March 31, 2010
Mar 31 01:02 These Endorsements Help Tarryl...In August Mar 31 13:12 Democratic Drill Baby Drill is Actually Bait And Switch Mar 31 14:29 Larry Haws's Diatribe For the Ages UPDATED
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
These Endorsements Help Tarryl...In August
After reading this Strib article , my first reaction was that Tarryl Clark would benefit from these endorsements...in the primary:
Tarryl Clark has garnered a long list of top-shelf Democratic support in her bid to defeat powerhouse Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann. But when talking to Hot Dish about how she would go about unseating the darling of right-wing cable commentators, the DFL state senator from St. Cloud listed some unlikely folks she admires.Tarryl getting endorsed by Govs. Quie and Carlson or Rep. Ramstad won't help Tarryl in the general election. I'd suggest that their endorsements have everything to do with firming up her support for Tarryl's primary challenge against Maureen Reed.
Tops were former Govs. Arne Carlson and Al Quie, and former U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad, all Republicans. "Governor Carlson put us on a path to outcome- and results-based budgeting," Clark said. "Under his leadership, we had some of the highest per-capita income and job growth in the country."
Let's remember that Dr. Reed has cast Tarryl as too liberal :
"After fully analyzing the situation, I have decided that if I do not receive the endorsement at the convention this spring, we will proceed to the DFL primary election.Dr. Reed saying that the DFL needs a "big-tent Democrat" to defeat Michele this November. I'd modify that statement a bit. Here's how I'd phrase that sentence:
We used thoughtful consideration to reach this conclusion since I have such a great deal of respect for the dedicated individuals in the DFL who generously give their time working to improve our state and nation. However, the Sixth District is unique in that it is more moderate and independently minded in its political leanings than the state as a whole. In fact, we conducted a poll which showed that the profile of the Democratic primary voter is more diverse in political philosophy than those who participate in the conventions.
Recent campaign results in the Sixth District show that a big-tent Democrat who appeals to independent voters has the best chance to defeat Michele Bachmann."
Recent campaigns show that a Democrat who can't appeal to independents doesn't stand a chance in the Sixth District.Tarryl ran as a centrist in the 2006 election. Since the start of the 2007 session, Tarryl has voted for unsustainable spending and the largest tax increases in Minnesota history. Because of her voting record, Tarryl's centrist credibility is essentially nonexistent.
It isn't likely that Dr. Reed will win the primary but she's picked the right approach for defeating Tarryl. The other thing that will help Dr. Reed is that she's pretty well-financed. She's got the resources to give Tarryl a fight.
Tarryl is running a pretty traditional DFL campaign thus far in some respects but getting the endorsements of liberal Republicans like Carlson, Quie and Ramstad is a definite departure from a typical DFL campaign.
When the primary winner is determined, CD-6 voters won't pay much attention to Carlson's, Quie's or Ramstad's endorsements. They'll pay more attention to Michele Bachmann's commitment to stopping Washington's reckless spending, repealing and replacing the Democrats' unpopular health care legislation and her commitment to America's energy independance by drilling in ANWR and on the OCS.
They'll compare that with Tarryl's record of voting for the biggest tax increases in state history, not looking for government waste and her support for EFCA, aka Card Check.
When that comparison is over, the likely result will be Tarryl be calling Michele to congratulate Michele on winning her third victory.
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:02 AM
Comment 1 by ericz at 01-Apr-10 09:49 AM
Gary, you are reaching.
The Reed quote speaks for itself.
It is not an attack piece on Clark.
Also, Clark legitimately can call herself a moderate. Because she is a moderate.
You are so far right everyone to you is a liberal if agreeing with Eisenhower Republicanism.
I think most people understand your extreme [aka Emmer] conservatism in reading your work, and take due regard that way.
I do. And within that context I appreciate your publishing a view.
But to the mainstream world, both Tarryl Clark and Maureen Reed are moderates. It's a coin toss which is more or less moderate compared to the other.
Bachmann, their common foe, is an ultra-right-wing extremeist; and most mainstream people would, I believe, agree with that characterization.
That said, I agree with the right wing contention that the recently passed healthcare legislation is a wrongful taking - my reasoning being if it were tax for single payer it would be for a public purpose, but a mandatory taking of one's money, to give to private ventures, the uber-rich insurance magnates and their pirate crews, that's overreaching. I agree it is an unconstitutional taking; even with the argument existing that assuring a healthy voting public - work force is a public purpose. Generally that is true, but you do not aim there by fleecing little folks to enrich those already having more than enough.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-10 10:41 AM
Eric, Dr. Reed is taking a shot at Tarryl's liberalism. Why else would Dr. Reed portray herself as the centrist with the only chance of winning?
Michele Bachmann, who you characterize as "an ultra-right-wing extremist" believes that companies that supply products that the public wants should be able to turn a profit. You, on the other hand, have said in the past that they're greedy profiteers. Guess which perspective is considered mainstream by the American people? HINT: It isn't you.
Michele also thinks that drilling for oil & mining for coal, thus producing affordable energy prices, is how you get an economy to prosper. You don't, again characterizing these companies as greedy in need of havng their tax burden increased. Your view, which you've stated repeatedly on here, isn't the majority opinion.
Tarryl is great at characterizing herself as a reasonable, moderate person. Her votes say the opposite. Her votes say that she's far left lefty who prefers a single-payer health care system. (That's what she meant when she told an SEIU rally on the Capitol Steps that there's still work to do with the health care system.)
Comment 2 by ericz at 01-Apr-10 10:09 AM
I should add, Gary, as to the several Attorneys General going to litigation, there exists the situation long established, which they do not challenge, of paying an assessment [fee, tax use your favoriate term] for a driver's license and plates and tabs for an auto. Then, to drive, you have to buy, from private suppliers, liability insurance. The argument there is driving an automobile, unlike being healthy and having suitable baseline care, is a "privilege" and not a "right."
Also, I have always thought that liability insurance would be cheaper if government supplied, as with nuclear power plants under the Price Anderson Act. Without that market bias [aka subsidy], nuclear power would have an even harder time taking hold.
Just so people do not forget there are analogies and nuances, I thought it worthwhile to say so.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-10 10:51 AM
Eric, There's a reason why these attorneys general aren't challenging those things: They're administered by the individual states. The Tenth Amendment doesn't prohibit states from doing these things because the Tenth Amendment deals with prohibiting the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from USURPING rights reserved to the individual states.
The individual mandate requiring people buy health insurance is administered by the federal government as a condition of your existence. The Founding Fathers would give these extremist Democrats the tongue-lashing of a lifetime for attempting this stunt.
Speaker Pelosi was questioned by CNSnews.com what gave Congress the authority for this. She cited the Interstate Commerce Clause. That's a flimsy argument, especially since the federal government prohibits the selling of health insurance across state lines. It's made even flimsier by virtue of the fact that each state has its own unique mandates, making this not an apples to apples comparison or even an apples to oranges comparison but rather an apples to beef comparison.
Democratic Drill Baby Drill is Actually Bait And Switch
Last night, readers on Drudge read that President Obama was willing to consider drilling on the OCS :
Reversing a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores, President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced an expansive new policy that could put oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska.When I read that, I was highly skeptical, mostly because I knew one of the things that Congress is thinking about debating next is Cap and Trade. This afternoon, FNC's Jim Angle reported that he'd had conversations on background with Democratic staffers who admitted that this is all about capturing Republican votes for Cap and Trade.
That information is verified later in the AP article:
Obama made no secret of the fact that one factor in his decision was securing Republican support for a sweeping climate change bill that has languished in Congress. But Obama has long stated his support in favor of the "tough decision" to expand offshore drilling.Let's remember that then-Candidate Obama told people that energy prices "would necessarily skyrocket" under his Cap and Trade proposal. Let's remember what he said days before Election Day:
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.There was no way that I was going to take President Obama at his word on energy exploration, especially after he said that inflating the tires on our cars would save millions of barrels of oil a year :
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
There are other things that you can do to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated...simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everyone was just inflating their tires and getting regular tuneups.Presidents that talk about letting people build coal-fired power plants just to bankrupt them isn't a proponent of oil exploration. Someone that proposes legislation that would cause energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket" doesn't suddenly join forces with Gov. Palin on a campaign them of Drill, Baby, Drill.
It's important that we remember that President Obama was going to add tort reform to the reconcillation bill. The rhetoric was optimistic, the actions not so much. President Obama's tort reform was a sham because it was only a study on tort reform.
That's part of President Obama's pattern. He'll sound bipartisan, accepting a popular GOP proposal in word, then gutting the proposal before it makes it into legislation.
President Obama should be given credit for mastering the art of sounding bipartisan and reasonable while remaining bitterly partisan and unreasonable. People with a conscience can't do that but President Obama does it effortlessly.
In this instance, though, that shouldn't be taken as a compliment.
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:21 PM
Comment 1 by Michael Kirsch, M.D. at 01-Apr-10 02:17 PM
To state that Obama's rhetoric on tort reform was 'optimistic' is quite the euphemism. It was never going to happen. Dems love the status quo which serves their political interests at the expense of the medical profession and the patients who must endure defensive medicine. See www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com under Legal Quality.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-10 02:55 PM
Dr. Kirsch, Thanks for offering us that important information. I won't argue with someone that's dealt with the system as extensively as you have.
I talk frequently about health care on this blog. Stop past whenever you have the time.
Larry Haws's Diatribe For the Ages UPDATED
Last Thursday, Rep. Larry Haws brought a bill before the House to debate that would create a system that would help MnSCU treat the transfer of credits within the MnSCU system with uniformity. The bad news for Rep. Haws is that Rep. Mark Buesgens questioned him on why the bill didn't create a system for transferring credits from the MnSCU system to the U of M system.
Here's a transcript of the exchange between Rep. Haws and Rep. Buesgens:
REP. BUESGENS: Rep. I get what's happening here. I guess I have a concern about it. I'll get to that later. My question, Representative, is why not include the University of Minnesota? That is another public institution. What if a student went to the University of Minnesota and spent a year then and found out it was just too big or the cities are just too big? I'd rather just transfer to St. Cloud. Why do we not afford that student the same kind of consideration that we're looking for within the MnSCU colleges?This is a target-rich environment. Let's start with Rep. Haws's final diatribe. (If you see the video, you'll see Rep. Haws's eruption.) Rep. Haws says that the legislature should be doing exactly these types of reforms. I'm wondering why there shouldn't be uniformity for all of Minnesota's public colleges and universities. Shouldn't U of M students benefit from the same transfer policies as MnSCU's students? After all, they're both supported by Minnesota's taxpayers' dollars.
REP. HAWS: Within the working group, MnSCU is handling MnSCU. It's harder to take it from the MnSCU and the University of Minnesota. This was brought to me by MnSCU students and we settled it within that unit. This does it for there. I think it would be a wonderful idea for the U and I think you should carry that bill.
REP. BUESGENS: We have a bill in front of us that is telling our public college and university system...system, mind you...that they need to talk to each other. Unbelievable. You look at what this bill does. It tells our SYSTEM that you have to create a seamless process if a student is going from one school within the system to another school in the same system. We have to tell them how to create a process so the credits can transfer.
Members, we are talking about a $3,000,000,000 biennial system and we have to tell them, in law, how to talk to each other and how to treat the citizens that they get their tax money from. Their $3,000,000,000. We have to write law to tell them how to talk to each other.
This is a problem with bureaucracy. This is the problem I tried to address earlier when we were talking about the Metropolitan Council and the sewer system. This is the systemic problems that we as a legislature need to deal with if we're going to stop this endless cycle of year after year after year of spending more money than the taxpayers of Minnesota can afford to pay. This is the government reform we need to take care of and yet we dawdle. We've dawdled this legislature. We haven't put first things first. We haven't solved the budget problems of the state of Minnesota.
In fact, we've had a parade of...what are we up to now, 15, 20, 30 different bills in the last 2 days? Thirty different bills rather than deal with THE ISSUE of this session, which is solve the deficit, bring jobs back to the state of Minnesota. Then we have misplaced priorities on top of our reckless spending. $3,000,000,000 system and we have to tell them how to create a process so the credits can transfer. People of the state of Minnesota deserve better from us. They deserve better from their tax dollars. We need to get to the root of the problem. We should shut this place down right now and get to solving the budget deficit, get do to reforming this system. Don't be tinkering around the edges. Let's get to the real work of this legislative session.
REP. HAWS: I guess I would disagree. I mean I like your vigor and your passion and your speech but it doesn't make alot of sense to me. You're pulling 10 people together here. You're pulling organizations together to act in an efficient manner. And you say that that isn't what we're supposed to be doing? Well, I tell you your priorities are a little mixed up. That is EXACTLY what this House should be doing. When they come to you and they say they want to work in a group to make the system more efficient so our students don't have to go extra years to school and you say 'Don't do that because I want to work on something else', I'll say I'll take teamwork anytime.
Rep. Haws said that the state shouldn't create transfer policies because the state shouldn't force students to attend an extra year because of their transfer policies. I agree with Rep. Haws. That isn't right.
It's a half-baked reform that treats MnSCU transfers right but doesn't address people transferring from or to the U of M. I can't imagine that it would take alot of extra work since the language would be almost identical. I'd think that you'd just have to swap out the term MnSCU and plug in the term University of Minnesota.
After that, all it would take is a meeting with U of M officials to tell them that you're trying to bring uniformity to the process.
This certainly isn't the type of policy debate that warrants such a diatribe. Rep. Haws, if you disagree, disagree. That's fine. Going vesuvial like that tells me that you don't take constructive criticism well.
Another thing that's worth noting is that Rep. Haws didn't address Rep. Buesgens' main contention, which is that government bureaucracies don't communicate with each other, which leads to inefficiencies and additional costs.
Having watched Rep. Buesgens the past 3 years, I know that he's primarily interested in reforms that are well thought out and budgets that set the right priorities. Most importantly, he isn't interested in the DFL's games.
It's obvious to anyone beyond middle school age that the DFL is piling up bills and wasting time in the hopes of creating a last minute chaotic end of session. What the DFL hasn't figured out is that they're the majority party and that they'll get crucified for their refusal to put together well thought out reforms that balances Minnesota's budget.
Rep. Haws contributions to the state legislature have pretty much been confined to VA issues, bonding and putting together reforms that aren't particularly well thought out. That's hardly a rousing endorsement for another term.
If you couple those accomplishments with a temperament that's a mercurial, what you have is a longtime public servant who doesn't have a vision for the future, whether it's a vision for education, the economy or the budget.
St. Cloud can't afford alegislator who doesn't think things through. A 'we must do something' attitude isn't the type of mindset that I'd want in a legislator. We need legislators that think things through.
UPDATE: Speed Gibson has a great companion piece that explains why Rep. Larry Haws's legislation isn't reform . Consider this to be TODAY'S MUST READ !!!
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:29 PM
No comments.
