March 13-15, 2009
Mar 13 02:28 Obama's Dropping Mar 13 03:05 House, Senate GOP Ready to Go On Offensive Mar 13 10:33 Which Whopper Will He Stick With? Mar 13 12:09 Will President Stand With DC's Underprivileged? Mar 14 10:54 Remembering Tara McGuinness Mar 14 16:56 Let's Have Some Fun Mar 15 00:26 Retired Union Worker Opposes Card Check Mar 15 07:54 Hooray For the St. Cloud Times!!! Mar 15 08:59 President Obama, Focus On What's Important
Obama's Dropping
President Obama's popularity has been dropping since he first let 'Prime Minister Pelosi' write the stimulus bill. After the bill was posted on the internet, bloggers started picking it apart. The minute they heard about the pork in the original House bill is the minute his popularity started dropping. That's totally predictable, especially with a person with such a scant record.
Now Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen have written an op-ed in this morning's WSJ that takes a rather good analytical look at President Obama's dropping popularity.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating, which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve, is just six, his lowest rating to date.The line that's jumping off the page within the White House is the one about Mr. Obama losing "a good part of his Independent support." This won't go unnoticed in the White House either:
Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.President Obama can keep repeating his '95% of America will see their taxes go down' mantra till he's blue in the face; people aren't buying it. They've heard that the deficit is in the trillions of dollars so they know that President Obama either has to cut spending, raise taxes, accept high deficits or a combination of these things.
Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seeded, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
Republicans are doing a good job with this, with Mike Pence telling interviewers that these deficits are unsustainable. Frankly, though, Rick Santelli's diatribe has been even more important in selling this. Santelli's tea parties have caught on like wildfire across the nation.
It's one thing for the White House to tout President Obama's high personal approval ratings. It's the only thing they can tout because, according to Gallup, 2 out 3 voters worry that government's role is growing too fast. President Obama isn't proposing policies that have widespread support. Instead, he's proposing things that his base is excited about.
Judd Gregg didn't help President Obama's popularity with his questioning of Tim Geithner :
"This budget as it's presently constructed pass[es] on to our children a nation which they will not be able to afford," Gregg said. Gregg says he understands the need for the government to spend "huge amounts of money" in the short term because of the economy. "But after two or three years, this budget should be talking about getting things under control, and it doesn't," he warned.If Tim Geithner can't be a more effective advocate for the Obama administration's policies, he'll contribute to President Obama's sinking ratings. If he faces Sen. Gregg's questioning often enough, he'll look inept. In turn, that will hurt President Obama's ratings.
The president's budget proposes deficits of 3 percent to 4 percent of GDP after 2013, Gregg complained, and expands the size of government while "exploding the size of health care spending." "I'm looking at this budget, I'm saying to myself, 'Where's the discipline? Where is the containment?' There isn't any," Gregg said to Geithner.
The bloom is off President Obama's rose. The people have seen that he's irresponsible with their taxes. At a time when families are scrimping for every dime, the thought of an administration treating our taxes like it's Monopoly money won't give people reason to approve of the job he's doing.
Posted Friday, March 13, 2009 2:33 AM
No comments.
House, Senate GOP Ready to Go On Offensive
According to this article , House and Senate Republicans will soon be going on the offensive with regards to President Obama's budget. This was the subject of Wednesday's blogger conference call .
The GOP leaders indicated they plan to keep up a daily critique of the administration's budget proposal. Boehner said the $3.7 trillion budget, coming on top of a $785 billion stimulus package, a $410 billion omnibus spending package and trillions of dollars in aid to the financial system from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, threatens to overwhelm the country. "There is a point at which we will bury the country under a mountain of debt," Boehner said.The GOP's alternative budget, which includes lots of detail, will stifle the Democrats' attacks. Democrats made the mistake of saying that Republicans are the "party of no." The minute Republicans stage a high profile unveiling of their alternative budget, the Democrats' attacks will be instantly thwarted.
"We thought, given the magnitude of the issues in the budget, that this is the right battle to lock arms in, as much as we can, to explain the president's budget and bring forward Republican prescriptions for economic growth," Pence added.
Pence said House Republicans, led by ranking Budget Committee member Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, plan to offer a complete alternative budget proposal. Alexander said the Senate GOP will "offer specific alternatives to individual items" in Obama's plan.
Pence said the GOP message would be that the Democratic budget plan "spends too much, taxes too much, borrows too much. Republicans have a better plan
."
What's great about this is that their budget alternative gives people the opportunity to compare budgets, see which budget offers more fiscal restraint, tax cuts and the best prospect for creating sustained prosperity.
Prime Minister Pelosi's spokesman id demagoging the issue:
Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said Republicans were continuing with negative messaging. "Press conferences don't solve the American people's problems. Actions and results do," he said. "We hope Republicans will work with us to increase investments in health care and education so we can create jobs. Republicans are being the party of no."Elshami should demagogue this while he can. The minute the Republicans' budget appears is the minute his schtick loses all credibility.
Actually, I think it's be smart strategy if the GOP said that they're the party of 'No More'. After the monstrous amounts of spending that's been appropriated, I'd bet that'd be a winning line with blue collar, middle class workers.
Posted Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 AM
No comments.
Which Whopper Will He Stick With?
President Obama spent the first month of his administration telling people that the only way to avoid economic catastrophe was to pass Prime Minister Pelosi's stimulus bill. He said we were facing the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. According to this AP article , President Obama says that things aren't so bad. My question is simple: Which fib will he stick with?
Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is "not as bad as we think" and his plans will speed recovery.President Obama is nothing but a slick pitchman. The idea that things are suddenly all better after he told everyone that we were teetering on the brink of a epochal catastrophe simply isn't credible.
Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation's "confidence builder in chief," Obama said Americans shouldn't be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was "highly optimistic" about the long term.
Did his stimulus bill suddenly cure all our economic woes? If so, how? Let's consider that most of that money won't be spent before the midterm elections. That's before considering the impact the wasteful spending will have on inflation. That's without considering the impact of Tim Geithner still not having figured out how to solve the banking system's troubles.
Are we supposed to suddenly snap to attention just because President Obama says so? I don't think so. Why should we when he's essentially elevated Nancy Pelosi to the role of prime minister? It isn't like sane people think that Speaker Pelosi suddenly discovered America's political mainstream. She certainly hasn't provided proof of that with the bills that she's written.
"I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say," Obama added. "Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now." "And my long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems."The problem with President Obama's happy talk is that his budget includes unrealistic growth rates that Wall Street economists don't find credible. One of the barometers that I use to gauge economic conditions is former House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich. I don't question his credibility because he's the man that put together the budget blueprint that helped us run surpluses 5 straight years while creating millions of new jobs. That's credibility I'll trust without hesitation.
Last night, Rep. Kasich appeared on Hannity. The questions Rep. Kasich raised didn't involve the type of happy talk that President Obama is engaging in. He focused on the irresponsible and unsustainable spending written into 'Prime Minister' Pelosi's stimulus bill. He's worried that there wasn't nearly enough tax relief to jumpstart the economy. He said that all the debt that's being created will dampen economic growth for the next decade, a view supported by the CBO.
Other things that Rep. Kasich mentioned as troubling were the tax increases, the damaging effects of cap-and-trade, the lack of a plan to fix the credit markets and the mortgage bailout. Rep. Kasich said that it's wrong to ask people who lived within their budgets to bail out people who bought homes in the hopes that real estate prices would continue rising.
By citing these things, Rep. Kasich essentially told me (a) what things urgently need fixing and (b) that the Obama administration hasn't addressed these things.
Factoring those things in, why should I trust President Obama's happy talk? Isn't the smart thing to do to wait and compare President Obama's supersized budget with the Republicans' budget?
On top of that, Obama wants to overhaul health care, reduce greenhouse-gas pollution and undertake major changes in energy policy. He's projecting a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion this year, by far the largest in history, but says he can get it down to $533 billion by 2013.President Obama suffers from the same malady that afflicts most Democrats: he isn't willing to prioritize which things need immediate attention (fixing the banks leaps to mind), which things need fixing within the next couple years, which things are best corrected by the private sector (health care) and which things will correct themselves.
"I am not choosing to address these additional challenges just because I feel like it, or because I'm a glutton for punishment," Obama told the Business Roundtable, a group of top business executives. "I am doing so because they are fundamental to our economic growth, and to ensuring that we don't have more crises like this in the future."
It's time President Obama stopped talking about spending irresponsible and unsustainable amounts of money. That's what's worrying Wall Street and Main Street alike.
Until he starts acting like an adult who knows how to say no, people won't think of him as a thoughtful politician. They won't confer on him credibility. Until President Obama changes direction, he'll be forced to play the role of pitchman selling an unappealing economic blueprint.
Until President Obama changes direction, he'll be forced to choose which fib he'll sell.
Posted Friday, March 13, 2009 6:20 PM
No comments.
Will President Stand With DC's Underprivileged?
When President Obama signed the omnibus spending bill that will fund the beast the rest of FY2009, he also signed the DC Voucher Scholarships out of existence. My question now is simple: Will President Obama side with the NEA or will he side with needy children who deserve a first class education? Based on internal Democrat communications , Democrats have no intention on re-instituting the DC scholarship program:
Prominent lawmakers said throughout the debate on cutting D.C. school voucher funding that they would consider reauthorizing the program, but an internal document shows House Democrats have no intention of doing so.President Obama needs to make a stand on this. Will he side with underprivileged DC children? Or will he continue to let Prime Minister Pelosi run roughshod over these children? This is partisan politics at its worst. Not only is David Obey, et al, willing to eliminate an important program but they're willing to do that as payoff for one of their best political allies.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the D.C. voucher program, appears to have made up its mind, according to an internal document obtained by The Washington Times.
"Currently, the Committee is unaware of any pending legislation to reauthorize the D.C. school voucher initiative. Therefore, the Committee does not anticipate reauthorizing the program," the Democratic committee staff said in a 2010 budget document circulated Friday.
Rep. Obey's giving DC children the finger is one of the most despicable pictures I've seen in political life.
It's a profile in cronyism at its worst.
Unless President Obama fights for these children's right to a first class education, he'll lack credibility as a thoughtful postpartisan politician. If he doesn't fight for this scholarship program, we'll have proof that he's just another partisan politician who does what his puppeteers tell him to do.
That isn't change I can believe in. It's change I'm disgusted with.
Democrats who voted against Mr. Ensign's amendment shrugged off accusations that passing the bill would kill the program, saying they would hold hearings or re-evaluate it before making a decision.What's the need for hearings? Durbin's spin is disgustingly transparent. How difficult is it to figure out whether underprivileged children are better off attending Sidwell Friends, where President Obama's daughters attend school, or whether they're better off being imprisoned in dangerous academically-challenged schools?
"Senator Lieberman's committee is going to take a close look to see if this program has worked," Sen. Richard J. Durbin said. "I do not understand the reluctance on the other side to have an honest evaluation of the program that has cost us over $70 million in taxpayer funds."
This is a cheap ploy designed to distract us from the fact that Democrats oppose vouchers. They've opposed vouchers since the day the NEA told them to oppose them. This isn't complicated. It's one of the few things that's transparent in DC these days.
Likewise, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California has said she would be open to supporting the program if hearings show that it is working.Why do these empty suits start with the position that it might not be working? It's as though they assume that this program can't work. That's a disturbing predisposition on Durbin's and Feinstein's behalf.
But a spokeswoman for Rep. Edolphus Towns, New York Democrat and chairman of the committee, confirmed that the panel does not intend to green-light the program as of now. "Since Chairman Towns has not seen any legislation regarding the voucher program, he is not anticipating taking up reauthorization," spokeswoman Jenny Thalheimer said.The only thing these hearings will do is kick the can down the road until it disappears from the radar screen. Rep. Towns' spokeswoman makes that abundantly clear.
A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican and the committee's ranking member, accused Democrats of being disingenuous. "Talk of hearings, assertions that no final decision had been made were deceptive doubletalk. Democrats on the House committee that would have to reauthorize the program had already decided poor D.C. children shouldn't be in private schools," spokesman Frederick Hill said.
What's particularly offensive is that the Democrats' attempt to look like they're fiscally responsible is really their willingness to be the NEA's puppets. The Democrats' behavior is morally reprehensible and shouldn't be tolerated. This program needs to be re-instituted ASAP so that as many underprivileged children aren't subjected to DC's failing schools.
Posted Friday, March 13, 2009 12:12 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Mar-09 01:24 PM
Wouldn't it be just great if some private organization stepped in and offered these 1700 kids a PRIVATE scholarship to stay where they are? Think of the negative publicity that could be heaped on Democrats for "forsaking the poor," and "condemning children to failing schools." Who can we talk to about this?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Mar-09 01:56 PM
I'll be talking with a couple contacts I have within the Heritage Foundation about that very thing, Jerry.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 13-Mar-09 10:48 PM
Let me know and I'll send whomever a few bucks. If we could just get enough to keep those two friends of the Obama children at Sidwell Friends, it would make a good talking point.
Comment 4 by eric z at 14-Mar-09 08:33 AM
Good luck. Rush is rich and could be tapped to contribute. He's got plenty, so he should give plenty, isn't that how this private funding of social services GOP hoax supposed to work? When that wonderful and generous man, Rush Limbaugh, backs his words with cash is when he might gain a shred of credibility.
How long need we wait?
Michael Steele. Any thoughts, in terms of the GOP redefining itself?
And, Gary, vouchers being the equal of quality education, your core unjustified premise, however, is a questionable postulate. Vouchers are viewed by many as more like a GOP way to torpedo public education as a public good.
A hoax.
Or not?
Where's your evidence? What's its quality? Its extensiveness, beyond something anecdotal?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 14-Mar-09 01:39 PM
Eric, I didn't make the mistake that vouchers could replace public schools or that we need to get rid of public schools. Don't hear what I didn't say.
I'm merely saying that vouchers should used to rescue inner city children from failing schools.
Remembering Tara McGuinness
When Minnesotans last heard of Tara McGuinness, Ben Goldfarb was dismissing her from Amy Klobuchar's campaign for viewing a Kennedy for Senate campaign ad before it was released. We also know that Ms. McGuinness got that advertisment because it took Noah Kunin 17 attempts before gaining access to the website where the ad was stored.
According to Ben Smith's article , our girl Tara has moved up in the world:
The vast new left-wing conspiracy sets its tone every morning at 8:45 a.m., when officials from more than 20 labor, environmental and other Democratic-leaning groups dial into a private conference call hosted by two left-leaning Washington organizations.Instead of accepting information that Noah Kunin allegedly hacked into a computer to get, our lady Tara is now part of the left wing smear machine that attacks anyone that disagrees with President Obama or the progressive agenda.
The "8:45 A.M. call," as it's referred to by members, began three weeks ago, and it marks a new level in coordination by the White House's allies at a time when the conservative opposition is struggling for a toe-hold and major agenda items like health care reform appear closer than ever to passage.
The call has helped attempts to link the Republican Party to radio host Rush Limbaugh, and has served as the launching ground for attacks on critics of Obama's policy proposals. It springs from a recognition of what was lacking in the Clinton years, said Jennifer Palmieri, the senior vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, one of the groups hosting the call.
"[CAP President John] Podesta's and my experience was in the White House during the Clinton years, and we didn't have a coordinated echo chamber on the outside backing us up," she said. "There's a real interest on the progressive side for groups to want to coordinate with each other and leverage each other's work in a way I haven't ever seen before."
The call is hosted by Progressive Media, a project of the CAP Action Fund and the Media Matters Action Fund. The project began last year as a launching pad for attacks on John McCain, but failed to raise money for television advertisements, and served in the later days of the presidential campaign as a platform for disseminating opposition research critical of his policy plans. White House officials do not take part in the calls.
The calls are led by its top staffer, Tara McGuinness, who will also head Progressive Media's "communications research and analysis war room" to wage spin and policy wars throughout the day, Palmieri said.
Last night, Karl Rove picked up on this part of Smith's story:
Though White House officials do not participate in the calls, Palmieri said, the new infrastructure is closely tied to the White House. Podesta directed Obama's transition, and Americans United for Change exists largely to run ads promoting the White House agenda. Some on the left, however, remain skeptical of the White House's embrace.Mr. Rove said that what caught his attention is the fact that "The Call" happens after a staff meeting in the White House. After dealing with the Clinton's spin machine, veterans parse statements looking for deceptive statements. In this instance, what's revealing is that Ms. Palmieri said that the White isn't involved in the call, then says that "the new infrastructure is closely tied to the White House."
That doesn't eliminate the possibility of Podesta, Palmieri or our girl Tara talking with someone like Rahmm Emanuel prior to The Call. It just means that Emanuel doesn't participate in The Call.
Here's what these organizations do:
When a new group called Conservative for Patients Rights, for instance, launched an ad campaign featuring former health care executive Rick Scott, "There was a discussion about what do we know about this guy and in a very quick period of time we were able to come up with his background," she said. Scott, as progressive groups quickly informed reporters, had reportedly been forced to resign as head of the company became known as Columbia/HCA amid fraud charges, and the company eventually paid a massive settlement in the case.It's worth noticing that these organizations didn't attack Mr. Scott's plan. They just attacked him, which is a typical Clinton War Room tactic. The Clintonista's lived by the rule that if you couldn't attack the message, you'd attack the messenger.
Simply put, Ms. McGuinness, Ms. Palmieri and Mr. Podesta have totally bought into the Clintonista politics of personal destruction. If the Obama administration is coordinating their efforts with this organization, it's because the Obama administration believes in the politics of persona destruction.
Considering the fact that Emanuel and President Obama are products of the Chicago machine, I don't think it's a stretch to think that type of coordination is happening.
The character of this sliming organization is apparent. McGuinness engaged in activities that got her fired from a high profile campaign position. That wasn't enough to prevent her from getting a job with these smear merchants. Another example of their (lack of) character is how they attack the messenger, not the message. It's the type of attack that I'd expect from Mr. Soros' organization of hate.
Posted Saturday, March 14, 2009 11:00 AM
No comments.
Let's Have Some Fun
Robert Stacy McCain has put a fun-looking post together on the American Spectator Blog. It's titled "Describe the Democratic Party in 20 Words or Less". To get things started, here's what I put together:
The Democratic Party: Where allegations equal proof, emotions equal thoughtfulness & extremism equals mainstream thought & capitalism is hated.That's nineteen words and it's right on the money. Id double dog dare anyone to put a better description of the Democratic Party than that.
Put your descriptions in the comments section, which I'll monitor the next 48 hrs. I'll decide the winner Monday night at 6:00 pm CDT.
Posted Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:56 PM
No comments.
Retired Union Worker Opposes Card Check
According to this article , not all union workers are thrilled with EFCA. In fact, it isn't understatement to say that Neal Catlett stepping forward and challenging union leaders represents a profile in courage, especially after this statement:
Catlett, now retired from Whirlpool, opposes card check. He told The City Wire that he has seen plenty of "nonsense" among Whirlpool leaders and union leaders to know that anything other than a secret ballot will lead to intimidation, coercion and corruption on all sides.Despite the fact that everyone understands that EFCA allows unions to ask people face-to-face to sign the card, union liars are trying to spin the situation. Here's one feeble attempt:
"I strongly support secret ballots. Period. It doesn't matter at what level, whether it is voting for a union or the president or your congressman," Catlett said. "Your ideas should be personal as to if you want a union or don't want a union."
Alan Hughes, president of the Arkansas AFL-CIO, said corporations are seeking to scare Americans by focusing on the secret ballot issue. Hughes contends the decision by workers to vote for or against a union will remain private under the bill filed by Harkin. Hughes said the law merely removes the intimidation and "anti-union" practices that come from businesses fighting a unionization attempt.Let's remind Mr. Hughes what former Sen. McGovern said about EFCA :
"I challenge anybody to show me in the bill where it takes away the secret ballot," Hughes said. "Companies are fighting this because they know that organizing gets easier and they lose control of the process they've controlled for years."
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board , union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.Sen. McGovern certainly knows how to read legislation. He's certainly as pro-union as Mr. Hughes. The difference between. Mr. Hughes and Sen. McGovern is that certain principles, such as secret ballots, are more important than unionization.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder , free from fear of reprisal.
What's most insulting, though, is Hughes's accusation that businesses fighting against unionization are using "intimidation and "anti-union" practices." If businesses use such threats and intimidation, the NLRB will be all over them like white on rice. Mr. Hughes doesn't mention that information because that information destroys his argument and his credibility.
Mr. Catlett won't get added to the unions' Christmas card list for this statement:
"Doing away with the secret ballot is not good for the unions. It's not good for any business...Open voting creates an atmosphere of intimidation. It creates an atmosphere where people will use your opinion against you. I've seen the threats and I've actually seen the physical conflict, if you know what I mean, come from the business side and from the union side," Catlett said. "I just don't see how any process that is not private will protect the worker."I applaud Mr. Catlett for having the courage and the honesty to admit what people already know: that union members have been known to use strongarm tactics to get what they want from time to time. Mr. Catlett is a profile in courage and integrity in my opinion for speaking the truth.
Conversely, Mr. Hughes isn't a profile in courage or integrity, though he is a portrait of a man who'll say anything to get his way. Mr. Hughes's deceptive statements serve as his personal lack of character witnesses.
Posted Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:32 AM
No comments.
Hooray For the St. Cloud Times!!!
It's important to take this opportunity to highlight the St. Cloud Times Editorial Board's editorial chastizing the Minnesota Legislature's attempt to limit reporters' ability to cover the news. The DFL majority's attempt to limit where reporters could go and what they could take pictures of was so heavyhanded that, according to Dave Aikens' and Marty Owings' interview on the Final Word yesterday, the House passed a resolution "essentially saying they believed in the First Amendment."
One of the things that the Times' editorial talked about was KNSI radio talk show host Dan "The OX" Ochsner having his credentials revoked:
On the Senate side, local conservative radio personality Dan "The Ox" Ochsner had the DFL-led Senate deny him annual media credentials this session despite having held them several other sessions.I'd ask people to follow this link to listen to King Banaian's interview of Mr. Ochsner on the subject. When you find this blurb:
Capitol folks have tried to justify these actions on themes such as "not enough room," "we're updating our rules" and "they don't regularly cover the Capitol."
Sorry, but they are missing the point. Legislators are conducting the public's business, not the media's business. The only rules needed are those that embrace openness, no matter who is asking for it.
Saturday February 28, 2009Once you locate that description you have the choice of either picking the podcast or the listen now option.
The Final Word Hr 1 With The Northern Alliance
King talks with KNSI conservative talk show host Dan Ochsner, who had his press pass to the Minnesota State Senate revoked, for mysterious reasons by its DFL leadership.
Whichever option you choose to listen to the interview, you'll be irate when you hear what the DFL majority is attempting to do and the excuses they're using to hide behind. Here's what the Times said about the DFL majority's excuses:
Sorry, but they are missing the point. Legislators are conducting the public's business, not the media's business. The only rules needed are those that embrace openness - no matter who is asking for it.TRANSLATION: You work for us and WE DEMAND TRANSPARENCY . This isn't negotiable. If the DFL majority needs to makes adjustments, then it's time for them to make the adjustments ASAP. We have a right to reporters having extensive access to information that affect our lives.
When Tony Sertich attempted to restrict reporters' movements, Mary Lahammer, Esme Murphy and Tom Hauser let it be known that that wouldn't be tolerated but it would be reported. It didn't take long for Majority Leader Sertich to backpedal from his initial position.
It's time that the DFL majorities in the House and Senate stopped trying to restrict reporters' movements. It's time that they film all of their proceedings so the public can watch each committee hearing, whether it's during session or if it's during one of their unproductive out-of-session hearings.
That's our demandment and it isn't negotiable.
Posted Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:54 AM
No comments.
President Obama, Focus On What's Important
Michael Barone has a message for President Obama . Saying that it isn't what President Obama wants to hear is understatement. Here's the message Mr. Barone wants President Obama to hear:
Put aside your plans, announced in your budget, for national health insurance, for a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases, for effectively abolishing the secret ballot in unionization elections. And, they might have added, for higher taxes on, and a reduction in, their charitable deductions to channel money away from charities and nonprofits and toward the government. Pay attention to the first thing on your platter and the nation's, Buffett and Brooks and Galston say: the financial crisis.While the American people elected President Obama, that doesn't mean they approve of all of his policies. Quite the opposite, actually. They don't agree with his Cap and Trade policy initiatives. They certainly don't approve of President Obama's irresponsible spending habits. Finally, they don't like the thought of President Obama's plans for universal health care.
Whether the American people said yes to President Obama's policies on Election Night, it's clear that they're saying no now. That's the only thing that matters right now.
President Obama has attempted to sell their agenda with this feeble argument:
The answer Obama has given, in advance, is that we can only solve our economic problems by advancing these other programs.Here's Mr. Barone's reply to that flimsy argument:
None of the issues addressed in the Obama budget was in any way a cause of the financial crisis. We did not have a housing bubble collapse because we don't have a national health insurance program. We don't have toxic waste clogging the balance sheets of the banks and other financial institutions because of carbon emissions. The Bush tax cuts were not a proximate cause of the giant public debt being run up under the Toxic Assets Relief Program or the 2009 stimulus package.That's another spot on observation from a man who's made a living making astute observations. President Obama would be wise to understand that Michael Barone understands the American electorate better than anyone, with the possible exceptions of Newt Gingrich, Frank Luntz or Karl Rove.
While making these observations, Mr. Barone includes this history lesson for President Obama's sake:
In his first months in office, Franklin Roosevelt concentrated on repairing a financial system that was in much worse shape than ours is today, with most banks closed. Roosevelt got most of them open and running again. It was a couple of years later that the programs we remember the New Deal for were passed, Social Security, the Wagner labor act, higher taxes on high earners. (Well, Roosevelt did sneak in repeal of Prohibition.) Even Roosevelt's first expansion of welfare rolls, at the end of 1933, was abruptly cancelled when the snows melted in spring 1934.Finally, the most important reason for President Obama to distance himself from the policies he's currently advocating: Cap and Trade and universal health care. While these items energize his political base, they're driving independent voters away in droves. That doesn't mean that he's driven them into the GOP camp...yet. It means, though, that that's a distinct possibility, especially if he insists on pursuing this radical agenda. That's his prerogative but it's politically foolish, too.
Posted Sunday, March 15, 2009 9:03 AM
No comments.
