July 25-26, 2008
Jul 25 04:05 Issues Still Matter Jul 25 16:29 The Worst Economy In....... Jul 25 18:40 Chairman Melendez, Break That Wall of Silence Jul 26 08:17 It's About the Decisionmaking Jul 26 09:46 Common Sense vs. the Environutters Jul 26 17:15 Reid: US Now Winning Iraq War That Seemed Lost Jul 26 18:54 Priscilla Lord-Faris' Final Word Audition
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Issues Still Matter
In this Washington Times article , Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli points out something I've been saying all along, namely, that issues matter:
"We'd gotten into this mind-set that 2008 would be a good year for the Democrats," said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli. "What this shows is that issues still matter."Mr. Ciruli isn't the only pollster to notice a change in attitude:
"The results show increased support for additional drilling, which McCain supports and Obama opposes," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, CT, which conducted the survey with the Wall Street Journal and Washingtonpost.com.We've all seen the right track/wrong track polling that shows an overwhelming majority of voters think that the country is heading in the wrong direction. I suspect that they think that's because Washington doesn't listen. Immmigration is the perfect example of that. Sen. Reid and Ms. Pelosi digging in their heels on increased oil production is another perfect example.
"Roughly one in 10 voters say they have changed their minds and now favor drilling because of the jump in energy prices," he said. "They support Obama, but with voters saying that the energy issue is now more important to their presidential vote than is the war in Iraq, this group represents an opportunity for the Republican."
The GOP is the party that's responding to people's needs, which is shifting votes. This isn't just theory, either. In Colorado, Sen. McCain now leads Sen. Obama. I think it's more impressive that Bob Schaffer has come back to tie Mark Udall for the Colorado Senate seat being vacated by Wayne Alard.
This polling data also suggests that people are simply looking for solutions-oriented people, regardless of party. This is just a hunch but I'm betting that they aren't that fussy about the details, with one exception:
"The energy issue was working for the Democrats until April, when gas prices hit $4 [per gallon], and then people began looking at traditional sources like oil, which Republicans dominate," said Mr. Ciruli. " When you're paying $4 and looking at $5, you start to get very realistic about your energy sources ."Call high gas prices the great clarifier. People don't care how Washington brings prices down. They only care that prices drop. In the end, expect that to be the only result voters are interested in.
Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 10:01 AM
No comments.
The Worst Economy In.......
Every couple years, Democrats trot out the line about the Republican economy being the worst economy in whatever amount of time. In 1992, it was the worst economy in fifty years. In 2004, it was the worst economy since 1932. This year, it's the worst economy in eighty years . It's getting rather old. It has the same impact as saying "Liberal, liberal." Here's the opening paragraph of the DFL post:
Today, Minnesota DFL Chair Brian Melendez held a press conference to present a new report entitled: "The Cost of Coleman: A Report on the Effects of the Bush; Coleman Economy on Middle-Class Minnesotans." As gas prices skyrocket, wages fall, and the economy continues to worsen, the DFL Party issued the report to highlight Republican Senator Norm Coleman's support of failed Bush and Republican policies that have generated the worst economic circumstances for the middle class in 80 years.Chairman Melendez is pretending that the skyrocketting gas prices are Sen. Coleman's fault, which they clearly aren't. It's becoming apparent to everyone that the current escalation is driven by Speaker Pelosi. Even the Washington Post takes her to task in this editorial :
WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives; certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it anytime soon.I can't blame Chairman Melendez for pretending like the high gas prices are Republicans' fault. If I were the state party chairman who had to defend obstructionists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, I'd be forced into full spin mode, too. People are noticing that Reid and Pelosi are obstructing a vote that would drop the price of gas.
What Chairman Melendez characterizes as the failures of the Bush-Coleman economy can be laid directly at the feet of the current Speaker and Senate Majority Leader.
"Times are tough, and we owe it to the people of Minnesota to debate the serious issues that affect them daily. But while Al Franken has toured Minnesota this week to promote fresh, specific ideas for actually helping middle-class Minnesotans improve their lives, we have seen Senator Coleman and his surrogates, including special-interest front groups, do everything that they can to avoid talking about the issues that Minnesotans care most about.Chairman Melendez obviously wants to ignore Sen. Coleman's bill that would increase energy production and shrink people's energy bills. If I had to defend the least qualified candidate in Minnesota history, I'd want to ignore Sen. Coleman's common sense legislative agenda.
Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 26-Jul-08 07:51 AM
You know in 1996 Bill Clinton was proud of his economic record. To the best of my knowledge the unemployment rate was higher than it was in 2008.
Why did the Democrats think it was such a great economy than?
And in 2000 when President Bush as a candidate suggested that the tax cuts were needed because we could be heading to a recession the Democrats attacked him for talking down the economy. So what if history shows in 2001 we had a recession before his policies were implemented. Yet these same people since 2001 have had no problem in attacking down the economy.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Chairman Melendez, Break That Wall of Silence
Chairman Melendez, I notice that you're demanding an answer from Gov. Pawlenty if he'd resign as governor if he's picked as Sen. McCain's running mate.Simply put, Chairman Melendez is an expert at gotcha politics but he isn't good at having a serious debate about the important issues of the day, whether we're talking about workplace issues, lowering gas prices or other issues important to Minnesota's voters.
That's all fair in gotcha politics but I'll ask you why you won't debate the EFCA.
I know that you've refused to debate. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you refused because you didn't want the media to cover such a debate because that'd mean the facts would get out.
My question for you is simple: Why aren't you confident enough to debate this issue? After all, if Dr. Banaian states any untruths, you'd be able to use that against the Employee Freedom Action Committee.
The DFL is hurting because they don't want to defend the legislature's record of unprecedented tax increases and their irresponsible spending spree. They don't want to defend the special interest groups' attempt to legalize intimidation. They certaintly don't want to admit their support for Speaker Pelosi's and Sen. Reid's steadfastness in doing their part in lowering gas prices. In short, they'll do anything to avoid talking about the important issues that working class people are dealing with throughout the state.
Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 6:40 PM
No comments.
It's About the Decisionmaking
While thousands of worshipers expressed their adoration for the Obamessiah, John McCain took aim at Sen. Obama's decision to not support the Surge which has dramatically reduced the violence in Iraq:
Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.While Europe and the Agenda Media express their adoration of Sen. Obama, serious people are questioning Sen. Obama's decisionmaking. It's about time.
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops, which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened.
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.
I've said for a long time that Sen. Obama isn't qualified to be president. I stand by that. Why should we trust someone that makes decisions that MoveOn.org applaud? Why should we trust someone whose first consideration in decisionmaking is political ramifications.
Sen. McCain is right in saying that Sen. Obama played to his primary audience. He isn't the first politician to do that. He won't be the last. The problem with that is that presidents shouldn't make life-and-death decisions based on anything other than the recommendations of experts.
What's worse is that Sen. Obama sounded a defeatist after the surge started. St. Obama now speaks glowingly of the troops' accomplishments. Prior to the nomination process, though, he spoke about how the surge had failed. There's only one way he could reach that conclusion: He'd already reached a verdict. He didn't take wait-and-see attitude. He'd decided that he couldn't stay politically viable if he didn't pander to MoveOn.org by predicting our military's failure.
Likewise, Sen. Obama's rigid opposition to increasing oil production, whether it's from the OCS or ANWR or the Bakken Field, is predicated on his capitulation to the environutters. That's hardly taking a principled stand. Appeasement, whether it's with a rogue nation like Iran or whether it's to the environutters, is a guaranteed failure.
We aren't electing a prom king. We're electing the leader of the free world. Based on his decisionmaking thus far, the Obamessiah isn't the man for the job.
Posted Saturday, July 26, 2008 8:18 AM
No comments.
Common Sense vs. the Environutters
If you read between the lines, Michael Barone's latest column paints a gloomy picture for Democrats. Here's the opening paragraph of Mr. Barone's column:
Sometimes public opinion doesn't flow smoothly; it shifts sharply when a tipping point is reached. Case in point: gas prices. $3 a gallon gas didn't change anybody's mind about energy issues. $4 a gallon gas did. Evidently, the experience of paying more than $50 for a tankful gets people thinking we should stop worrying so much about global warming and the environmental dangers of oil wells on the outer continental shelf and in Alaska. Drill now! Nuke the caribou!Though he closes the paragraph in dramatic tone, Mr. Barone is still onto something. He isn't advocating the nuking of caribou. Instead, he's pointing out that the American public won't tolerate the environutters' collaboration with Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi in locking up our energy supplies. The environutters' successful lobbying against drilling in ANWR and on the OCS will cost Democrats this election. King even came up with a great slogan to capitalize on the Democrats' alliance with the environutters:
Want to drill. Vote Republican.A vote for a Democrat is a vote to keep Speark Pelosi and Sen. Reid in charge of granting votes for the environutters' agenda. A vote for a Republican is a vote for getting rid of Reid's and Pelosi's obstructionist leadership.
Public opinion, when it has changed as it has with $4 gas, has an effect. Environmental restrictionists like Al Gore have been selling a form of secular religion: We have sinned against Mother Earth, we must atone and suffer, there can be no argument, but we must have faith.The choice this election is clear: Vote for the silliness and high prices of the environutters or vote for the lower prices brought on by a deluge of common sense.
That was an appealing argument to many, perhaps most, Americans when gas was selling for $1.40. It has a much more limited appeal now that gas is selling for $4.10. The time may be coming when our lunatic environmental policies are swept away by a rising tide of common sense.
Posted Saturday, July 26, 2008 9:49 AM
No comments.
Reid: US Now Winning Iraq War That Seemed Lost
Yes, you read that headline right. What I haven't told you is that the Reid I'm refering to is the AP's Robert H. Reid . Surely, you didn't think I was talking about Sen. Reid. Anyways, here's what Robert Reid is reporting:
The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.In other words, the Surge has worked, something that Barack Obama is loathe to admit. In fact, as Sen. McCain pointed out here , Sen. Obama voted to prevent the Surge. After voting to prevent the Surge, he said that the Surge was making things worse in Iraq.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace, a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
What's worse for Sen. Obama, this Rasmussen report poll says that Americans don't care about the Obamessiah's trip:
While Barack Obama has touted his travel to Afghanistan and Iraq as a "fact-finding" trip, 63% of Americans do not believe it makes the Democratic candidate any more qualified to be president.I said that the Agenda Media and Europeans gathered to worship at the altar of Obama. I didn't think that his trip was selling with blue collar workers in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. This poll suggests that this trip won't benefit the Obamessiah as much as the media has suggested.
A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken Monday night, also finds that less than a third (32%) think Obama will learn from his trip to Iraq. Forty percent (40%) say his mind is already made up about policies to deal with the war there. The Democrat has been accused by liberals in his party of softening his long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq in an effort to appeal to more moderate voters.
The other thing that this poll suggests is that people have noticed that Sen. Obama makes up his mind first, then does his factfinding. It seems to me that Sen. McCain can exploit this, even painting Sen. Obama as the anti-war left's puppet.
People are saying that this has been a good week for Sen. Obama. I'd suggest that the pictures have been great but the AP's article and Rasmussen's polling has slammed the Obama campaign back into reality.
Posted Saturday, July 26, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 27-Jul-08 10:18 AM
Wasn't that the Reid that went with Obama. If he saw information that makes him think we're winning how come Obama can't see that information. Or does Obama to keep the left happy just keep wanting to lie?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Priscilla Lord-Faris' Final Word Audition
This afternoon, Priscilla Lord-Faris was interviewed by King and Michael. Al Franken should be thankful that she didn't get in earlier because he would've been toast. (More on that later.)
The first thing that came through loud and clear was that she wasn't intimidated by the settings. Another thing that was obvious was that she's a confident lady with a positive, albeit liberal, agenda. It's obvious why Mr. Franken doesn't want her at the FarmFest debate: She'd clean his clock. In fact, it's clear that she's Franken opposite. Whereas he's a hardline ideologue, she's a negotiator. Whereas Franken listens only to his far left brethren, she responded directly to King's and Michael's questions.
It's also obvious that she's still a liberal, though she's more in the traditional Humphrey mold than today's brash progressives. In that respect, she's a proponent of Madeleine Albright, of talking with Iran "rather than rattling the sabres." She's also big into wind farms and other alternatives rather than drilling.
On the personal side, she talked about her brother's heart illness and how that was her sole focus until he passed away. Though that was painful, she talked about that part of her life in a dignified way.
Had she not been focused on family issues, I think she would've been the DFL endorsed candidate.
While I admire her for granting this interview with King and Michael and while I thought she acquitted herself well, that doesn't mean I'd ever vote for her. She sounded too much like she's into the Democratic talk-for-the-sake-of-talking thing for my liking.
The other reason why I wouldn't vote for her is Sen. Coleman. He's an impressive legislator whose views are much closer to mine than are Lord-Faris'. Sen. Coleman is right on judges, Iraq, the GWOT, energy and taxes.
To those who didn't listen to the interview, I'd strongly encourage you to listen to the podcast when it's posted.
I'd recommend that to everyone except Al Franken. If he listened, he'd be nervous. VERY NERVOUS.
Posted Saturday, July 26, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment 1 by Leroy Jenkins at 27-Jul-08 07:00 AM
I seriously think Prissy has a future in Republican politics, as, I have yet to hear one democrat who thinks she is a candidate who deserves a second look, but you republicans are truly gushing over her.
That couldn't just be your fear of Al Franken talking, could it?
Comment 2 by Mr. D at 27-Jul-08 07:50 AM
Nobody's afraid of Al Franken, Leroy. Franken is going to be your nominee. Enjoy the experience.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 27-Jul-08 09:06 AM
That couldn't just be your fear of Al Franken talking, could it?
What fear of Franken? My biggest worry was him not being the DFL nominee.
Comment 4 by The Lady Logician at 27-Jul-08 09:50 AM
Note the condescension dripping from Leroy's comment...
"I seriously think Prissy has a future in Republican politics..."
Prissy????? I don't know many "Priscilla's" who like to be called that.....
"I have yet to hear one democrat who thinks she is a candidate who deserves a second look,"
Why? Because she is a woman or because she had the audacity to challenge the DFL nominee?
"That couldn't just be your fear of Al Franken talking, could it?"
Talk about laughable - Republicans...afraid of a candidate who is (depending on which poll you look at) up to 15% DOWN in a state that is going for Obama by roughly 10%????? Afraid of a man who LOSES the votes of women, unions and independents? Talk about delusional....
LL
Comment 5 by Jamie at 27-Jul-08 10:00 AM
Thanks for the great assessment.
You are correct about Lord Faris being in the mold of Humphrey with her diplomacy skills.
The bipartisan aspect of Humphrey has also led some Republicans astray, like the Override 6.
Both parties politicians follow the Humphrey rhetorical formula of maintaining a huge national wedge position - demonizing southern racism - side by side with bipartisan diplomacy. Talking only speeches and rhetoric here. Vento before he died gave some fire and brimstone speeches bordering on the insane yet was bipartisan in the mold of Humphrey.
Lord Faris to her credit takes only the best from Humphrey.
JMO
Comment 6 by Walter hanson at 27-Jul-08 10:16 AM
I was wondering what planet is Leroy living on. I listened to that interview and she was talking about investigating the oil companies!
May I make a more practical suggestion if she wants to investigate somebody investigate the damage that has been done to this country because of the stupid environmental rules.
You can start with hearins that show the billions of dollars that this country lost because the Army Corp of Engineers wasn't allowed to build dikes that worked in New Orleans.
And of course there are people who instead of believing that it was the fault of the environmental groups that believe George Bush ordered the dikes to be blown up.
That's where a real investigation is needed!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
