March 19-23, 2008
Mar 19 05:30 A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words Mar 19 09:19 Obama to Hillary: "Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter" Mar 20 03:17 Senate Passes Jeremy's Law Mar 20 10:42 Hiding In Plain Sight Mar 20 19:13 ABC Highlights Obama's Contradictions Mar 20 23:50 Obama's Awful Week Gets Worse Mar 21 18:32 They're Delusional Mar 23 21:42 Conyers: Impeachment After Election A Guarantee
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words
If you believe the maxim that a picture is worth a thousand words, then this SurveyUSA poll is several thousand words worth of bad news for the DFL. Here's what people think of the job the legislature is doing:
Remember that the DFL took control of the House of Representatives in an awful year for Republicans. While people look at the DFL controlling 85 seats, they forget that the closest 19 races, the difference between majority and minority status, were decided by less than 2,500 votes total.
It's also worth noting that the people that ran as fiscal moderates now have to run on their ultraliberal voting records. It's one thing to say that you're a moderate. It's another to have to run on your record of supporting major tax increases and unsustainable spending increases. It'll take some fancy footwork to deflect the reality that there's been a swing from a significant surplus to a significant deficit in just one year.
Here's another graph that'll likely give the DFL heartburn:
Here's the question SurveyUSA asked that produced this result:
Governor Pawlenty's proposed plan to balance the state's 935-million dollar budget deficit without raising taxes calls for a mix of making spending cuts, using budget reserves, closing a corporate tax loophole and slightly decreasing the state sales tax. Do you support or oppose this plan?
It's clear that taxpayers (i.e. voters)don't want the deficit fixed through tax increases.
Let's also remember that Tarryl Clark wouldn't rule out increasing taxes as part of a deficit reduction package. People are in a foul mood over tax increases right now. They're paying more for groceries, health insurance and gas. Others are losing their homes through foreclosures. The last thing they need are more tax increases. I pity the legislator that has to defend consistently supporting tax increases on the stump.
Here's the graph that must piss the DFL off the most:
Here's the question SurveyUSA asked in getting that result:
Would you be more likely to vote for a legislator who voted for the transportation tax increases? Less likely? Or would it not make a difference?It can't be good news for the DFL when half of the voters say that they won't vote for people who raised taxes. Let's remember that that's what their agenda is.
I've said this before. I sure I'll say it often during the campaign: Our candidates should simply ask voters if they liked the billions of dollars worth of tax increases that the DFL passed. I'd also remind them that the DFL took office:
A) promising not to increase taxes and
B) with a $2.2 billion surplus, which they turned into a billion deficit within a year.
I'd then close by asking if that's the type of leaderhip they want in St. Paul. I'd be astonished if voters said that they prefer the DFL's economic tax and spend plan.
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2008 5:30 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Mar-08 09:09 AM
Has the DFL painted itself into a corner? Assume for the moment (OK, take some hallucinogenic mushrooms or something) that the massive tax hike really was about fixing roads and bridges. People would appreciate that, right? They might not like taxes, but if the roads and bridges got fixed, it might be OK?
BUT... What is the possibility that any significant amount of road and bridge work can be done by the time November rolls around? Even if the bill WAS about roads and bridges, those things take time. I'm guessing the DFL is going to watching next season from the bleachers.
Obama to Hillary: "Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter"
We all remember the stink that erupted when Hillary essentially said that, yes, Dr. Martin Luther King's speeches mattered but it took an LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed. Part of the reason why we remember it so well is because Sen. Obama replied by saying this:
"Don't tell me that words don't matter."NHale Media just put together a devastating YouTube video based on that theme. Here's that video:
Barack Obama would be wise to learn the lesson that actions matter, too. Frankly it would've been nice to see Sen. Obama stand up to Pastor J-Wright for the saying the inflammatory, hate-filled words he said.
It's difficult to respect someone who won't stand up to that type of hatefulness until it's a political necessity. That isn't a portrait in courage. That's a portrait in political damage control. You'll forgive me if I don't feel particularly inspired by that.
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:45 AM
No comments.
Senate Passes Jeremy's Law
I just got Tarryl Clark's newsletter. One of the things she touts is the Senate passing Jeremy's Law, named for Jeremy Pearson who died of a drug overdose. Here's what Sen. Clark said in her e-letter:
Justin's Bill, which will require that documentation of an in-person visit has occurred before online pharmacies can dispense medications, was heard and passed by the full Senate. The bill was passed in response to a young man named Justin Pearson from St. Cloud, who died from a prescription drug overdose of Vicodin and Xanax. Despite extensive treatment for his addiction and doctor intervention to cut Justin off these medications, Justin was able to buy the prescriptions on-line through an Internet pharmacy.Reading Tarryl's e-letter, you'd never know that Steve Gottwalt did alot of heavy lifting, even holding a press conference with Justin's father. Tarryl is great at taking credit for the heavy lifting others do. If she was truly interested in bipartisanship, she would've given Steve credit for his contributions to this legislation. Obviously, Tarryl isn't interested in that.
Posted Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:17 AM
Comment 1 by J Ledesma at 21-Mar-08 09:48 AM
Where does Clark take personal credit? It just says that the bill "was heard and passed by the full Senate".
I'd like to hear from Gottwalt what he thinks of your post.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Mar-08 10:12 AM
By not mentioning Steve's hard work, Tarryl's taking credit for the bill passing by omission.
As for what Rep. Gottwalt thinks about this post, why don't you ask him? You can email him or call him at the Capitol. It isn't that difficult.
Comment 3 by J Ledesma at 22-Mar-08 01:20 AM
So if you say "the sun rose this morning at 7:30 am" are you taking credit for the event because you didn't credit G-d?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-Mar-08 05:40 AM
J, That's a silly question. I didn't have anything to do with the sun rising.
Hiding In Plain Sight
Craig Westover wrote a great op-ed in Tuesday's Pi-Press that I somehow missed. It isn't overstatement to say that it's must reading. Here's how Mr. Westover introduces us to the flaws in the Governor's Health Care Transformation Task Force's plan:
My disagreement with the Transformation Task Force recommendations is not simply my preference for free-market solutions over government-run programs, nor even that I question the potential efficacy of task force recommendations (many of which are embedded in bills being rushed through the legislative process). My objection is more basic.It's important to note that consensus and common sense aren't automatically interchangeable. Consensus simply means that everyone agrees. I've often seen instances where a person displays common sense while those around him don't see the wisdom until it hits them right between the eyes. In this instance, there's an overabundance of unwarranted consensus and precious little common sense concerning this plan .
The devil is not in the details of the report, he's sitting in plain sight: The task force recommendations are a giant leap toward classical corporate socialism, a "friendly fascism," but fascism nonetheless.
Some things need to be called what they are. "Fascism" is a perfectly good word when used not as an insult but as an academic description. The task force recommendations are an integration of government and private corporations that destroys the distinction and endangers individual liberty and the quality of health care. It is the task force recommendations, not the task force members, to which the "fascist" label can be justly applied.
If the task force members are to be faulted, it is for letting their good intentions blind them to the unhealthy consequences of what they propose. Their report is the result of good people succumbing to the conceit that they, or any central committee, have the knowledge and authority to manage the health care system and make life-and-death health care decisions for others.
When I attended the health care forum that Tarryl Clark hosted , it was obvious that government's involvement in the health care industry was hindering it, not improving it. Here's one thing that I won't forget from that meeting:
One gentleman talked about how he had to call into the state at 9:00 am on behalf of his son, who has a mental health illness. This gentleman said that sometimes the lines were all busy. Other times, he'd get through, then get put on hold for several hours.Anytime that the government controls health care, bad things happen. The more mandates that the government imposes, the more expensive health insurance gets. The more mandates that the government imposes, the more limited the health insurance options become.
Here's another statement that speaks volumes about what the Commission's goal is:
"Successful transformation of Minnesota's health care system will require active participation and engagement from consumers, employers, health care providers, health plans and government," declares the Task Force Report. The obligations the Task Force envisions for the first four groups require fundamental behavior change; government's obligation is to "enact the necessary changes to law to implement the transformation plan."For all their talk about Minnesota's health care crisis, most of the fixes don't require "transformation." What they need more of is more competition to cause cost collapses. There's a reason why other states are copying the Minnesota model. It's because it's seen as the best in the United States. (SIDENOTE: The reason why the education establishment doesn't want vouchers is because they don't want competition affecting them.) Mr. Westover brings that point home beautifully here:
Health care is a limited economic resource that will be rationed. The question is, "Will you manage your consumption of health care, or will someone else manage it for you?"For all the complaining against various parts of the health care industry, that last paragraph shows how well the system works when it isn't overburdened by regulations. The singlepayer advocates admit that their plan has serious shortcomings. Here's what I posted about that type of system in January:
In a managed care system, health care is rationed for you; someone controls the supply of health care irrespective of demand; the pie is fixed and everybody more or less receives an equal share of the fixed amount. In a free-market system, you ration your own health care by making choices; choice, your slice of the pie, is always growing, albeit with some people having more choices than you and others fewer.
In a free-market system, health care is rationed by the relationship between price and the demand for service at that price, not by a central committee fixing supply and price.
The contrast of these two systems is stark. It is the difference between a managed health care system in which patients queue up for a 38-week wait for a hip replacement and an expanding market of competing Lasik surgery centers offering steadily declining prices and higher levels of quality to greater numbers of people.
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system,Let's admit that the last point isn't supported by real life proof. I talked with a businessman friend of mine when I first read that statement. I then asked him this question:
universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development , slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care . The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
"Other than the government making something illegal, what's the best way to get businesses to stop doing something?" Here's his immediate response, which I knew was coming: "Take away their profits." It's time that we were honest about the Governor's Health Care Transformation Task Force's plan: While it isn't singlepayer in its purest form, there aren't many differences between it and singlepayer.
It's also worth asking yourself something: Do we want a system that its staunchest allies admit will cut revenues to pharmaceutical companies that "could lead to a reduction in overall research and development"? I'd submit that anyone who's child, spouse or sibling that's been cured of an otherwise life-threatening disease by a drug that the pharmaceutical company has produced would say that they'd rather have the current system.
Let's admit something else, too: We're just seeing the tip of the proverbial iceberg right now. If we don't screw the current system up, we'll see life-changing cures developed at an ever-quicker pace. That highlights something else. Government is too cumbersome to keep up with that pace. Getting government involved only guarantees that it'd slow down the pace that we're currently witnessing.
My final analysis is that the Commission has some laudable goals but that they're hoping to accomplish those goals by using an antiquated, unsuitable model that can't possibly hope to accomplish their goals. It's time to let the market operate with as few restrictions as possible.
After all, that's what's fueled the health care transformation thus far.
Posted Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:48 AM
No comments.
ABC Highlights Obama's Contradictions
Conservatives have frequently complained about the media's anti-conservative bias. That's why it's worth commending ABCNews for this article about the contradictions highlighted in Obama's J-Wright speech. Here's the opening of their article:
Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.This msut be one of the worst weeks anyone's ever suffered in the history of American politics. The biggest problem currently facing Obama is the Pastor J-Wright problem. Sen. Obama initially told FNC's Major Garrett that he hadn't heard any of Pastor J-Wright's inflammatory speeches. Yesterday, he admitted that he'd heard them but did nothing about them.
Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of "thousands of donors."
Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.
The question I have is this: Why didn't Sen. Obama chastize Pastor J-Wright for his incendiary commentary? That's the minimum he should've done. Sen. Obama would've been perfectly justified in leaving TUCC. I suspect that that would've been the politically smart move, too.
That's awful enough but that isn't all. Last Friday, Sen. Obama also admitted that Mr. Rezko was more than "just one of 'thousands of donors.'" I told a friend last Saturday that "You know it's a bad week for Sen. Obama when his admitting to having close ties to Tony Rezko isn't the worst news of the week for him.
His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.That giant sucking sound you're hearing is Sen. Obama's credibility disappearing down the drain. While he might not get hurt by his contradictions in the Democratic nomination process, I'll bet the proverbial ranch that they'll destroy him in the general election.
But yesterday, he told a different story.
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.
In the case of his relationship with Rezko, Obama has also been slow to acknowledge the full extent of his relationship.Sen. Obama can't afford any more hits to his credibility. He created an image of transcending race and political affiliation. Now it's verifiable fact that he's attended a racist church pastored by an America-hating pastor. If it gets any worse, he can forever kiss his presidential ambitions goodbye.
It was only last week that he revealed Rezko had raised some $250,000 in campaign contributions for him.
The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama's $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of "thousands of donors."
The bad news is that I'll be posting something later tonight that'll add to Sen. Obama's troubles. Sen. Obama's ugly week is about to get uglier.
Posted Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:16 PM
No comments.
Obama's Awful Week Gets Worse
Embattled Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has experienced one of the most awful weeks in American political history. As I said here, you know it's bad when revealing extensive ties to Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko isn't the big news of the week. Clearly, the Pastor J-Wright scandal has temporarily sucked the oxygen out of the presidential campaigns. As bas as that seems, this article in WND adds another chapter to the Pastor J-Wright scandal. This headline says it all:
Obama Church Published Hamas Terror ManifestoIt gets worse from there:
The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.Here's more of the details of what got printed in Pastor J-Wright's page:
Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.
In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu
Marzook, identified in the newsletter as a "deputy of the political bureau of Hamas." A photo image of the newsletter was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog. The Hamas piece was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism. Here's that image:
Here's a portion of Mousa Abu Marzook's LA Times op-ed:
Why should anyone concede Israel's 'right' to exist when it has never acknowledged the foundational crimes of murder and ethnic cleansing by means of which Israel took our towns and villages, our farms and orchards, and made us a nation of refugees?That that op-ed ran in the LA Times is bad enough. That it was reprinted in Pastor J-Wright's newsletter calls into question how deep his hatred of Israel runs. Let's remember that this isn't something from 10 years ago. That op-ed ran last July. It's that much more troubling considering the fact that Pastor Wright accompanied Louis Farrakhan on a trip to Libya where he met Col. Qhadhaffi.
Why should any Palestinian 'recognize' the monstrous crime carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state, while he or she lives 10 to a room in a cinderblock, tin roof UN hut?
I'll take Sen. Obama at his word when he says that Pastor Wright has been his mentor. That's troubling because Pastor Wright's thinking towards Israel is far outside mainstream evangelical Christian thinking. Let's set that aside temporarily for the sake of this discussion. Let's pretend that evangelical Christians didn't take a position on Israel. Instead, let's think about this from a State Department standpoint. It seems like Hamas has been on the State Department's list of known terrorists forever.
That brings me to this question: What impact has Pastor J-Wright's views on Israel had on Sen. Obama? Sen. Obama says that he hasn't talked politics with Pastor J-Wright but, prior to this week, he insisted that he hadn't heard any of Pastor J-Wright's inflammatory sermons, too.
Another troubling portion of the WND article talks about one of Sen. Obama's foreign policy advisors views about Israel. Here's the portion I'm specifically refering to:
WND reported in January that Malley, an Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.How much influence would Mr. Malley have in an Obama administration? Was Malley the advisor that told Obama that it's ok to meet, without precondition, with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and other tyrants? If it wasn't, it's certainly like-minded, and wrong-headed, thinking.
Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.
Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.
Suffice it to say that this story eliminates the possibility of the Obama-J-Wright controversy going away anytime soon. It's more likely that it'll prolong Sen. Obama's suffering.
UPDATE: Welcome Redstate readers. The questions surrounding Sen. Obama just keep multiplying. His presidential ambitions are pretty much over.
To answer Moe's question : It was for the votes and street cred.
Originally posted Thursday, March 20, 2008, revised 21-Mar 9:15 AM
Comment 1 by HELENA at 21-Mar-08 10:05 PM
Obama needs to have enough respect for the Democratic Party to withdraw from this election. Democrats will never win if he is nominated. I am sure there are a lot of people that voted for him in previous primaries that wish they could take it back. What a shame he is bringing on America. Vote Hillary 08
Comment 2 by terry wise at 06-Jan-09 05:55 PM
I think it is an outrage that a terrorist sympthizer like Obama has somehow managed to become our President. It is a sad time and a time that is significant in Genesis when God said "I will bless those that bless thee and curse those that curse thee" speaking of the jews. So if the United States has now elected its leader, a Hamas and Palestinean sympathizer,then we are under the direct curse of God.
They're Delusional
Simply put, media people are delusional. I offer as proof this article from ABC News. Here's a prime example of what I'm refering to:
To survey the data points on a good Friday in Obamaland, in what had the potential to be a very rough week:This week had the potential to be a very rough week? Did ABC just insert that line into their article after accepting it from Obama's communications team? This is a fatal blow to Obama. He won't be the 44th president of the United States. His credibility is gone. He's no longer able to walk on water. His week ends with more questions unanswered than answered. The worst part is that it isn't over.
This is just the beginning. We still haven't gotten into his connections with William Ayres. We still haven't given much attention to his admitting that his connections with Tony Rezko run deeper than he originally admitted.
Here's the opening paragraph of their article:
Sometimes, like a Cinderella team marching through March, Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign seems nothing short of charmed.I wouldn't get any takers betting that Obama's feeling charmed right now. I'm betting that most people would use the term shell-shocked to describe life in Obama headquarters. Most people in the real world would say that he's had a miserable week. I know that because that's where the evidence leads.
Posted Friday, March 21, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment 1 by HELENA at 21-Mar-08 10:26 PM
Vote for Hillary if you want a Democrat President. McCain is going to eat Obama for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Who can believe anything unpatriotic Obama says. And to think he was taking his children to that unGodly church. Vote for Hillary 08
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 22-Mar-08 03:13 PM
Not delusional my dear....they are simply in the bag for Obama!
I said last week that the press was firmly in the bag for Obama.....
LL
Conyers: Impeachment After Election A Guarantee
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), promised supporters that he'll proceed with impeachment hearings after November's elections:
At a gathering of liberal activists in Washington on Tuesday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) was asked if he would commit to holding the Bush administration accountable once a Democrat is in the White House and illegal acts have been pinned on President Bush.In other words, impeachment is purely a political consideration. If Rep. Conyers thinks that President Bush had committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution, then he's got an affirmative responsibility to hold hearings ASAP. We can't tolerate a president causing a constitutional crisis going unpunished.
"Yes, you have my word on that," Conyers replied. He then shook the questioner's hand as a sign of his commitment.
Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, told an audience at the liberal Take Back America Conference that he is wrestling with the idea of beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but he believes that such an effort might hamper Sen. Barack Obama's chance of winning the presidency. However, Conyers guaranteed his liberal audience that he will pursue legal action against Bush after the November elections.
"Dear friends, this [impeachment] is a decision I am struggling with, and I want to share it here. Do I want to jeopardize the election by taking up this issue?" Conyers asked. "The problem is, this could become the issue of the 2008 election. This brilliant, talented Senator (Obama), who has more delegates and more votes than anybody else, could get derailed."TRANSLATION: It's about politics. Rep. Conyers doesn't care about constitutional principles. Rep. Conyers cares about winning elections and accumulating power. That Rep. Conyers has that little respect for the Constitution's high standard for impeachment testifies to his priorities.
When Cybercast News Service asked Conyers to clarify the statement, he said, "I am afraid they would raise it in the campaign, and that they will use it against us, and that we would end up getting McCain. I would regret that for the rest of my life," he said. "That's the only reason. That would be my fear."
But Conyers told Cybercast News Service this does not mean the Bush administration will not be held accountable. "We can win this election and go get these guys afterwards. But we just don't want to jeopardize November 4th," he said.
We shouldn't be surprised considering he's a moonbat in good standing with the ACLU and MoveOn.org crazies.
Technnorati: John Conyers , Moonbats , MoveOn.org , Impeachment , Constitution , ACLU , Election 2008
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment 1 by skep41 at 24-Mar-08 09:31 AM
When The Rev Wright videos broke I wrote a post on my blog talking about the dysfunctional political culture amongst left-wing blacks. I mentioned Conyers. Yesterday I posted an apology for my racism...left-wing whites are every bit as looney as left-wing blacks, as hard as guys like Conyers try to outdo them with their crazy rantings. Its not without a frission of White Pride that I say that the Chuck Schumers, John Murthas, George Soroses and Nancy Pelosis of the world are dumber and more irrational than their black counterparts. To be a liberal is to be irrational, anti-American and offensive. Notice that Conyers doesnt mention a specific crime he'd like to impeach Bush for because there is none.
