creating a highlight video of "the party of no" for their Democrat opponent
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-09 10:13 AM
It's obvious that people are craving a business-friendly atmosphere.
While cutting taxes & regulations is an important part of that equation, they're far from the only parts of the equation.
The best candidate needs credibility on the health care issue because health care costs are limiting the profitability of Minnesota businesses.
This is a potentially winning issue for Republicans if they offer a detailed plan for reforming health care instead of just offering the 'Let the markets work' bromide.
Troubles In Obamaland?
It's becoming more obvious each day that there's serious problems affecting the Obama administration. This column by David Broder and this column by the LA Times' Doyle McManus don't paint a positive picture for President Obama's administration. The good news is that that's good news for American taxpayers. First, here's something from David Broder's column:
The staggering economy and the continued uncertainty about the timing and strength of a recovery have sapped public confidence in Washington's ability to pull off big ventures. Growing talk that unemployment may top 10 percent and require another stimulus bill could complicate the task of finding a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance expanded health-care coverage to the millions of uninsured.People are weary of all the trillion dollar price tags on practically everything President Obama proposes. The minute young people are told about how this 'reform' will cost them in extra taxes and slowed economic growth, they'll turn against it in a heartbeat. They leaving college with apprehensions and fear. They should be graduating to a future filled with hope of a prosperous future. That isn't happening right now.
Increasingly, Republicans on Capitol Hill and even some Democrats are voicing doubts about adding to the already enormous budget deficits. Obama has long insisted that his reform can be paid for without increasing the debt, but as the legislative process has unfolded, the question of where the offsetting savings will come from has become more urgent.
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the co-author of the one bipartisan bill already scored as saving money, told me, "As you look at what is being proposed [in two Senate committees] you don't see savings in the 10-year budget. That's why the discussion has shifted to finding new money to finance expanded coverage. But at home, when you tell people we're already spending $2.5 trillion a year on health care and now we're going to spend $1 trillion more, it just doesn't add up."
Here's part of Mr. McManus' column:
Barack Obama has fallen back to Earth.It's official. Obama fatigue has set in. It isn't a full-blown anti-Obama fever. Perhaps it never will be. Nonetheless, his 'magic aura' is gone. His electrifying speeches don't produce turns in public sentiment like they once did.
When he ran for president, Obama said his election would be "the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow." And when he made his first big foreign trip in April, he was hailed by adoring crowds, and almost-as-adoring politicians, in Britain, Germany, France and the Czech Republic.
But last week, in Russia and Italy, Obamania was little more than a pleasant memory. Yes, his international polling numbers are still high, but the president encountered hardly any adulation in the streets of Moscow or anywhere else. Instead, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin reportedly gave him a tongue-lashing over a two-hour breakfast, and the tent-bound refugees from Italy's April earthquake mostly wanted to know whether he could rebuild their homes. ("Yes, we camp," their banner said, pointedly.)
And the oceans are still rising too. At the Group of 8 summit, the developing countries said no to a timetable to stop global warming, the reason for the waters' rise.
World leaders are chastizing him. Democrats are wary of supporting him. Most alarming for him is that otherwise spineless Republicans are starting to criticize him. Remember Obama campaigning on the issue of restoring America's moral credibility around the world? Here's how that's working out:
At the G-8 summit, the United States, Britain and France had hoped for a tough statement on Iran's nuclear ambitions. The closest they got to a warning was this: "We sincerely hope that Iran will seize this opportunity to give diplomacy a chance."I'm sure that the mullahs are quaking in their proverbial boots are that one. They're probably making plans for a comfy exile somewhere. NOT. If this is the best that the Obama administration can do, then they're a pathetic lot.
Simply put, President Obama's problem is multifaceted:
He didn't tamp down expectations.
He's underperformed in the public's eye.
He's relied on his personal charm to sell unpopular initiatives.
He's made so many high profile speeches that Obama fatigue has set in.
At some point, perhaps soon, people will only care about whether they have a good job in a stable economy and whether their 401(k)s are growing. If the Obama administration doesn't pass that basic test, they're history.
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 12:09 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-Jul-09 06:48 AM
We've got a serious problem with our Demagogue-cracy. On the one hand, we want Obama and his lyin' hoods to fail as quickly as possible, to minimize the damage to the country. On the other hand, regardless of that, Obama has a four-year term to fill out. If thwarted in the big things, hopefully, how much damage can he do with the little things, or by turning the country over to Pelosi and Reed? What happens to a supreme narcissist when he finally sees what others see? Does Joe Biden take over?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-09 08:49 AM
Jerry, narcissists don't believe what they're seeing. During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry asked one of his chief strategists how he could be losing "to such an idiot."
If the economy doesn't improve, there will be a significant, quite probably large, number of Democrats that will be involuntarily retired in November, 2010.
I think it's quite possible for the GOP to retake the U.S. House of Representatives. I won't say quite likely at this point but retaking control of the House is quite possible in this environment.
Michele vs. Tarryl? A Tale of the Tape
If Eric's post is accurate, which I believe it is, the Minnesota governor's race won't be the only high profile race in 2010. Here's what Eric is reporting:
Finally, there is the potential entry of Senator Tarryl Clark. At this point it is all hearsay but my anonymous sources tell me that at a recent Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation meeting she was asked and said that she "hadn't announced" but this source also said it was "pretty clear". Clark has proven that she can compete and win having been elected twice. More importantly, she won handily in the more conservative half of her district whose current representative is the ultra conservative Steve Gottwalt. With all of these electoral advantages, could Clark overcome the current money disadvantage she would have coming into the race?Certainly, Tarryl would excite DFL activists more than Tinklenberg did. (Frankly, I think Larry Haws could excite DFL activists more than Mr. Tinklenberg. Still, Tarryl comes with substantial risks in this potential race.
While Tarryl likes portraying herself as a moderate, her voting record says she's anything but that. In this post from June, 2007 , I noted the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's criteria for the Minnesota Senate. Here's their criteria:
MN 2007: S.F. 1024 (Business Taxes), Final Passage The Senate Omnibus Tax Bill increases the statewide property tax, paid by commercial, industrial and utility property, and increases the tax on Minnesota companies that use the foreign operating corporation structure. The Chamber opposes S.F. 1024 as a whole, even though there are two items within the bill, an up-front exemption for capital equipment and the acceleration of sales-only apportionment, that the Chamber supports.This trio of votes, especially the votes for creating a 4th income tax bracket and for increasing the statewide property tax for "commercial, industrial and utility property" certainly doesn't indicate that Tarryl is a friend of small businesses. In fact, that sounds alot like the tax increases that Patty Wetterling proposed during her 2006 campaign. It also sounds alot like Tarryl's votes on taxes this year.
MN 2007: S.F. 1611 (Income Tax), Final Passage The Minnesota Chamber opposes S.F. 1611, which creates a new 4th tax bracket for the individual income tax at 9.7%, the highest state income tax rate in the nation. This affects many small business owners that flow their business income through their personal income taxes.
MN 2007: S.F. 1986 (Transportation), Final Passage This is the Senate Transportation Finance bill, which the Minnesota Chamber opposes. The bill is heavy on taxes and fees for businesses. The Minnesota Chamber supports a more moderate package but this bill fails the cost-benefit analysis.
Any attempt that Tarryl makes to talk about creating jobs will likely be met with reminders to voters that she's voted for every tax increase that's been proposed in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Another thing that Tarryl is vulnerable to is her role in the slow motion train wreck known as the 2009 budget showdown. She's particularly vulnerable to why she voted for tax increases that didn't come close to closing the deficit , especially considering the fact that Tom Bakk's tax increase bill passed by a thin 35-31 margin in a veto-proof Senate.
Tarryl's leadership position should've put her in position to positively affect policies that should've protected her constituents. Instead, when the DFL's Listening Tour visited St. Cloud, all we heard, aside from Janelle Kendall's legal system reforms, was how we couldn't cut this or that program. Tarryl told KSTP's Tom Hauser that finding more than $500,000,000 in savings would be difficult :
Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won't be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.Thinking that there's only $500,000,000 worth of spending on political payoffs or low priority items is absurd. That's before talking about money that would've been saved if the DFL hadn't defeated the GOP's sensible reforms. (BTW, that's another thing that Tarryl and the DFL leadership didn't do well with.)
Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million.
In the final analysis, Tarryl's weaknesses would be that she hasn't exercised fiscal discipline. She hasn't been a friend to small businesses, either. She certainly hasn't been a principled reformer who's been a protector of CD-6's taxpayers. Those are three very large strikes against her before she even announces her candidacy against Rep. Bachmann.
Posted Monday, July 13, 2009 10:22 PM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 14-Jul-09 09:57 AM
Not a moderate?
Oh, no.
Oh my God, no.
Clark's a Blue Dog too!
Finally, Gary, don't forget that MN 6 people were so excited by both Bachmann and Tinklenberg that Bob Anderson got ten percent, without a website, without spending, without handshaking appearances at county fairs, and with the Tinkster conniving to get the IP endorsement from Barkley, Hutchinson, and other IP-base cronies. He does excite emotion.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-09 11:00 AM
I agree that Tarryl is a Blue Dog. Then again, Blue Dogs have caved to Speaker Pelosi so often that they can't be separated from nutjobs like Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters & John Conyers.
Collin Peterson was neutered politically recently by Pelosi. BDDs are more myth than reality.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 14-Jul-09 11:02 AM
FYI Eric: This year, Michele's campaign will be a tighter operation & she'll be running in a much more GOP-friendly environment than 2008.
Tarryl faces an uphill fight if she jumps into the race.
