July 20-23, 2010
Jul 20 04:14 DFL: The Party of Vindictiveness, Thug Tactics Jul 20 05:37 Calling Out Ryan Winkler Jul 20 11:12 It Could Be Worse (Honest) Jul 21 05:48 The Genesis of Democrats' Negative Campaigning Jul 21 12:03 JournoList's Transgressions Jul 22 04:58 Photo ID Myths Jul 22 07:26 No Sainthood For Shirley Sherrod? Jul 22 23:51 James Clyburn's Reaction: Bigotry or Ideology? Jul 23 05:21 Hard Data vs. DFL Spin
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
DFL: The Party of Vindictiveness, Thug Tactics
Last night, I saw a couple of tweets that highlighted what I've known for years: that lots of DFL activists are petty and vindictive towards people who don't share their political viewpoint. Here's the first tweet that caught my attention:
esmemurphy Overwhelming response from Democrats on WCCO-AM, saying they will not shop at Target anymore because of its support for Mn ForwardIt's appalling that DFL activists would say such a thing. And yes, I'm certain that it's DFL activists driving this thing because John Q. Public won't boycott a company just because of their political choices. The other tweet further proves my opinion that this is activist driven:
RepRyanWinkler @esmemurphy Target has been good corp. citizen, but MN political spending is new. Your show just showed risk of giving to candidates .Rep. Winkler, the only thing Esme Murphy's show proved is that companies that don't cave to the DFL's wishes are at risk. You said yourself that Target has been a "good corp. citizen." Why would DFL activists try hurting corporations with whom it disagrees? Worse yet, why would the DFL hurt Target's employees during the worst economy since the Great Depression with their politically-motivated boycott?
The DFL used to be the Party of the People. Now it's the Party of the People We Agree With. That one of their elected officials is willing to say that any business's profits are fair game if they contribute to the DFL's opponents speaks to the DFL's depravity and coldheartedness.
This isn't the only place where progressive strongarm tactics have been recorded. I wrote here about another union thug beatdown. Not surprisingly, the DFL doesn't boycott good corporate citizens who support their rich, fatcat candidates like Mark Dayton. Mitch Berg wrote a great post exposing the Dayton family shadow group otherwise known as ABM. In his post , Mitch highlighted one of the Dayton Family, Inc.'s contributors:
John Cowles (Mpls) $20,000; [Why yes, the former Strib publisher! But don't you dare say the Strib is biased!]Rep. Winkler, is this proof that contributing to DFL candidates is what's necessary to keep "good corporate citizens" from incurring the DFL's wrath?
It's becoming increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party is resorting to thug tactics. I wrote about SEIU's trespassing onto Greg Baer's property, then harassing their son to the point that the child feared for his life, in this post :
Fourteen buses start crossing the Maryland border (at which point we're supposed to believe the Maryland police were immediately notified), they find parking on residential streets, unload their protesters, assemble 500 people on a private lawn, engage in threatening verbal abuse long enough to force a 14 year old boy to lock himself into a bathroom,and the Maryland police get there as they are dispersing? Is their police headquarters in Delaware.That's evil enough but it gets worse. In a video titled Union Thugs Block Camera, Andrew Breitbart exposes the Left's violent tendencies . At the 1:46 mark in the video, a union thug is captured on film as saying "Get him [Mr. Breitbart] out of here or I'm going to jail today." When Mr. Breitbart asks the thug what he said, the thug backed down, saying "I said I love you despite what you are."
The DFL's behavior, along with behavior of the national Democratic Party's henchmen, is disgusting that's almost beyond description. Paul Wellstone and Hubert Humphrey would roll over in their graves if they knew their party was now the party of thug tactics.
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:21 AM
No comments.
Calling Out Ryan Winkler
Yesterday, I said that conservatives, just like all other groups, have to police their ranks from time to time. This morning, after reading Rep. Ryan Winkler's disgusting tweet, it's obvious that the DFL isn't putting a high priority on policing their ranks. I just finished writing about the DFL-orchestrated boycott of Target here . Here's what Rep. Winkler tweeted that's got me upset:
RepRyanWinkler @esmemurphy Target has been good corp. citizen, but MN political spending is new. Your show just showed risk of giving to candidates .There's no indication from Rep. Winkler, a DFL elected legislator, that he thinks there's anything wrong with boycotting companies that contribute to right-of-center organizations. Apparently, Rep. Winkler isn't worried that threatening a company for their participation in the political system might have a chilling effect on political participation.
I'm not asking Rep. Winkler to apologize because it's impossible for Rep. Winkler to unring that bell. The damage has already been done.
Rather, what I'm asking is for Minnesotans of high integrity to reject the DFL's ambassadors whenever they don't condemn, either through their statements or their silence, the Left's thuggish tactics.
Rep. Winkler didn't utter a peep, or post a tweet, when John Cowles, the former publisher of the Strib , contributed to Dayton Family, Inc, aka ABM , a far left organization. The unmistakable message is this: Contribute to radical leftist groups and you're quietly accepted by the DFL; contribute to right-of-center causes and you'll be highlighted for boycotting.
Is that the type of Minnesota you want to live in? Should we tolerate subtle threats to our constitutionally-protected liberties? My reply to both questions is an emphatic and resounding no.
It's time to rid Minnesota politics of the Ryan Winklers of the world and others who think it's ok to threaten corporations for their political beliefs. It's the political equivalent of paying protection money.
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 5:37 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Jul-10 08:11 AM
The saving grace here is that the general public typically ignores lunatics screaming in the public square. If I were Wal-Mart, I might be inclined to make an advertisement out of the representative's call for a boycott, treating it as a slap in the face of hard-working Wal-Mart shoppers and employees, and promising to continue their efforts to bring high quality and low prices to everybody, despite a few deranged politicians.
Comment 2 by Tom at 21-Jul-10 09:46 AM
I disagree. Rep. Winkler was stating the obvious -- corporations that give corporate dollars on behalf of their shareholders to partisan efforts are at risk of alienating their customers. You're critical of John Cowles, but when he was at the STRIB the company never gave corporate dollars to any political party. Cowles' contributions are personal, which you seem troubled by. Why are corporate contributions to candidates preferable to personal contributions? Until the activist U.S. Supreme Court came up with the notion that corporations are "persons" with the rights granted to individuals in the Constitution, corporations weren't deemed persons. However, I fail to hear any concerns about the activist conservative judges that have created a new "right" for businesses that has no precedent in law or judicial rulings. Apparently activist judges are ok, so long as they create new rights for corporations.
It Could Be Worse (Honest)
For the past couple weeks, President Obama's defense of the failed stimulus bill has essentially been "It could've been worse." Initially, I rejected that storyline but I've reconsidered. This WSJ article got me thinking, which ultimately led to my rethinking my position.
The one possibility the President and Congressional Democrats won't entertain is that their own spending and taxing and regulating and labor union favoritism have become the main hindrance to job creation. Since February 2009, the jobless rate has climbed to 9.5% from 8.1%, and private industry has shed two million jobs. The overall economy has been expanding for at least a year, but employers still don't seem confident enough to add new workers. The economists who sold us the stimulus say it's a mystery. But maybe employers are afraid to hire because they don't know what costs government will impose on them next.This paragraph reminded me that things could be much worse. Think of what would've happened had President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had jammed Cap and Trade and Card Check down our throats, too.
Had this Democrat-dominated congress passed that legislation and had this Democratic president signed that legislation into law, the economy would've tanked by now. Had the Democrats passed these items, it isn't a stretch to think that unemployment might be hitting 12 percent by now.
The Cap and Tax bill, if enacted, would represent the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. What's worse is that it's a highly regressive tax, hitting those hardest who can least afford it.
A smart politician would notice how unpopular tax increase legislation is and avoid it like the plague just 15 weeks before the tightly contested midterm elections. That isn't what Harry Reid's doing , though:
Reid said he would need to file another motion to cut off a filibuster of the military spending bill, but added, "I think we can work out the time on that so it doesn't take an inordinate amount of time."Harry Reid is stupid if he thinks that this legislation will pass. He's a total idiot if he thinks voting on this legislation will help his incumbents in this fall's elections. Senators facing tough races will hate taking this vote as much as the average person hates having their wisdom teeth removed.
Time is of the essence, as Reid has pledged to begin the energy debate the week of July 26. That would give Democrats two weeks to pass energy reform and confirm Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan by the August recess, scheduled to begin Aug. 6.
Let this be a reminder to voters that the Democrats' definition of energy 'reform' is the biggest regressive tax increase in U.S. history. Let's remember that EFCA , aka the Employee Free Choice Act, aka Card Check, essentially eliminates a worker's right to cast a secret ballot on whether or not to unionize.
The good news is that we'll have a huge victory this November if everyone keeps campaigning like we're 2 points behind with a month left in the campaign. With enough victories this November, then the worst will truly be behind us.
That's motivation enough for me.
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:20 AM
No comments.
The Genesis of Democrats' Negative Campaigning
Some might think that the reason why Democrats are gearing up for a mudslinging campaign this fall is because they trail Republicans in Rasmussen's Generic Ballot polling :
Republican candidates now hold a nine-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, July 18, the widest gap between the two parties in several weeks.To many, this is a chicken/egg type of question. It isn't if you apply a few critical thinking principles. The question must be asked why unaffiliated voters favor Republicans by a 2:1 margin.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate , while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for Republicans inched up a point from last week, while support for the Democrat fell two points.
While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their respective party, voters not affiliated with either party prefer the Republican candidate by a 47% to 21% margin.
If you aren't a partisan, what reason have Democrats given you for voting for them? Is it likely that you'll be thrilled that they rammed through an unpopular health care bill that includes $670,000,000,000 of tax increases? Do unafilliated voters like the thought of Congress passing Cap and Tax, the biggest regressive tax increase in U.S. history? Are unafilliated voters impressed with this Democratic congress and this Democratic administration's trillion $ deficits and all-but-nonexistent job creation numbers? Are America's job creators worried that the Democrats' taxes and health care-related regulations might force them to lay new employees off?
Simply put, the few things that the Democrats passed the past 18 months haven't played well with the public while the thing that the American people wanted Congress to address, jobs, hasn't been addressed.
With that track record, Democrats can't tout their accomplishments to more than a handful of partisans. Touting the stimulus and health care bills will only help get Democrats defeated this November.
That's why we should expect Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, John Spratt and others to go negative before Labor Day. They can't campaign on a list of positive accomplishments, which means that they'll be forced to go negative the vast majority of the time.
The key for Republicans is to keep telling the public their plans to create jobs, reduce the deficit, make health care affordable and reduce the violence in the southwest.
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:53 AM
No comments.
JournoList's Transgressions
While the CSM's Patrik Jonsson is trying to pass the JournoList scandal off as a nothing a big deal in this article , this Daily Caller post rips the lid off the JournoList's willingness to traffic in censorship. It isn't a stretch to say that JournoList members are downright hateful:
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.Ms. Spitz's hatefulness is disgusting and disturbing. It's irrelevant that she works by NPR. This is proof, along with Ezra Klein's starting the group, that the erstwhile MSM employs hatemongers who viscerally hate people and who don't think twice about shutting up those that report things differently. They don't even think it's a big deal:
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn't what you'd do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out" as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. "I never knew I had this much hate in me," she wrote. "But he deserves it."
The JournoList story is a great scoop for the Daily Caller, but doesn't necessarily indicate a broader media conspiracy, says Mike Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review.In other words, Mr. Jonsson doesn't think that the story is a big deal, that talking like that is perfectly acceptable in such a setting.
"The Daily Caller has an interesting story that gives us insight into the way some journalists talk to each other, but I also think that reporters have a right to think and talk and be frank with each other," says Mr. Hoyt. "At the same time, I think if they do it in a forum like this, they have to know some energetic reporter can report it, and that's exactly what happened."
"I am genuinely scared" of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it "shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework ." Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.That a UCLA law professor thinks it's ok to pull FNC's license is stunning enough. That he doesn't appear to understand that cable networks don't have broadcasting permits and that the FCC doesn't regulate them is breathtaking.
"I agree," said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger " Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization . You can't hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity."
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. " I hate to open this can of worms ," he wrote, "but is there any reason why the FCC couldn't simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?"
JournoList's hatefulness and lawlessness is instructive of who today's media is. It's time that people started investing in new media. We can't tolerate the Agenda Media's corruption because free societies can't survive without the consistent flow of verifiable, accurate information.
Based on the information in these articles, there's no reason why we should trust the information published by the Agenda Media.
Posted Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:13 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 21-Jul-10 05:02 PM
Remember that other female reporter years ago who said she'd have at least oral sex with Bill Clinton because he was such a great protector of abortion rights? These types wouldn't go near Rush to do CPR but they'll gratefully put their lips on Bill's ...
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Jul-10 10:30 PM
Great point, Rex...you're exactly right.
Photo ID Myths
Wenesday morning, I wrote a Write Now response to a St. Cloud Times LTE . The Times' LTE, titled "Voter fraud is party propaganda" made a couple allegations that had to be addressed. Here's one statement that I addressed:
Folks, this is not about voter integrity. It is about modern-era voter suppression, and I am not talking about convicted felons.Here's my response to that paragraph:
The allegation that "this is not about voter integrity" ... that it's "about modern-era voter suppression" shouldn't be taken seriously. The commentary hits every DFL talking point and is DFL spin. It shouldn't be mistaken for a serious policy discussion.Here's the other statement that I dealt with:
To be more blunt, Voter ID, for many, would be a modern era "Poll Tax" designed to suppress their unwanted votes.I wrote in my Write Now response that the SCOTUS settled that issue in April, 2008, saying that Indiana's Photo ID didn't represent a poll tax. Two things are noteworthy in the aftermath: 1)oter turnout increased and 2) the ruling was by a 6-3 margin, with John Paul Stevens joining, John Robert, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito.
Buried in those misstatements is a myth that needs debunking, the myth that showing a photo ID imposes an unfair difficulty on people.
How many times in a month does the average person show some form of identification with their picture on it? I think it's safe to say that it's 50 times a month. How can something that a person does twice a day impose a difficulty on people?
The difficulty it imposes in voting is it imposes a difficulty for people wanting to commit voter fraud. That's a difficulty I'm perfectly willing to mandate.
While Photo ID won't clean up everything that went wrong with the 2008 election, it certainly will change things fairly dramatically. One thing that needs changing is cleaning up the SVRS rolls so that there aren't any felons or dead people registered to vote.
The DFL's insistence on preventing Photo ID brings something else into question: whether the DFL prefers preventing problems or whether they'd prefer cleaning things up afterwards.
At this point, I haven't seen proof that the DFL is the least bit worried with election integrity.
Posted Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:58 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Jul-10 08:16 AM
If you take all of the apparent and possible avenues of voter fraud together, you come up with something like 200,000 illegal votes being cast. Does that sound like "integrity" to anybody?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 22-Jul-10 12:06 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget just getting on the list works. I recently didn't realize that I had dropped my wallet outside my house. People were able to swipe the cards apparently without challenge even on the charges where they should've signed and been asked for ID and in therefore have it be caught it wasn't me.
So once you get on that list like those felons who didn't belong their ability to vote increases dramatically.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
No Sainthood For Shirley Sherrod?
Many in the media spent their time yesterday apologizing to Shirley Sherrod. While the media's mass mea culpa was happening, Ms. Sherrod spoke to Media Matters . Here's what she said:
She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.Clearly, Ms. Sherrod is a bitter partisan. While it's true that some people owed her an apology, let's not think that we should nominate Ms. Sherrod for sainthood. There's still alot of filth and hostility inside her.
"I think they should but they won't. They intended exactly what they did. They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."
During the second panel on Special Report, host Bret Baier addressed Ms. Sherrod's vitriolic statement:
"We have invited Ms. Sherrod onto Fox News many times. She talked in an interview with Media Matters, and I don't often quote Media Matters on this show but here's what she told them:Immediately after making that statement, Baier asked Charles Krauthammer for his opinion. Here's what Charles said:
"They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."
Well, Ms. Sherrod, that is just not true. It's not true.
She was a victim but that doesn't entitle her to victimize others and to use these kinds of attacks. She's wrong and even though she is a person who needs restitution on the part of those who wronged her, this is not something that anyone can endorse and again this is part of this cycle which really ought to stop.Summarizing this, it's accurate to say that 1) Sherrod was victimized, mostly by the Obama administration and 2) Sherrod is a bitter partisan.
Let's also set another thing straight, namely FNC's getting Sherrod fired. This morning, Howard Kurtz looks into that in his media column . Here's what he's reporting:
But for all the chatter, some of it from Sherrod herself, that she was done in by Fox News, the network didn't touch the story until her forced resignation was made public Monday evening, with the exception of brief comments by O'Reilly. After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right."It's apparent that FNC Sr. VP Clemente got it exactly right. Lost in all of the finger-pointing is this email directive, which mandated getting confirmation before running with the story.
Media Matters' Eric Boehlert faced off with Andrew Breitbart on ABC's GMA with Stephanopolous, making this statement:
Eric Boehlert of the liberal advocacy group Media Matters told George Stephanopoulos: "Andrew had no idea what the context of the comments were, but that didn't stop him from launching the smear campaign."Mr. Boehlert wasn't interested in listening to Mr. Breitbart. Mr. Breitbart said his contention wasn't with with Sherrod but with the reaction from NAACP members attending a NAACP banquet. Breitbart said that the applause from the audience while Sherrod talked about not doing everything for a white farmer was proof that the NAACP had racists within its own ranks.
This fiasco has lots of spin. It's wise to ignore anything from Eric Boehlert and/or Media Matters. They have their attack lines down pat and they're repeating them without hesitation. I wouldn't trust Mr. Boehlert as far as I could throw him if I had 2 broken arms and a bad back.
His only goal is pushing the progressives' agenda. His responses don't change when someone highlights the fact that his agenda is manufactured and totally ideology-based. Rather, he just keeps plowing ahead.
Let's not annoint Ms. Sherrod for sainthood. Similarly, let's not think that the spinmeisters from Media Matters are interested in the truth.
Posted Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:32 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Jul-10 08:29 AM
Gary:
There are two things I find very interesting in this. The first is that Shirley was a victim because somebody tried to twist something she said shows that she was a racist which she isn't. Yet the more I'm hearing this woman speak the more that is showing.
* During the speech (part of that speech not taking out of context) she said that blacks were victims of racism by George Bush for eight years and the people who opposed health care are doing it because of racism.
* By saying that people want to take blacks to where they were earlier implies that she thinks whites will do that!
That shows the real racist. Yet the White House wants to apologize to her.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 22-Jul-10 08:33 AM
Opps I forgot the second. If context does matter will these same people who are attacking Andrew apply the same standard to lying Congressman John Lewis. After all with all those cameras how come not one (including the ones held by Democrats) have shown that the N word was said something like 15 times. Andrew (the same person being attacked) offered a $100,000 reward. Coming forward with that tape would embarrassed the tea party (a sure reason to do it immediately), ruin Andrew (something they are trying to do now), and get a cool $100,000.
Yet they haven't done that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
James Clyburn's Reaction: Bigotry or Ideology?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn today accused Andrew Breitbart of being either " mean or sick ." Here's what he said:
Which explains why Jim Clyburn held his strongest criticism for conservative activist and blogger Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart released the edited video Monday. He told FOX he obtained the video from an "individual in Georgia." However, the shorter portions of the video only portrayed Sherrod in a negative light.It's true that Ms. Sherrod helped the Spooners keep their farm, which is the most important thing she could do. Still, that doesn't make her a saint . Ms. Sherrod didn't hesitate in bashing FNC in an interview with Media Matters even though FNC showed the proper restraint with the story, as evidenced by Sr. VP Michael Clemente's email directive:
"This guy is so mean. Mean or sick," Clyburn said of Breitbart. "I know what point he's trying to make. That's how idiotic he is."
After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right."Clyburn's comments about Andrew Breitbart aren't warranted, either. As he said in his interview with Sean Hannity, the video that he posted on Big Government highlighted the bad behavior of those attending NAACP's banquet. It wasn't a statement about Ms. Sherrod.
Rep. Clyburn can yap all he wants but his diatribe is scripted. It fits this week's Democrats' script perfectly. History proves that the Democrats can't thrive without a boogeyman. Newt Gingrich was the first post-Housecleaning villain. The next liberal boogeyman was Dick Armey, followed by Tom DeLay.
This isn't surprising. Democrats can't compete on the battlefield of ideas. Clyburn's diatribe indicates that Democrats are worried about this year's elections. I don't think Clyburn or Pelosi understand the level of people's frustration with government. I don't think they understand how livid people are with the bills Congress has passed, especially the finreg bill, health care and the stimulus.
The Democrat leadership's strategy is to run on those bills. This November, they'll find out just how upset America is with their agenda.
Originally posted Thursday, July 22, 2010, revised 23-Jul 12:03 AM
No comments.
Hard Data vs. DFL Spin
During the argument about whether there was substantial illegal felon voting, the DFL has said that no proof exists of significant felon voting. Jeff McGrath's op-ed refutes the DFL's spin:
Uninformed commentators say there is no credible evidence of voting by felons and suggest that Minnesota Majority's report is baseless. Anyone who has actually read the report would know this is just plain wrong. So did [Nick] Coleman neglect to do his research, or is he being disingenuous? To date, 33 people have been charged and 19 convicted. County attorneys have acknowledged that they are still investigating hundreds of cases.If attorneys admit that they're "still investigating hundreds of cases", then the DFL's argument that Minnesota didn't experience substantial voter fraud is spin, not fact.
The voter history file Minnesota Majority used to do its analysis was not compiled until late April 2009, six months after the election, even though state law requires this file to be completely updated within six weeks of an election. Norm Coleman's team could not have detected felon voter fraud because the data was not available at the time of the recount .The DFL keeps saying that there couldn't have been voter fraud because the judges found for Al Franken. Again, that's spin, not fact. All that the judges' ruling means is that they didn't agree with Sen. Coleman's attorneys' arguments. Had Sen. Coleman's attorneys had this information in January, 2009, I suspect that the case might've turned out differently.
Minnesota Majority isn't just about investigating voting irregularities. They're also into asking questions like this:
There is trouble in Minnesota's election system besides ineligible felons, and much of it is being swept under the rug. Trying to lift that rug and expose the dirt has gotten the people who swept it there into a tizzy, but consider this: If it took 18 months to discover fraud by felons, of which there is a list that can be easily checked against voter histories, how much confidence should we have that other types of voter fraud would ever be detected at all?This isn't just about felons voting, though that's important. It's also about tightening up a system that's out of date. Here's something that needs reforming:
As it is, the 19 people who have been convicted in Ramsey County so far have been penalized with the equivalent of a parking ticket: After being arrested and spending part of a day in jail, they've all been released with a $50 fine by Ramsey County judges.If anything screams for stiff mandatory sentencing, this fits the profile. People committing voter fraud shouldn't be fined $50 and sent home in the afternoon. They should be given a harsh sentence, preferably 10-15 years, with lifetime parole. They should never be eligible to vote again.
The DFL would have us believe that Minnesota's election system is airtight, that the system functions beautifully and should be left alone. That's spin, not fact. The information in Dan McGrath's op-ed is proof that Minnesota's election operations is anything but airtight.
Finally, it's quite a statement that our chief election officer, Mark Ritchie, didn't spot these problems. Mr. Ritchie should be ashamed that an outside interest group, not his office, found these glaring weaknesses.
It shouldn't take a Minnesota Majority to contact the FBI to start an investigation into felon voter fraud:
Since the DOJ in Washington DC failed to follow up on Davis' complaint, Minnesota Majority contacted the local FBI office and lodged the same complaint. Special Agent Brian Kinney responded and visited the Minnesota Majority office to examine Minnesota Majority's findings. At that time, he said, "based on what I see here there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint." He gave his assurances that he would bring the matter to the attention of his supervisors. There was no further follow-up.If forced to pick between the DFL's spin or FBI Special Agent Kinney's statements to Minnesota Majority, I'll pick FBI Special Agent Kinney's statements every time.
With out election operation badly in need of repair, we can't afford a SecState who's turned a blind eye to Minnesota's election problems. We need a solutions-oriented SecState, not a corrupt ACORN-endorsed politician.
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 5:21 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Jul-10 06:02 AM
If we want to do an investigation, I would suggest we send somebody looking for evidence that SOS Ritchie did absolutely ANYTHING, including the required and customary duties of his office, to AVOID voter fraud in any way. All the evidence I've seen is that he deliberately (or possibly through incredible--as in unbelievable-- incompetence) PROMOTED voter fraud, and continues to do so.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Jul-10 07:33 AM
Jerry, It isn't worth the time. Let's just defeat him this November & rid ourselves of his nightmarish time in office.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 24-Jul-10 06:44 AM
That comment was at least partly tongue in cheek :-^ as you might have guessed. But I want him defeated, and the more evidence we have of either criminality or utter incompetence we have the easier it might be. Especially since we have to overcome the fraud he has created to do it!
BTW, have you ever noticed that Democrats caught in the most obvious shenanigans, faced with accusing questions as to their criminality or incompetence, pick incompetence every time?
