May 11-12, 2010
May 11 06:56 Talk Is Cheap...Why Would I Trust Him? May 11 14:45 Tweeting Tarryl: An Easy Target May 12 05:04 King Banaian: The Right Man, The Right Priorities May 12 06:19 Will Voters Reject Ritchie's Message? May 12 07:10 Jeff Johnson Announces City Council Bid May 12 10:25 Walz's Daschle-itis Exposed May 12 15:01 Who's The Bigger Political Opportunist, Crist or Specter?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Talk Is Cheap...Why Would I Trust Him?
There's a Democratic primary in West Virginia tonight and Speaker Pelosi is front and center in the debate. At least she is for Mike Oliverio :
In one of the more creative expressions of anti-incumbent fever, state Sen. Mike Oliverio is giving 14-term incumbent Rep. Alan B. Mollohan a stiff challenge in the 1st District's Democratic primary, and Mr. Oliverio is not sparing the Democratic speaker from California in his campaign.Notice that Oliverio didn't say he wouldn't vote for Pelosi. He just said that he hoped that he'd have a different choice. I wouldn't put too much weight on Mr. Oliverio's statement because (a) he's a Democrat and (b) there hasn't been proof of a Democrat having a spine in recent years.
Mr. Oliverio, 46, told a local newspaper that he would prefer to vote for a House speaker who has "the best interest" of the state. He later told voters at a local chamber of commerce dinner, "Hopefully, there will be a better candidate than Nancy Pelosi."
People thought Bart Stupak had a spine. After his flip-flop, he announced his retirement. People thought Ben Nelson had a spine. Then Harry Reid, that master negotiator, paid him his thirty pieces of silver, not to mention giving a break to two insurance companies in his state, and that 'affliction' was cured.
Although the district has long been a Democratic stronghold, Barack Obama received only 42 percent of the vote in the 2008 election. "The trend is clear at this point, and we have another six months," said Troy Berman, executive director of the state Republican Party.Mr. Berman thinks that there's lots of time to turn things around. I'm not buying that spin. I'm not buying it because of the voter anger felt this cycle. It's what happens when voters are betrayed. It's also what happens when a politician waits until the last moment to announce whether he'll support a massive tax increase:
[Mike] Oliverio agrees with [Gov. Joe] Manchin that coal will be the deciding issue in this year's election. Oliverio noted that while Mollohan voted against "cap and trade" climate control legislation, he indicated his opposition only in the last hours before the vote.This shouldn't have been a difficult decision. Rep. Mollohan should've taken 3 nanoseconds before announcing that he wouldn't support a bill that would've killed a major industry in his state.
"Instead of a member of Congress waiting to the last hour, what West Virginia needs is a leader a fighter on an issue that is important to the state," Oliverio said. "Think of the jobs, tax revenues and low cost energy it provides."
Here's the good news for Republicans:
The Cook Political Report and other forecasters suggest a Republican could win in November and are calling the race a tossup. Veteran campaign strategist Dick Morris predicted at the same chamber dinner that a Republican would win the seat, which has been held by Democrats since 1969.Mollohan's seat would be a great pickup for the Republicans. With his being a virtual permanent fixture on CREW's Most Corrupt Politicians List, it isn't surprising that he's vulnerable. My only hope is that he survives the primary. Then again, Mr. Oliverio might be just as insufferable as Rep. Mollohan is.
The Republican front-runners are former state Delegate David B. McKinley, former state Sen. Sarah M. Minear and real estate businessman Mac Warner. Mr. McKinley appears to hold a slight lead.
Posted Tuesday, May 11, 2010 7:01 AM
No comments.
Tweeting Tarryl: An Easy Target
When Tarryl's campaign tweeting held open the vote on the Senate DFL's tax increase, she opened herself up to tons of criticism. Despite the fact that Tarryl was campaigning while the vote was being taken , Zach Rodvold, Tarryl's campaign manager was criticizing Michele Bachmann for being consumed with self-promotion:
"Time after time, Michele Bachmann's agenda is about promoting herself instead of doing anything to help her constituents," Zach Rodvold, Clark's campaign manager, said in a statement Monday. "And this time, Congresswoman Bachmann's constituents are footing the bill for 'jobs forums' aimed at glossing over her dismal record on the most important issue in her district. So rather than paying for a series of forums to create or save jobs, her constituents are paying for a series of forums designed to save just one job: Congresswoman Bachmann's."This is laughable. Tweeting Tarryl was campaigning while a vote was held open for her to cast the deciding vote. Meanwhile, the woman accused of grandstanding, Michele Bachmann, was holding a series of job fairs, listening to employers' concerns about the Obama economy. (You'll want to check King's live-blog of the St. Cloud event.)
Mr. Rodvold is in a difficult professional position. His responsibility is to tell anyone who'll listen that Michele Bachmann's job fair wasn't a serious attempt to learn about the local economy. One read of King's post refutes Mr. Rodvold's absurd claims.
If Mr. Rodvold's candidate wasn't so preoccupied with campaigning on the public's time, she might've noticed that these job fairs were serious legislative work, generating lots of pertinent information that will help Rep. Bachmann craft legislation that actually creates jobs.
Tarryl's quick to criticize Michele Bachmann for not getting more done in Washington as a member of the minority party. During Tarryl's time as part of the DFL's leadership team, Minnesota went from a $2,200,000,000 surplus to a $6,400,000,000 deficit. It's important to note that the DFL didn't fulfill its constitutional responsibility by not passing a balanced budget before the end of the 2009 session. We're still waiting for that solution.
Thoughtful people agree that someone who's part of the majority party's leadership should get more things accomplished than someone who isn't part of the leadership and isn't in the majority party.
Tarryl desperately needs to deflect attention away from her unwillingness to say no to special interest groups and her willingness to say yes to raising taxes. Tarryl's been a leader in name only. If Michele makes this campaign a referendum on who's been a better friend to the job creators, Tarryl will lose and lose handily.
Posted Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:45 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 11-May-10 04:39 PM
Gary:
Lets give Tarryl credit for getting things done her.
* She's doing a great job embarrassing herself. Whether a person wanted a yes vote or a no vote on the tax bill they will be mad as hell that their person might be tweeting instead of voting.
* She's voting for a job killing tax increase and blasting Michelle for not doing anything to create jobs the day that Michelle is listening to employers who know what they need to work.
* She's got herself retired from the state Senate and won't be a Congress woman.
* She also proved that she doesn't have a brain by not running in 2008 when she might have been able to win.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 14-May-10 12:32 PM
Gary, try this one -
Can you tell me one job Michele Bachmann has held during her adult working life that has not been on a government payroll?
Out of law school and a tax collector. Etc.
She's been on the public teat a lot, for one criticizing so stridently the taste of it.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 14-May-10 05:09 PM
Eric, Believe it or not, tax attorneys work in the private sector. Their fees are paid by clients. That the gov't is the oppressor isn't Michele's fault.
King Banaian: The Right Man, The Right Priorities
This morning, King Banaian, the GOP endorsed candidate for HD-15B, issued this statement on Rep. Larry Haws's vote for H.F.2037 :
"Last night my opponent voted to increase taxes on small businesses and what he considers wealthy Minnesotans," Banaian said. "The last Economic Update from the Finance Department cited consumer confidence and sentiment being 'mired' at low levels and 'lingering employment concerns, slow wage growth, and tight credit are likely to inhibit household spending until 2011.' Even if you believe Minnesotans don't pay enough, this is a terrible time to raise taxes."Rep. Haws hasn't set the right priorities. He also hasn't forced the House DFL leadership to set better priorities either. King is right in noting that the economic model the DFL is using is nearly identical to the model that California's Democrats have been following the last decade.
"But we do pay enough. The DFL bill that Rep. Haws voted for would give Minnesota the 4th highest marginal tax rate in the country on incomes of $200,000. Higher rates in California have done nothing to cure their budget problems. Why does Larry Haws think this is a good example to emulate?"
"The answer to every DFL problem is to look at small businesses as an ATM from which they can cover their need for more money. They have enough; the real need in Minnesota is to reduce spending, not raise taxes. Rep. Haws had the opportunity to balance the budget by ratifying Governor Pawlenty's spending reductions but voted against that. When I get to St. Paul, we will set priorities that do not ask already-generous Minnesotans for more," Banaian concluded.
King Banaian is an economist who is running to represent north and east St. Cloud and Haven Township in the Minnesota House of Representatives.
What's most stunning is that Rep. Haws voted for such a failed economic model. King rightly points out that the DFL opted for smaller spending cuts and higher taxes rather than "ratifying Governor Pawlenty's spending reductions." It's also worth noting that they've stymied all GOP reforms, even ones that would save 10's of millions of dollars.
By defeating the GOP's cost-saving reforms, the DFL's actions tell the tale that they'd rather raise taxes than find cost savings. That's not being the taxpayers' watchdog. That's being the taxpayers' enemy.
The DFL will rue the day that they played the role of being the obstructionist majority party, serving their ideology rather than serving their constituents. That's a terrible position to be in heading into the campaign season. That's exactly where Rep. Haws finds himself.
I'll be all about telling St. Cloud that Rep. Haws doesn't share their budgeting priorities, that he's shown with his votes that he'd rather do the 'easy' thing of raising taxes rather than doing the dilligent work of finding ways of saving his constituents' money.
I'll work hard to let voters in HD-15B know that King will work hard to save them money and set the right priorities compared with proof that Rep. Haws has taken the path of raising taxes rather than doing the hard work of setting smart priorities rather than reflexively raising taxes.
Posted Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:04 AM
No comments.
Will Voters Reject Ritchie's Message?
Mark Sommerhauser's article on Rep. Dan Severson's candidacy for Minnesota's Secretary of State office quotes Mark Ritchie several times. Here's one of those quotes:
Ritchie emphasizes the recount results held up to months of scrutiny. Local auditors conducted the recount; a three-judge panel oversaw Coleman's election contest, and the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against Coleman's appeal.I wrote about Mark Alvarez's investigation for KSTP into the troubled absentee ballot process in this post . Here's part of that post:
The work of those involved in the recount earned near-universal acclaim, even from members of Severson's party, Ritchie says. "Their work made Minnesotans proud," Ritchie said. "I hear that on the street; north, south, east and west in the state. "I hear it often from people who did not support the candidate who won."
In the last election Ramsey county, Minneapolis and St. Louis county (the county I did my investigation in) had a combined rejection of only 7 absentee ballots. Carver county officials (a county much smaller than any one of the above named counties) had 188 rejected absentee ballots.Let's first stipulate that Mark Ritchie isn't responsible for training election judges. That's the job of the county clerks. What is Mark Ritchie's job is to make sure that county clerks do a good job of training election judges. A secretary of state committed to election integrity would verify that election judges know the criteria codified into law for the handling of absentee ballots:
In South Minneapolis, Margaret Dolan told Alvarez that they didn't reject any absentee ballots because they weren't told what the criteria was for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots .
The election judges shall mark the return envelope "Accepted" and initial or sign the return envelope below the word "Accepted" if the election judges or a majority of them are satisfied that:KSTP's Alvarez questioned SecState Ritchie about why he found so many absentee ballots that were accepted that should've been rejected. Ritchie's response was to play the victim card. What Alvarez did was show Ritchie the photocopies of the envelopes containing the absentee ballots. Minnesota state election statutes require that the envelopes be signed by the legally registered voter who is voting via absentee ballot and the signature of the legally registered voter who witnessed the filling out of the absentee ballot.
(1) the voter's name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application;
(2) the voter's signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot, except that if a person other than the voter applied for the absentee ballot under applicable Minnesota Rules, the signature is not required to match;
(3) the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a properly completed voter registration application in the return envelope; and
(4) the voter has not already voted at that election, either in person or by absentee ballot.
There is no other reason for rejecting an absentee ballot. In particular, failure to place the envelope within the security envelope before placing it in the outer white envelope is not a reason to reject an absentee ballot.
What KSTP's Alvarez did was show Ritchie envelopes without the voters'signatures. Some were visibly marked as accepted. Others were properly rejected. Ritchie's response was typical liberal victim :
"You would've had to tell me to bring my glasses if you wanted to spring something on me."Is Mr. Ritchie so blind that he can't see whether the voter's signature is on the envelope? Is Mr. Ritchie so blind that he can't see whether the witness's signature is on the envelope? Does Mr. Ritchie know the law for casting a valid absentee ballot? If he does, does he insist that the law is followed?
It's troublesome to me that Mr. Alvarez was threatened with legal action if he investigated the election results. Doesn't that sound like intimidation from election officials? That can't be tolerated.
There's another thing bothering me about this article. I don't care whether people applauded the process. People might applaud themselves despite their doing a less-than-adequate job. Outsiders might not know the criteria for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots.
The sole criteria I'm using is whether the law was followed in casting absentee ballots. I'm using that criteria because that's the objective criteria that the law requires. It's irrelevant whether election judges don't know the laws or whether they're willfully ignoring absentee ballot laws. What's relevant is whether the laws were followed.
Clearly, that didn't happen here. Clearly, some counties didn't follow the clearly written state law.
The question going forward isn't whether Mr. Ritchie's rationalizations can be justified. It's whether Mr. Ritchie insisted that the laws were followed.
Critics of photo ID say it can disenfranchise elderly and disabled people who may not have photo ID. When legislators modify election law, they typically seek consensus to ensure election results are widely viewed as legitimate, Ritchie said.I'd love asking these faceless critics what they're basing their opinion on. What proof do they have that shows that the elderly and disabled are disenfranchised by photo ID? If they have proof that it's disenfranchising voters, is there a solution to fixing that situation? If there is, why hasn't that change been made?
These critics need to answer why it isn't possible to craft a system that doesn't disenfranchise voters but still guarantees election integrity. I'm skeptical that it can't be done because America was built on the the premise that there isn't any problem we can't solve if we just use our ingenuity.
After all, a nation that can do the things we've done is capable of designing an election system that's straightforward and easy for everyone to follow.
That's why I believe voters will fire Mr. Ritchie this November. We can't afford having another sloppy election.
Originally posted Wednesday, May 12, 2010, revised 23-Jul 7:55 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-May-10 10:47 PM
Let me get this straight.
Joe Mauer is consider to be one of the best hitters in the American League. His success rate is just 35% when he tries to hit.
Bret Farve is a hall of fame quarterback. On a good season he completes 60% maybe even 70% of his passes.
Yet in three large counties which are overwhelming Democrat counties the public was apparently succesful in voting absteen almost 100%.
I say there is something fishy which Mark is ignoring. Of course those votes helped put Franken over the top.
And lets not forget Ritchie's office was encourging the judges to go over the rejected absteen balots to admit them.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Jeff Johnson Announces City Council Bid
Yesterday, my good friend Jeff Johnson announced that he was running for the St. Cloud City Council :
St. Cloud resident Jeff Johnson on Tuesday announced his candidacy for St. Cloud City Council.Jeff Johnson is a perfect fit for the St. Cloud City Council because his first instinct is to question, fairly, whether money is spent on needs or niceties. TRANSLATION: Jeff can be counted on in setting smart spending priorities for the city.
Johnson, 44, is a professor of aviation at St. Cloud State University and owner of a small business. He previously served on the Stearns County Board of Adjustment and unsuccessfully ran against state Sen. Tarryl Clark, a DFLer, in 2006.
Johnson said he will focus on the city's budget issues and regionalization of city services.
Johnson says he will run for the Fourth Ward seat, which is held by council President Bob Johnson. Bob Johnson previously said he will not run for re-election.
Jeff Johnson is married to Julie Johnson, medical director at HealthPartners in St. Cloud. The couple has two daughters.
Knowing Jeff's family like I do, I can attest to the fact that Jeff and Julie are people of impeccable integrity. If I had a vote in Jeff's race, I wouldn't hesitate in trusting Jeff with this important responsibility. (Since I live in St. Cloud's Second Ward, I won't have a vote in Jeff's election.)
Jeff's training as a pilot indicates to me that he's the type of guy whose preparation is meticulous and whose work ethic is very good. From everything I've seen about him, that description fits Jeff to a T.
Posted Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:10 AM
No comments.
Walz's Daschle-itis Exposed
In 2004, South Dakota bloggers took Sen. Daschle to task for talking up his nonexistent conservative credentials when he was in South Dakota while voting like a hardline liberal in DC. Since then, other politicians have been exposed as having that same problem, leading to the creation of the term Daschle-itis.
Here in Minnesota, Rep. Tim Walz seems to be afflicted with Daschle-itis :
In a recent opinion piece published by several local newspapers, Congressman Tim Walz bemoaned the lack of fiscal discipline that he and his colleagues in Congress have displayed. He mentions the high costs of debt service and the dampening effect that deficits have on the economy and on job creation, and rightfully reminds the readers of the responsibility we have to our children and future generations.Last November, I wrote that Rep. Walz voted for the trifecta of the Stimulus, Pelosicare and Cap And Trade:
He makes a strong case for the need for fiscal discipline, and I agree wholeheartedly with his message. We must take swift action to reduce the deficit and restore common-sense budgeting priorities to Washington in order to avoid a fiscal meltdown.
There is a problem, however. The concerns expressed by Congressman Walz when he's at home in the district and on the campaign trail in an election year just don't mesh with the positions and votes he takes in Washington. As a member of the majority and someone who votes the party line 97 percent of the time, he is calling attention to a problem that he himself helped to create.
By voting for Cap and Tax and Pelosicare, Tim Walz has voted for bills that, when fully implemented, will spend north of $3,500,000,000,000, that will increase taxes by $2,400,000,000,000 on small businesses, middle class families, fossil fuel-powered power plants and medical device makers. In other words, liberal Democrat Tim Walz voted to destroy the American economy.Anyone that can say he's a fiscal conservative after voting to spend trillions of dollars and increase taxes by trillions more isn't squaring with his constituents. Based on this information, it's apparent that Rep. Walz has contracted a severe case of Daschle-itis.
If Pelosicare and Cap and Tax are enacted, gas prices will skyrocket, home heating bills will jump dramatically, the quality of health care will drop, health insurance premiums will continue going up at unsustainable rates and medical innovation will slow to a trickle. If that isn't bad enough, taxes will have to be raised to keep paying for the affordability credits.
Put differently, Rep. Walz's credibility is tattered at best. You can't say that voting for spending that's contributed to the several trillion dollars worth of deficits in less than 2 years is being fiscally responsible. That's what Rep. Walz did.
I've been thinking about the right metaphor to emphasize Rep. Walz's hypocrisy. Now I've found it. It's like the kids that killed their parents then begged for the mercy of the court because they were now orphans.
Rep. Walz can't vote to spend trillions of dollars, exponentially increase the deficits, then decry the deficits he's created. That slippery talk might work in DC's echochamber but it won't work here in Minnesota.
Hopefully, Randy Demmer will cure Rep. Walz of his Daschle-itis by defeating him this November. That will happen if MN-1's voters decide they don't want their representative voting to raise home heating bills and gas prices after voting for a government takeover of the health care industry.
Posted Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:25 AM
No comments.
Who's The Bigger Political Opportunist, Crist or Specter?
After this news report , it's impossible for me to picture how anyone will trust Charlie Crist:
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will not refund Senate campaign contributions made before he decided to forego the Republican primary and, instead, mount an independent bid, according to a Crist campaign adviser.Earlier, Crist hinted that he'd refund campaign contributions if asked by the donors. Now he's having difficulty raising money that he's forced to refuse refunding those campaign contributions.
"The governor's position is people donated to a good cause and we intend to spend their money on a good cause," Michelle Todd, an adviser to the Crist campaign, told CNN Wednesday.
Based on Gov. Crist's self-serving actions, I'm beginning to wonder if he isn't a bigger unprincipled political opportunist than Arlen Specter. I don't know how you'd reach a firm decision.
That question might be irrelevant, though, because Specter appears heading for a primary loss to Joe Sestak while Crist's best days in this campaign are behind him.
I'm confident that Gov. Crist's best days are behind him because once a politician has betrayed the people's trust, there's nothing he can do to repair his image.
Gov. Crist's troubles might just be starting:
Last week, a group of prominent Florida Republicans penned a letter to Crist seeking refunds of their personal donations and encouraging the governor to refund the donations of every GOP contributor who wants their money back. Anticipating Crist's announcement of his independent bid, the National Republican Senatorial Committee said it would seek a refund of its $10,000 donation to Crist's campaign and the Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy group, has also said it would lead an effort to help Crist donors seek refunds.C4G doesn't have to file a lawsuit in the matter. Running ads the entire month of October that highlight Gov. Crist's political opportunism and untrustworthiness will sink him. With his dwindling warchest, Crist couldn't possibly defend himself.
Gov. Crist doesn't have much of a choice. Still, it's the last desperate stand of a politician who took political opportunism too far. At a time when voters are looking for principled politicians, Gov. Crist decided to run as an unprincipled political opportunist.
This time next year, Gov. Crist and Sen. Specter will be former politicians. They deserve their similar fates.
Posted Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:03 PM
No comments.
