July 5-6, 2010
Jul 05 02:41 What a Celebration!!! Jul 05 11:13 Reid, NRA: This November's Big Losers Jul 05 13:09 Kasich Lead Stable, Sizable Jul 06 02:30 Tom Emmer's Vision vs. ABM's Sniping Jul 06 03:48 Is Jerry Brown Already In Trouble? Jul 06 07:30 Is the Entenza Campaign the Home of the Whopper?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
What a Celebration!!!
As some of you know, the 4th of July is my birthday. I usually play it low key, hang out with a few friend in the afternoon before watching the fireworks. This year, as with the past 3 years, a group of corporate sponsors spearheaded a contribution campaign.
Based on tonight's fireworks show, I'd say that this is the right path to take. What a fireworks display. Even though the start was delayed by more than 20 minutes by an emergency helicopter that was en route to the St. Cloud Hospital, people were more than pleased once the show started.
I'm somewhat of a fireworks junkie, partially because I'm born on the 4th of July, partially because I only live a few blocks away from the show and mostly because I love big splashes of lights in the sky.
Tonight's fireworks were special because it was the most intense fireworks display St. Cloud has ever seen. The first pause in the fireworks didn't come until after an intense 10 minute opening to the show. People all around us stunned. Some people sitting nearby said "I've never seen anything like this."
When I returned home, a local blogger who shall remain nameless tweeted this: "Do you think any politicians are brave enough to suggest cutting fireworks from the budget?" thinking that the show was part of St. Cloud's city budget. It didn't take long before King chimed in that an organization had been formed called the St. Cloud Fireworks organization and that most of the money for the fireworks display came from private donations.
The point to all this is that, based on the spectacular results of tonight's show, I wonder if there are other events or projects that are better left to private organizations that city or county governments are currently involved in. I don't have the answer to my question but it's something worth wondering about as we think about restructuring government.
Questions like "Is this the only way governments can deliver this service?" or "Should government be involved with this?" or "how important is this project to the health of our community?" should be the questions that the next legislature and the next governor and lt. governor should be asking before putting a budget together.
Our legislators and our governor owe us that much, especially when the results can be this spectacular.
UPDATE: Thank you to all the people, all 28 of you, who wished me a Happy Birthday through Facebook yesterday, most of whom are my MOB friends. I'm thankful for the friends I have.
Posted Monday, July 5, 2010 6:28 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 05-Jul-10 06:54 AM
"When I returned home, a local blogger who shall remain nameless tweeted this: "Do you think any politicians are brave enough to suggest cutting fireworks from the budget?" thinking that the show was part of St. Cloud's city budget. "
Um actually here it was part of the County budget and it WAS cut from the budget this year. A private group got together the money to put the show on as scheduled.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10997872
Happy birthday (again) my friend!
LL
Comment 2 by Sanu at 05-Jul-10 05:20 PM
Gary - I hope to thank you next year by serving in public office - by upholding our values of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness for ALL.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jul-10 07:51 PM
Sanu, I'm confident that you'd represent your concstituents well & that you'd adhere to the Constitution. Good luck with your campaign.
Reid, NRA: This November's Big Losers
When I first heard that the NRA was considering endorsing Harry Reid, my first reaction was that some low-level NRA staffer was making the worst mistake of their career. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. According to this article , the NRA is considering supporting Sen. Reid despite his hostility to the Second Amendment regarding the Brady Bill.
The conservative Netroots are abuzz over the possibility that the NRA may endorse Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). This would be the second major slight by the NRA for political conservatives; the gun group also just negotiated a big exemption on a campaign finance bill loathed by the right.The NRA's actions say everything gun rights activists need to know. Political considerations are a higher priority than protecting constitutional protections. When the NRA sold out its members on the First Amendment, they told their members that there were parts of the Constitution that mattered to them and parts of it that didn't matter.
Conservatives say there's a clear political calculation at work: If Reid loses, he's almost certain to be succeeded as majority leader by a fierce gun-control advocate, either Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin or New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
The NRA isn't even denying this line of reasoning but says it hasn't made a decision about whether to endorse Reid.
"The Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association are always one bad incident away from politicians like Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin exploiting their agenda of gun control," said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman.
I've never been a member of the NRA but I've got tons of friends who are. I'd be surprised to find out if the vast majority of them aren't making plans for joining a different Second Amendment Rights advocacy organization, one that's more committed to the Constitution than the NRA is.
It's upsetting that the NRA's political calculations are this foolish. Even if either Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin was the Dem leader and even if Democrats were the majority party, they stil wouldn't be able to move any gun legislation, especially with more strong conservatives like Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio were to join such staunch Second Amendment advocates like Tom Coburn, Jim Demint and Orrin Hatch.
The other point that's important to make about this is that the economy will be the biggest driver in this election. The NRA's endorsement won't factor heavily into the final election outcome, though it will factor into their future membership. Simply put, the NRA won't gain anything with this stunt but they will lose millions of $$$ of revenue because of it.
How the NRA could even consider endorsing a man who voted for the Brady Bill is beyond me. If there's anything that shouldn't be for sale, it's an organization's principles.
Obviously, the NRA didn't learn that lesson. Perhaps a massive reduction in membership will teach them that lesson.
Posted Monday, July 5, 2010 11:18 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-Jul-10 02:31 PM
Gary:
Here's a different way to look at it. AARP back and helped Obama pass the health care bill. They thought it will result in great business. Instead people are quitting AARP to a competiting organization.
AARP got a bill they wanted passed. The NRA got no such thing.
I thought Wayne L who ran the NRA was a brilliant guy. What happened to him? Didn't he see what happened to AARP.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jul-10 04:26 PM
Walter, DC lobbyists, including LaPierre, aren't that bright. I'm convinced that they aren't principled people. They're just focused on their interests. The Constitution doesn't mean much to them.
Comment 3 by Terry at 05-Jul-10 08:16 PM
The NRA did not negotiate, the Dems knew it was going nowhere with the NRA lined up against it. They gave the exemption knowing the NRA would back away if it did not affect them. The Dems are good at this and you bit on it. Divide us up! Harry Reid is not deserving of the endorsement. NRA sleeping on that one.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jul-10 08:24 PM
Terry, You're right. The NRA didn't negotiate with the Democrats. They caved the minute their interests were met. The NRA's attitude stinks because they've stated that the First Amendment isn't a part of the Bill of Rights they're willing to fight for.
Why shouldn't we fight for every part of the Constitution?
As for dividing people, it's obvious that the people, including NRA members, are divided against the NRA's leadership. I don't think that's the way great generals divide & conquer.
Comment 4 by Michele Zimmerman at 06-Jul-10 09:41 AM
If they endorse Harry Reid I and everyone I know are dropping their membership. They should get rid of Wayne LaPierre, he is going to bring the NRA down. You have become back stabbers.
Comment 5 by Ted Zimmerman at 06-Jul-10 09:48 AM
I think Wayne LaPierre is a Obama Acone member. If he endorses Harry Reid i will cancel my membership.
Comment 6 by David Loeffler at 06-Jul-10 10:49 AM
"I've never been a member of the NRA..." Says it all. If you're not a member and haven't checked that the NRA hasn't endorsed ANY candidates yet your opinion is worthless.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Jul-10 01:56 PM
Mr. Loeffler, I pointed out that the NRA hadn't endorsed Reid. I merely pointed out that Reid hasn't been a friend of the 2nd Amendment. If the NRA won't be a faithful, consistent defender of the 2nd Amendment, then they're pretty much worthless.
You don't need to be a member to reach that conclusion.
Comment 7 by Nomore NRA at 08-Jul-10 12:24 AM
I just emailed the NRA and cancelled my membership. They are no better than all the other whores in Washington... Well, they will just have to sell their BS without my money that I had been sending them for YEARS!!!!
Comment 8 by elden hindberg at 10-Jul-10 04:11 PM
I will become an x member also if they endorse reid. Along with my club of 100.
Comment 9 by herk fin at 26-Jul-10 08:51 AM
I do appreciate your response. For 3 weeks I have attempted to contact wayne la pierre- Cox - etc.via phone calls-emails and no return calls. Yesterday I sent my written cancellation
as per their computer instructions. I am totally surprised that any sane legal resident in this great country would even consider reid as a possible candidate for endorsement by the nra or any outfit that is aware of our present world status. I could send you his voting record from 1990 to the present . I don't think he is good for our cause. Both Brownell and Cassity appeared to be underwhelmed about this develpment.I am 70 years old and started with the outfit and made monthly payments to become a lifemember some 40 years ago I have given a fair anount of $ personally. I worked with Harlon Carter and Bob Jenson to correct some of the nra's mis-steps some years ago. I put my family and country long before the nra. For them to announce they are still considering reid is a slap in the face for all gun owners. They have lost their focus and it is sad that $ rules this entire mess. Again I thank you for your email. Please call Brownell & Cassity-check me out. Their own reps are taken back by their present stand on this issue. Everyone I know and trust has dropped out of the nra. They need a shakeup. I took a survey @ the last cross roads' gun show and 1 out of 25 people said they are our only defense against the anti gunners. 24 said they are out. I have walls filled with awards, pins, pictures of Charlton Heston etc-yes I have regrets but not about dropping out-just severe disappointment in management of the org. Thanks again and I hope you will take the time to check out my input. Remember it is all about $$ and we get 4-5 junk mails from them each month. I now feel like a sucker. I am a generous person with a history of giving but when I call the main personnel after 3 weeks and I get nothing back in return I can read the writing on the wall. Wayne may wear cheap suits but he makes a fair salary + expense account. He like congress has lost touch with the little people that make those donations every month. After he gets voted out and reid loses things will look better. This is not the end of the nra but a new beginning with new personnel. Thanks again. herk f.
Comment 10 by Gabriel Walker at 08-Sep-10 12:35 PM
i always thought that gun control should be mandatory in all places'`~
Comment 11 by Landen at 03-Nov-10 03:42 PM
This is just another article by another conservative who wants the gun lobby to benefit only the conservative side. Yes, Reid signed the Brady Bill... 20 years ago. Since then as majority leader he has also blocked efforts at a new assault weapons ban and preventing the CIFTA Treaty from being heard. Yet these damn conservative activists are more than happy to ignore these for their own political game while siting the Constitution as their reasoning. If you really care about the second amendment, why don't you want to make it bipartisan? Nevermind that it was the conservatives who passed legislation like the Patriot Act, which dwarves the Brady Bill in comparison to how it hurts our freedoms. How can you ask a lobbyist not to strategize for their cause? You would rather give up a liberal who has in recent years become an ally and take a new anti-gun leader like Schumer... on what you call principle? Ignorance.
Kasich Lead Stable, Sizable
According to the most recent polling , John Kasich's lead over Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has stabilized outside the margin of error:
The players are the same, and the numbers haven't changed. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the governor's race in Ohio finds Republican John Kasich with a 47% to 40% lead over incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland - for the second month in a row. Three percent (3%) of Likely Voters in the state prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.I don't think it's that big a deal that John Kasich hasn't reached the 50 percent mark. i'd be worried if he was at 42-43 percent but 47 percent is pretty solid, especially considering the fact that his name recognition still has room to grow.
But both major party candidates show a continuing inability to move their vote totals out of the range they've been in for months. Kasich earned 47% support to Strickland's 42% last month.
In April and May, the candidates were basically tied. Prior to that time, Kasich had held modest leads over Strickland. Since December, Kasich's support has remained in the narrow range of 46% to 49%, while Strickland's in that same period have fallen in the 38% to 45% range.
Strickland was elected governor in 2006 with 60% of the vote.
Another thing that would concern me if I was Gov. Strickland's campaign manager are the fact that he's dropped almost 20 points since getting elected in 2006 with 60 perecent of the vote. That's a pretty precipitous drop. That drop is mainly attributable to Strickland's mishandling of the economy. More important to the Strickland campaign is the fact that he can't rise above the low 40's in support.
The rule of thumb in gubernatorial and congressional races is that late deciders usually break towards the challenger by a 2:1 margin.
Once the fall campaign starts, rest assured that Kasich will up with ads touting the fact that he balanced the federal budget and that he deserves a huge amount of credit for creating 22,000,000 jobs during the Clinton administration.
This is looking alot like a GOP gain this November. If Strickland's message of raising taxes doesn't gain traction sometime soon, and I don't think it will, then Strickland is pretty much history.
Posted Monday, July 5, 2010 1:13 PM
No comments.
Tom Emmer's Vision vs. ABM's Sniping
People who've read this blog know that I've highlighted the sniping coming from the Alliance for a Better Minnesota towards Tom Emmer. This article is a perfect illustration of ABM's petty sniping and Tom's vision. Tom's vision for Minnesota is to streamline government and "to have government work for the people":
"If bigger government, higher taxes and more regulation were the answer, then Greece should be the biggest winner in the world and California would be the number one state in the country," gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer told a crowd of 50 Republican activists.Progressives have accused conservatives of wanting to turn Minnesota "into a cold Mississippi", suggesting that streamlining government necessarily leads to cutting important services. Here's Emmer's reply to that characterization:
"If bigger government and higher taxes and more regulation were the answer, then Greece should be leading the world and California should be No. 1," Emmer said.Years ago, Mississippi was an easy target. These days, they're adding car manufacturers like Minnesota used to develop Fortune 500 companies:
"The debate is over; there is no debate any longer (because) big government doesn't work," he added.
"Toyota appreciates the patience of Governor [Haley] Barbour and all Mississippians, but we first need to fully utilize our existing facilities as the economy slowed," said Yoshimi Inaba, president and CEO of Toyota Motors North America. "Now it's time to fulfill Toyota's promise in Mississippi. Toyota remains committed to making vehicles where we sell them and to maintaining a substantial manufacturing presence in North America."Here's a question for my progressive friends: When was the last time a major manufacturer expanded in Minnesota?
The decision to move Corolla production to its new Mississippi manufacturing facility will allow the facility to come online faster than with any other model. With the move, Toyota will add around 2000 jobs to northeastern Mississippi where the plant is located.
Emmer, standing with his wife, Jacqui, told the audience, many of who sported Emmer for governor stickers, that it's time for a new Minnesota Miracle not based on the 1970s model.Minnesota isn't a business friendly state. It hasn't been one in ages. Businesses that were once Minnesota manufacturing powerhouses now are other states' manufacturing powerhouses. This isn't happening by accident.
"This is what Jacqui and I believe the Minnesota miracle of the 21st century should be Marvin Windows expanding in Minnesota and not in North Dakota. A miracle would be 3M expanding in Minnesota, not in Texas," he said.
Meanwhile, ABM's only reply is its partisan sniping:
In a written statement, the group's executive director, Denise Cardinal, said Emmer has "voted against bringing broadband access to these communities and against ethanol and biofuel support as well as wanting to severely cut state aid to towns for the services they provide like road and repair and snow plowing. How can he now say that he's for prosperity in greater Minnesota?"How is voting for ethanol and biofuel subsidies creating prosperity? By its definition, government subsidies only make an inferior business reliant on ever-expanding government, which leads to higher taxes.
I'd further ask Ms. Cardinal if she thinks it's government's responsibilities to pick economic winners and losers. Who made government the arbiter of which industry is a preferred winner and which industries are left to deal with unreasonable taxes and regulations?
If there's anything that we know without doubt, it's that bureaucrats are pathetic at picking economic winners and losers. Why would we trust ABM, which is nothing more than a front group for a myriad of anti-capitalist special interest groups, to tell us how to get Minnesota's economy going when their real goal is just to expand government?
In summary, I'll trust in Tom Emmer's vision and I'll ignore ABM's partisan tit-for-tat sniping because I prefer prosperity over government-mandated mediocrity.
Posted Tuesday, July 6, 2010 2:30 AM
Comment 1 by Eric z. at 06-Jul-10 07:03 AM
I think there will be a big backlash about taking down Drew Emmer's blog because it showed what the Emmer family had stood for before he adopted a strategy of trying to repaint himself in a move to court the middle.
He is like Rand Paul in Kentucky now schmoozing with the bailout senators he blasted in primary rhetoric there. One thing for the nomination, another for the general election, and the voters get the impression they don't know what to trust.
The most consistent voice - true to principles and beliefs, is Mark Dayton.
And Dayton would not shave the minimum wage for anyone. People out of work or worried about their jobs can TRUST Mark Dayton.
Dayton has compassion for those not as rich and entrenched as the Emmer supporters, including the newly aligned GOP insider bloc.
Emmer changes with the weather and it looks like a chance of showers and flooding to me. With no big Emmer lightning strikes. Just a long-lasting soaking. He should draw no more than forty percent of the vote and hurt the down ticket candidates. The insiders were right that Siefert would have been a stronger choice.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Jul-10 07:06 AM
Eric, Dayton's tax increases would send businesses fleeing the state in a heartbeat.
He'd turn Minnesota into a northern version of California. No thanks.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 06-Jul-10 09:26 AM
"People out of work or worried about their jobs can TRUST Mark Dayton."
To do WHAT, exactly? To raise their taxes, so they have even less to live on? To raise taxes on employers, so those employers can offer even fewer jobs, lay off the ones they do have, and move the whole shebang to Mississippi? Government cannot create one single job, unless it first takes a single job away from the private sector (think of it in cash equivalents if you prefer). Emmer is right. The new "Minnesota Miracle" will be in preventing us from becoming a cold Greece. And you know how hard cold grease is to clean up.
Is Jerry Brown Already In Trouble?
When Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina won their primaries, I said that they posed some serious problems for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer , especially for Jerry Brown. Based on this article , it looks like California Democrats are more than a little worried, too:
Ms. Whitman, a billionaire, has utilized her personal wealth to buy advertising and political support, as Mr. Brown is left to raise money the old-fashion way.People shouldn't pay attention to the Brown campaign's spin that they're surprised that they're only trailing by 6 points at this point. Let's first remember that this is California, one of the most liberal states in the United States. Second, Jerry Brown is only down 6 points because, until now, Meg Whitman spent most of her money on winning the primary.
He last campaigned in a major election two decades ago, fueling worry among Democratic strategists that he lacks the energy and drive to win.
With tens of millions spent by Ms. Whitman ($91 million to date), some are asking if the frugality is too much. Democratic insiders say they are concerned that Mr. Brown, who raised $23 million before the primary, began fundraising too late.
"He's not going to be competitive at the beginning of the campaign; we just have to live with that," said Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic consultant. "Does that make people nervous in the Democratic Party and Brown supporters? Of course it does."
The Brown campaign has made frugality a central component of its run. A shoestring staff and a candidate proud of his frugality seems to be a calculated effort by the Brown campaign.
A recent poll showed Whitman leading by six points, which Mr. Brown called "amazing" given their fundraising gap.
"We are confident that the Brown campaign is doing the things that need to be done and we're in the position we want to be in," said the Brown campaign "I think that kind of worry is in the DNA of the Democratic Party."
I'm just guessing that Ms. Whitman won't start unleashing her ads against Brown until after Labor Day. When she starts her statewide advertising campaign, I'm betting that she'll spend part of her time touting her agenda if elected and the rest of her advertising budget reminding California voters of Gov. Moonbeam's eccentric habits and erratic behavior. I'm betting that she'll also remind them that Jerry Brown spends money in amounts that would make drunken sailors blush.
I won't say that this race is over but I'm comfortable saying that Gov. Moonbeam is facing the uphill fight of his life.
Posted Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Jul-10 11:31 PM
Gary:
Give California's election history Brown should have an easy win going. After all he's the Democrat running against the unpopular Republican governor who isn't running for reelection.
The fact that California has 13% unemployment and deficits worse than Minnesota shows that California is looking for a real adult to lead the state. When Arnold ran in 2003 he was running as an adult. Too bad he went to the Democrat side.
That's why Meg will win by at least four points which for a Republican is landslide. Lets hope she drags Barb into retirement with Jerry into retirement.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Walter Hanson
Is the Entenza Campaign the Home of the Whopper?
After reading this MPR article , the question must be asked: Is the Entenza campaign the home of the Whopper? Here's what's got Minnesota's pundits buzzing:
Now, as a candidate for governor, he's claimed credit for getting Pawlenty to agree to the fee in radio ads: "As a state leader, Matt Entenza faced down Tim Pawlenty and won for our schools..." -- and during campaign speeches.I'd say that Mr. Entenza is being a bit melodramatic. Gov. Pawlenty signed anything "with trembling pen"? I think otherwise. Thankfully, MPR has put a timeline together on what really happened:
"And that's why in 2005 when Tim Pawlenty wanted to gut MinnesotaCare, I'm proud that I and Dean Johnson, the Senate leader, stood up to him and saved MinnesotaCare," Entenza told the audience at the Minnesota chapter of the National Association of Social Workers forum on June 4.
"And we not only saved it, but you'll know, with trembling pen it was the one time that Tim Pawlenty was forced to raise some revenue, and we not only put it into saving and expanding MinnesotaCare but we also put it into our schools."
First, it was Pawlenty who proposed the Health Impact Fee, not Democrats in the House or Senate. While Pawlenty publicly proposed the fee in the closing days of the legislative session, he privately floated the idea to DFL Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson several weeks before that.Based on Gov. Pawlenty's conversation with Dean Johnson, it certainly doesn't sound like Gov. Pawlenty was that nervous about signing the legislation.
Johnson told MPR News in April of 2005 that the Republican governor raised the issue:
"I was riding with him. He looked me in my brown, Norwegian eyeballs and said, 'Have you considered a health care fee?' 'Health care fee?' I said. 'What is that?' He said, 'You know what it is,' he said. I said, 'No, I want to hear you say what it is.' And he said, 'Well, it has to do with cigarettes at the wholesale level.'"
Pawlenty told MPR News in May that Entenza was exaggerating his role. "He's saying as Minority Leader that he had a role to play? I think that would be a stretch," Pawlenty. Pawlenty isn't alone.This reeks of desperation on Entenza's behalf. I don't think it's a case of him having an over-inflated ego. I think it's that he understands that DFL primary voters want someone who will fight the evil Republicans. If he can't prove that he stood up to Gov. Pawlenty, then he's history.
"I don't remember Matt Entenza playing any particular role," said DFL Sen. Linda Berglin. Berglin was intimately involved in the 2005 budget negotiations because Pawlenty proposed taking money from the state's MinnesotaCare program to plug the budget gap. Berglin, chair of the Health and Human Services Budget division, says she negotiated directly with Pawlenty on the issue. She says Entenza was a bit player in the negotiations.
"I certainly don't think he should claim a major leadership role because, at the time, the Democrats in the House were in the minority so it was really a matter of getting the governor and the Republicans in the House to agree to something," Berglin said.
Speaker Kelliher couldn't resist the opportunity to get in a shot at Entenza:
For her part, Kelliher says she thinks former Sen. Dean Johnson and other DFL members of the Senate deserve most of the credit for resolving the conflict in 2005.I can't blame Speaker Kelliher for making the most of her opportunity. Not only does it appear that she's telling the truth about this but it's a great way to distance herself from Entenza.
Posted Tuesday, July 6, 2010 7:30 AM
No comments.
