March 1-2, 2008
Mar 01 04:52 Strawman Arguments Mar 01 11:39 Pelosi On Her High Horse Again Mar 01 12:55 Carol, Tarryl, Transportation & Politics Mar 02 02:27 Where's the Beef? Mar 02 03:15 Those Members...Deserve a Medal Mar 02 15:46 Picking An Anti-War SecDef??? Mar 02 20:34 Punished For Doing the Right Thing?
Strawman Arguments
Dave Mindeman has put together a strawman argument that needs debunking. It's in response to Rep. Bachmann's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. Here's where the strawman argument starts:
"Should a police officer hold everyone who is stopped without a license to substantiate that they are or are not who they say they are?" asked Rob Yant, public safety director in Marshall, Minn. "You can't stop someone because they're Hispanic."Mindeman then launches into the false argument:
quote from Star Tribune , Feb. 28, 2008
With all the indignation that comes from the conservatives on this issue, this is the underlying enforcement problem. Do you want police officers to check the immigration status of every person they stop for any kind of violation? Do you want law enforcement to spend a large amount of their valuable time doing the job of the Federal government?First of all, nobody's advocating stopping "someone because they're Hispanic." That's just plain nuts. There's several other disturbing aspects to Mindeman's thinking on this. The first is highlighted when he asks whether we want law enforcement "doing the job of the Federal government?" He thinks that that answer should be no. I strongly disagree. Since federal agents can't be everywhere, we need each level of law enforcement working together to control this problem. I'd further suggest that this isn't just a national security issue, that it's also a public safety issue, which means that local law enforcement authorities should be involved.
or...do you want the police to racially profile?
Frankly, the answer to all of those questions is NO.
I'd further argue that racial profiling isn't automatically a bad thing in this instance. It isn't wrong in this instance because a specific demographic group makes up the vast majority of illegal immigrants. Let's make this perfectly clear. I'm only advocating that local law enforcement act when they see something unusual. (Like when a Hispanic woman drives onto people's lawns & doesn't have a drivers license.)
But, let's turn to Michele Bachmann...and her appearance on Bill O'Reilly... as, Mr. Gross at "Let Freedom Ring" put it:Actually, Mr. Mindeman, she doesn't know that things went awry at ICE. In fact, it's still up in the air that local law enforcement didn't tell ICE about the incident. I'd further suggest that it's one thing to suspect something but it's another to prove something.At the outset of the interview, Rep. Bachmann said that she had contacted ICE to see "where in the chain of communication" things went awry between law enforcement & ICE. She also said that this tragedy "was completely preventable."Rep. Bachmann knows where things "went awry". It happened where it always happens..at ICE itself. An agency that is understaffed, underfunded, and expected to do way more than it is capable of. Could ICE have intervened and had this woman deported previously? Sure... if they were investigating every single one of the millions of traffic infractions that people get involved in everyday. Do you think ICE officials would scurry on down to Minnesota because some lady jumped a curb and drove over a lawn? Just not possible. It took several days, after the bus accident, just to find her correct name.
I'd argue that Mr. Mindeman just made my argument against his non-interventionist statements earlier. First he asks this question:
Do you want law enforcement to spend a large amount of their valuable time doing the job of the Federal government?Then he makes this statement:
Do you think ICE officials would scurry on down to Minnesota because some ladyThat leaves you with two options: have local law enforcement ignore unusual behavior or have them tell ICE about unusual behavior. Choosing to ignore unusual behavior, especially when it's such dangerous behavior, is the best way to not prevent other tragedies like Cottonwood.
jumped a curb and drove over a lawn? Just not possible.
The post turns strange here:
Bachmann could have immediately went before Congress and demanded an appropriate increase in funding for ICE. She could have demanded that enhanced protection for social security identity be implemented. She could have called for stiffer penalties for employers who hire illegals. But she didn't do any of that...
Actually, at the rate that Congress is getting its work done, demanding that Congress immediately increase funding for ICE would likely get addressed sometime around the election. This Congress doesn't have a great record on timeliness.
As for demanding "that enhanced protection for social security identity be implemented", Sen. Coleman is working on legislation to remove these information silo's, something that Rep. Bachmann supports.
Posted Saturday, March 1, 2008 4:53 AM
No comments.
Pelosi On Her High Horse Again
Speaker Pelosi announced that they will file a lawsuit against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for not testifying in the Democrats' witch hunt known as the firing of the US attorneys. Here's a portion of what she said:
"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said. "As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."The president's personal staff isn't subject to subpoena because they aren't confirmed. That's because they work for him. As such, there are no constitutional or checks and balances issues.
It's worth noting that President Bush had the legal right, just like Bill Clinton had the right, to fire US attorneys anytime he wants to for any reason he wants to. In fact, Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys at the start of his administration.
The suit had a political purpose too. Democrats have urged that the filing occur swiftly so that a judge might rule before the November elections, when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up for grabs. Criticism of Bush's use of executive power is a key tenet of the Democrats' platform, from the presidential race on down.This isn't smart politics on Pelosi's behalf because this gives the Republicans the perfect vehicle to remind people that Pelosi's Congress wasted time conducting witch hunts instead of getting things done like passing a budget or passing permanent FISA reform legislation or funding the Surge.
In his letter, received by the House early Friday evening, Mukasey pointed out that not only was Miers directed not to testify, she also was immune from congressional subpoenas and was right to not show up to the hearing to which she had been summoned.Mukasey lays things out properly, stating the constitutional principles behind DOJ's not opening a grand jury investigation into Bolten and Miers. Ms. Pelosi and Rep. Conyers can stomp their feet and hold their breath until they're blue in the face but it won't change a thing.
" The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege ," Mukasey wrote, quoting Justice policy.
"Accordingly," Mukasey concluded, "the department has determined that the noncompliance by Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers with the Judiciary Committee subpoenas did not constitute a crime."
"Today's decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the U.S. attorney firings hidden," said Conyers. "In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the committee's subpoenas."If it's a matter of believing John Conyers or Mike Mukasey on constitutional matters, then it's a pretty simple who I'll believe. I don't trust John Conyers much because he's a hyperpartisan hack.
Posted Saturday, March 1, 2008 11:41 AM
No comments.
Carol, Tarryl, Transportation & Politics
Now that the DFL has ousted Carol Molnau as Transportation Commissioner, Tarryl Clark is speaking out:
The idea of McFarlin permanently heading the Transportation Department got an unenthusiastic response from a leading senator. The Senate has the power to confirm or reject Pawlenty's pick for the job.Sen. Clark, you expressed concerns over Carol Molnau to me well over a year ago. Why did it take this long to conduct an actual confirmation hearing? This smacks of cheap political theater.
"There's a number of folks who are concerned that there's an upper layer of management issues there, that he is part of the problem, not the solution," said DFL Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark. "But we don't have any reason to believe that he will be more than an acting commissioner."
If Sen. Clark really had serious misgivings about Ms. Molnau, shouldn't she have told Sen. Murphy to conduct the hearings a bit earlier, say like a year ago?
I'd further submit that Sen. Clark hasn't followed through on another promise she made last January. At that townhall meeting, I asked if the DFL majority would conduct oversight hearings to identify wasteful spending. She said that they would. In fact, that's the context in which she first mentioned her concerns with Lt. Gov. Molnau.
With the state now facing a $935 million deficit, I'd submit that it's long past time for the DFL legislature to start identifying the wasteful spending that they've helped pass over the years.
Gov. Pawlenty chided Majority Leader Pogemiller that " You can't government your way to prosperity ", which is an undeniable fact. While that's true, you can government your way to putting together a system to pay off your political allies. It's apparent that that's what's happened.
For all her rhetoric, the truth is that Sen. Clark is more interested in pure partisan politics than in smart policymaking. If she was interested in smart policymaking, she'd push an oversight agenda aimed at eliminating wasteful spending.
We know that that won't happen.
Originally posted Saturday, March 1, 2008, revised 02-Mar 2:29 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-Mar-08 03:24 PM
wow! I boldly predicted on Minnesota Democrats Exposed that the new person might get a one day honeymoon before they were attacked. I guess I was right on the money!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Where's the Beef?
David Ignatius has written something that asks the question most likely to trip Barack Obama up. Here's how he frames it:
Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?Thus far, Obama has talked the talk but proof that he's walked the walk is thin to nonexistent. As Mr. Ignatius states, John McCain certainly has a heftier track record of working across the aisle than Obama.
This is the real "where's the beef?" question about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. And this is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.
But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.
Thus far, Obama has gone unscathed but that white glove treatment is about to end. The RNC and the McCain campaign will frequently be challenging Sen. Obama on things like this. Their goal is to prove that Sen. Obama is all talk. Obama didn't have to worry about that type of attack from Hillary because she's such a divisive figure. That dynamic just changed because McCain isn't a divisive figure.
The other thing that's about to change is the experience issue. Hillary's tried to play that card but it's been an exercise in futility because she doesn't have the gravitas that McCain has. McCain can contrast his leading the charge for the successful Surge strategy. As Mara Liasson astutely pointed out , all that Obama's had to do thus far is say that he's been consistently opposed to this war. Since everyone was fighting to out-peacenik each other, there wasn't a need to actually defend their anti-war policies. That's just changed in a big way with McCain pushing his pro-victory agenda.
This should be a most interesting general election. If McCain can unite Republicans, this could be a strong GOP election.
Posted Sunday, March 2, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 02-Mar-08 12:19 PM
Why does McCain think he can succeed with this line when Hillary Clinton has failed with it so utterly? People want to vote FOR something this year. Thats why all the negative attacks have bounced off Obama. Obama will 'get things done', the wrong things, but he'll be effective because, until the results of his policies become obvious the usual negativity will not resonate. McCain is unelectable.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Mar-08 03:15 PM
Skep, People will be able to vote for something when they vote for McCain. they'll be voting for a trusted military/national security man in a time of war.
The truth is that Obama is all talk & no walk. He talks about bringing people together yet he's voted the party line on all of the divisive issues of the day. Contrast that with McCain being right in the middle of them, trying to put together bipartisan coalitions.
I'll bet that the American people will notice the difference between talk & action.
Those Members...Deserve a Medal
Jim Oberstar insists that the Wayward Six deserve a medal for crossing over to the dark side, an opinion that isn't widely held within the GOP.
"Hats off to the Legislature for doing the right thing," Congressman Jim Oberstar, who represents Minnesota's 8th Congressional District, told a joint meeting of the House and Senate Transportation Committees.They didn't do the right thing. They did what they thought was in their political best interests. Saying that they did the right thing implies that raising taxes on already over-burdened people is the right thing. Had the legislature just passed a gas tax increase, opinion might've been different.
"Those members who crossed the party line deserve a medal...for doing the right thing," he said.
As Rep. Pat Garofalo said on Final Word today, that isn't the only thing that this bill does. It creates another layer of bureaucracy titled the Joint Powers Board, which in turn "may establish a technical advisory group" apart from the JPB. That's before we start talking about the license tab fee increase, which is applied to new vehicles or used vehicles that aren't registered in Minnesota.
The good news is that people throughout the metro and statewide are mad as hell and they won't take it anymore. I believe that an anti-tax increase revolution has been started. In fact, I've been thinking that since the November elections when Oregon voters defeated a measure that would've raised the state cigarette tax by 85 cents per pack to pay for a children's health insurance program. It's certainly a belief I share with Gov. Pawlenty .
Rep. Garofalo reported people being steamed at his nominating convention. The ChairLady Logician reports that that's the prevalent attitude at her endorsing convention, too. Check the Lady Logician's blog later for more details.
Posted Sunday, March 2, 2008 3:15 AM
No comments.
Picking An Anti-War SecDef???
Campaigning yesterday, Barack Obama made a huge tactical mistake . He announced that chuck Hagel would be a possibility as his Secretary of Defense:
The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.While I regard Chuck Hagel to be an honest man, I also consider him to be a buffoon. He's been stridently anti-war, which won't play with the surge proving effective.
Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a "stretch".
Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: "Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much," although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.
This tells me that Obama is misreading the mood of the American public. It's an indicator that he thinks voters booted Republicans from the majority because they're anti-war. That isn't the reason whatsoever. The people were anti-war only to the extent that they thought the war wasn't being prosecuted properly. Now that they're seeing John McCain being vindicated, they're willing to give him a second chance.
That doesn't mean that they like the thought of war but they'll tolerate it as long as we're winning.
Another question I've got is whether Obama is believing too much of the liberal media's take that this election is over. Michael Goodwin's column should disabuse him of that notion:
This will come as a shock to throngs of delirious Democrats, but the winner of the party's nomination does not automatically become President. There will be - repeat, will be - a general election. And John McCain is already showing he is going to be one tough opponent.Thinking that the GOP isn't just weakened but dead is a fatal flaw in their thinking. military thinking is that, even if your opponent is badly hurt, you never assume that he's powerless.
With their party's huge primary turnouts and record-shattering contributions, many Dems act as though the survivor of the showdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wins a cakewalk to the White House. There is talk of a landslide and big gains in Congress.
The prevailing sentiment is not that the GOP is weak. It's that the GOP is dead.
McCain, the aging, craggy-faced warrior, begs to differ. As if to remind swing voters he knows a thing or two about elections, he unleashed a series of hard-hitting attacks on Obama last week. If his punches didn't get Obama's attention, the Dem front-runner is deep in denial.
McCain's broadsides have covered Iraq, taxes and trade, each a key issue to many voters. The attacks had an echo of Clinton's charge Obama is not ready, a fact that may help Clinton stave off elimination in Tuesday's primaries. That, too, would benefit McCain. The longer Obama and Clinton keep fighting each other, the less time the winner will have for McCain.
By then, McCain will have started to define his opponent in the most unflattering terms. And when it comes to Iraq, he will have the help of the facts on the ground.
An illustration of how security concerns and a broad national aversion to defeat could give voters second thoughts about Democrats came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, who's likely to be in the job when the next President takes the oath, warned against a rapid withdrawal of American troops. Both Obama and Clinton have promised just that and have mocked McCain for saying he would keep troops there 100 years if necessary.
Mullen used no names, but Dems could take no comfort in his words. "I do worry about a rapid withdrawal...[that would] turn around the gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight," he told reporters. Asked by ABC News to define a "rapid withdrawal," Mullen said, "a withdrawal that would be so fast that it would leave us in a chaotic situation and the gains we have achieved would be lost."
As I wrote here , the dynamics of the race will change once a Democratic nominee emerges:
McCain can contrast his leading the charge for the successful Surge strategy. As Mara Liasson astutely pointed out , all that Obama's had to do thus far is say that he's been consistently opposed to this war. Since everyone was fighting to out-peacenik each other, there wasn't a need to actually defend their anti-war policies. That's just changed in a big way with McCain pushing his pro-victory agenda.This isn't going to be the coronation that everyone thinks it will be. McCain still has work to do in shoring up the GOP's activist base. his job is little easier because many of the people that sat out the midterms have seen that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are disasters on a multitude of levels. To have a Democrat in the White House and those dimwits controlling Congress is a GOP activist's worst nightmare.
Posted Sunday, March 2, 2008 3:51 PM
No comments.
Punished For Doing the Right Thing?
According to this article , Bud Heidgerken thinks he did the right thing in voting for HF 2800 & to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto:
Heidgerken, who held the top spot on the K-12 education funding committee, said the position is not very important because he works well with the panel's Democrats.Rep. Heidgerken, since when has it been a Republican principle to increase taxes, especially on people already bearing too heavy a burden already?
Still, the move frustrated him.
" I hate to be penalized any time I'm right ," Heidgerken said.
Heidgerken questioned whether fellow Republicans believe he should vote against his conscience.
"Is this one of the principles of the Republican Party?" he asked.
Rep. Heidgerken, since when is it the right thing to increase a plethora of taxes & creating other taxes?
Rep. Heidgerken, when did you start thinking that increasing taxes without providing offsets in other budget items was doing the right thing?
With 80 percent of the state opposed to a gas tax increase of more than a nickel a gallon, it's difficult to picture his constituents asking him to increase their gas tax burden. I'd further doubt that they were calling him demanding that he vote for increasing their license tab fees. In fact, I'd bet that most of his constituents didn't want any of these tax increases.
Frankly, this type of thinking must be eliminated. We're the party of smaller, more accountable government. Raising taxes isn't something Republicans do often. We're the party that thinks in terms of increasing everybody's shot at prosperity. Everybody's shot at sustainable prosperity & wealthbuilding isn't enhanced by increasing taxes. We're the party that believes in individual liberty. Tax increases don't increase individual liberty.
Here's a significant hint what perspective this article was written from:
Leadership positions such as being top Republican on a committee and holding the title of assistant whip were ripped away from the six. Seifert said they cannot be GOP leaders if they don't follow the party line on such a major bill as the $6.6 billion transportation package.Nothing like fair & balanced, huh? Had Mssrs. Wente & Davis used measured language, they would've written that paragraph like this:
Leadership positions such as being top Republican on a committee and holding the title of assistant whip were taken away from the six. Seifert said they cannot be GOP leaders if they don't follow the party line on such a major bill as the $6.6 billion transportation package.I could whine about not living in a perfect world but that wouldn't do much good. Instead, I'll just highlight the 'reporting' we deal with on a regular basis. Life ain't fair. Big deal. I'll just keep moving along.
Posted Sunday, March 2, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment 1 by Yomi Mizuhara at 03-Mar-08 01:09 AM
Did Heidgerken get nominated at his nom-convention this past weekend? I had not seen any news on it, so if you'd be willing to drop a line at my e-mail, it would be helpful (especially for my blog updates).
