May 17, 2008

May 17 00:54 Obama the Whiner???
May 17 02:49 Backtracking & Backfilling By the Obama Camp
May 17 04:42 Budget Deal Falling Into Place?
May 17 12:20 Sen. Kennedy Hospitalized
May 17 23:53 Conrad DeFiebre & Minnesota 2020

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr

Prior Years: 2006 2007

---

---

Obama the Whiner???

---

This hasn't been a good week for Barack Obama. His week took a downturn when he got defensive when he heard something that wasn't said. Now he's saying that his impending loss in Kentucky is all Fox News' fault. All this happened after he lost West Virginia's primary by 40 points. His accusations of FNC are bizarre. Here's what he said about them:

"Part of it is because there have been these e-mails that have been sent out very systematically, presumably by various political opponents, although I don't know who," he said. "And there are a lot of voters who get their news from Fox News. Fox has been pumping up rumors about my religious beliefs or my patriotism or what have you since the beginning of the campaign."

If Fox was actually starting rumors about him, shouldn't he be able to cite them and refute the specific rumors? It's like hearing John Murtha tell Charlie Gibson that he knew "there was a coverup somewhere " regarding the Haditha Marines.

The insulting thing about Sen. Obama saying that "there are alot of voters who get their news from Fox News" is that it insinuates that "alot of voters" are easily bamboozled. It's like saying that "they can't help it that they're gullible enough to trust Fox News."

This plays into Sen. Obama's elitist image, too. Sen. Obama obviously doesn't trust people. If he did, he'd believe that they can filter out the things that aren't accurate. Here's the opening paragraphs to the McClatchy article:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, facing a likely defeat in next Tuesday's primary election, won't travel to Kentucky before the voting, but said he hopes to have much more time to win over Kentucky voters before the November general election.

He also blamed Fox News for disseminating "rumors" about him and said that that and e-mails filled with misinformation that have been "systematically" dispersed have hurt him in Kentucky.

I can't blame him for not telling the truth in this. he can't outright say that he can't connect with rural voters right now. If he did, this election would be over.

Still, it's a bit aggravating to hear him blame others for his inability to win over voters. His whining won't play well, either. I'd doubt that voters want a whiner as their president. He's running to be the next leader of the free world.

Ronald Reagan faced a hostile press during his campaign and his administration. He didn't break stride, just taking his message straight to the people. By comparison, Sen. Obama starts whining about the press, specifically Fox News, for not giving him a cakewalk.

Shouldn't we ignore Sen. Obama if he isn't willing to cite specifics what rumors Fox is allegedly spreading? After all, allegations aren't proof.

---

Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:57 AM

No comments.

---

---

Backtracking & Backfilling By the Obama Camp

---

Thursday, Susan Rice, the Obama campaign's senior foreign policy advisor, appeared on America's Election HQ on Fox News, ostensibly to clean up Obama's mess and to spin President Bush's remarks. Today, the Obama campaign sent out John Brennan to do more backfilling and spinning. to say that these Obama mouthpieces' story is evolving is a gentle way of putting it. In this post , I pointed out what's on Obama's campaign website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Based on the Obama website, the official Obama position on Iran was President Obama meeting with President Ahmadinejad. He was scolded by Hillary and Sen. Edwards when he initially mouthed that policy in the YouTube debate.

Today's position, as mouthed by John Brennan, is that an Obama administration would reach out to the Iranian moderates, not Ahmadinejad:

Brennan: Also, I think the concern that Sen. Obama has is that his position is being misrepresented & mischaracterized by the President & Sen. McCain.

MK: Tell us how precisely.

Brennan: Well, he's not in any way advocating appeasement. He has said repeatedly that we need to maintain a very strong foreign policy posture as far as protecting national security interests. But at the same time, he is not going to eliminate the possibility of sitting down with our enemies to make sure we have an understanding of what their issues and their concerns are.

President Reagan sat down with Mikhail Gorbachev in November of 1985, a full two years before the Soviets began to withdraw from Afghanistan.

MK: So let me ask you John, because people sit there & they say that Ahmadinejad is no Gorbachev.

Brennan: Well, that's right. And Ahmadinejad doesn't represent the Iranian people. Ahmadinejad, in fact, represents someone who discredits what the Iranian people have to offer & want to do in the world. We shouldn't hold our future relationship with the Iranian people hostage to the bombastic rhetoric of a man like Ahmadinejad. His power, in fact, is limited as president of Iran by the Iranian Parliament and other organs of the Iranian government have much more power than Ahmadinejad and we shouldn't be going tit-for-tat with him.

MK: OK John, but then why won't Obama come out & say that "I won't talk with Ahmadinejad. He's a nutcase & the whole country knows it & I'll talk with someone other than Ahmadinejad & send a message to the Iranians that we care about them, that we want to deal with them? Because Susan Rice was on this program yesterday and would not commit Obama to that position.

Brennan: Well, I'll leave it to Sen. Obama what his position is on this but what I think we want to do is make sure that we send a signal to the Iranian people that the United States is not interested in confrontation with Iran. We want to see what ways we can move forward with Iran so that legitimate Iranian interests as well as United States interests can be advanced. It's not a question of a zero-sum game here.What I think the senator wants to do is make sure that the Iranian moderates get the message that the United States is interested in pursuing peaceful relations with Iran.

Sen Obama's initial position wasn't about "reaching out to Iranian moderates" and telling them that we really didn't want to go to war with them.

Either position, though, is pacifism personified. Anotehr term for pacifism is appeasement.

Let's further debunk the comparison between Obama's meeting with Ahmadinejad and Reagan meeting with Gorbachev. People criticized Reagan for not having a summit with the USSR during his first term. Reagan didn't pay attention to those pundits because he believed in his plan. That plan was to let the USSR know that we were serious about countering any move the Soviets were thinking of. That meant installing Pershing II missile across Europe.

by the time Reagan and Gorbachev met, Reagan's policy had scared Gorbachev into making unprecented concessions. Ultimately, those concessions led to the Soviet Union's demise.

That doesn't sound the least bit like what an Obama-Ahmadinejad meeting would sound like.

Watch Dr. Rice's video here:



Then compare Dr. Rice's statements with Brennan's statements in this video:





After you do that, compare that with what Obama has posted on his campaign website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

I'd say that Team Obama is in full spin mode because they botched the policy that badly.

---

Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:35 PM

No comments.

---

---

Budget Deal Falling Into Place?

---

Based on a variety of sources, including this article in the Strib , a budget deal appears imminent. Here's what the Strib's Mark Brunswick is reporting:

Legislative leaders expressed renewed optimism Friday about reaching a deal to erase the state's $936 million budget deficit, predicting an end to the legislative session as early as today.

"We are as close as we have been throughout the negotiation," House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said Friday. "It is feeling like we are on the path to an end of session that would probably conclude most likely tomorrow."

Talks continued into Saturday morning, and outstanding pieces under discussion appeared to include property tax relief and health care reform.

Earlier tonight, I got this email update from Steve Gottwalt:

Dear Neighbor:

It looks like a budget balancing deal is nearly complete! I understand the agreement represents real compromise from all sides, and balances the state's budget without raising taxes. If all goes well, we should be done with the 2008 Legislative Session by tomorrow (Saturday) afternoon, but there are no guarantees, and nothing is certain at this moment. If the agreement holds up, we will have solved a $1 billion state budget deficit without tax increases, prioritizing additional funding for our schools and nursing homes while living within our means. That's a great result for Minnesota! Frankly, if Republicans had not stood strong with our Governor, we would not have obtained bi-partisanship to accomplish this result. You can't negotiate equitably from a position of weakness. At a time when Minnesotans are facing tough economic times, we simply cannot afford to keep expanding government programs and spending.

I like the fact that Republican solidarity with Gov. Pawlenty forced the DFL to bargain in good faith. Throughout the 2007 and 2008 sessions, the DFL took a 'my ay or the highway' approach. Last year, our 'Goalie' stopped all the tax increases. Together with the House GOP caucus, they prevented the DFL from overriding Gov. Pawlenty's veto.

As you know, that string of DFL defeats came to an aburpt halt with this year's transportation bill. Nonetheless, the GOP caucus regrouped and held together. As a result, we're on the verge of solving the budget crisis without raising taxes while capping property tax increases. That's a pretty nice outcome considering the numbers the GOP was facing.

Stop back later this morning for more updates.

---

Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:57 PM

No comments.

---

---

Sen. Kennedy Hospitalized

---

Sen. Ted Kennedy has been hospitalized after experiencing stroke-like conditions. Here's what CBS is reporting:

A spokeswoman for Edward M. Kennedy said the Massachusetts senator is in the hospital for evaluation after becoming ill at his Hyannis home. There was no immediate word on his condition, although a knowledgeable official said the 76-year-old senator was hospitalized Saturday after suffering stroke-like symptoms. The official declined to be identified by name, citing the sensitivity of the events.

Kennedy spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter confirmed in a statement that Kennedy went to Cape Cod Hospital on Saturday morning "after feeling ill at his home." She says that after discussion with his doctors in Boston, Kennedy was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital for further examination. She says he is under evaluation that information will be released as it becomes available.

Now isn't the time for politics. It's a time to keep Sen. Kennedy in our prayers. I urge all my readers to keep him in our prayers.

UPDATE: According to this AP article , Sen. Kennedy didn't suffer a stroke. Here's what they're reporting:

BOSTON (AP) - Edward Kennedy's primary care physician says the senator is "not in any immediate danger" after suffering a seizure at his Cape Cod home Saturday. Dr. Larry Ronan says preliminary tests showed the 76-year-old Massachusetts Democrat has not suffered a stroke. Ronan says Kennedy was resting comfortably and would undergo further evaluation to determine the cause of the seizure.

Kennedy was flown to Massachusetts General Hospital on Saturday morning after being taken by ambulance from his home to Cape Cod Hospital. His wife, children and niece Caroline Kennedy are with him at the hospital.

The second longest serving member of the Senate had surgery in October to repair a nearly complete blockage in a major neck artery, a procedure done to prevent stroke.

Let's continue to keep Sen. Kennedy in our prayers.

---

Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:33 PM

No comments.

---

---

Conrad DeFiebre & Minnesota 2020

---

When Conrad DeFiebre's 34 year run at the Star Tribune came to an end, he wasn't out of work very long. Now he's a fellow at Matt Entenza's progressive think tank , which is known as Minnesota 2020. Now instead of writing for the Star Tribune, he's writing op-eds like this one for Minnesota 2020. In that op-ed on the Daily Planet, deFiebre conflates the Iraq war with the seatbelt law making its way through the Minnesota legislature. Here's how he does that:

In a sad reflection of the U.S. misadventure in Iraq, Minnesota leaders for decades have sacrificed enormous amounts of blood and treasure in the name of some ineffable idea of "freedom."

Opinion: Minnesota in the transportation safety slow lane

Here the long-running and senseless waste of hundreds of lives and millions of dollars has occurred on our highways. The enemy isn't Al Qaida or Iraqi insurgents; it's our own policymakers who have stood in the way of proven, reasonable laws, supported by big majorities of the public, regarding seat belts, vehicle child restraints and teenage drivers.

Voices: Minnesota in the transportation safety slow lane

As with transportation finance earlier this year, Minnesota legislators appeared to have achieved a big breakthrough on road safety last week: putting teeth in the state's mandatory seatbelt law, requiring that 4-to-8-year-olds ride in size-appropriate booster seats, and placing smart restrictions on teen drivers during their first year behind the wheel.

All these steps would save lives and money, and even bring in millions from the federal government. But first, in order to gain acquiescence from Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the expanded child-restraint initiative had to be thrown under the bus. Then, the House voted against allowing police to stop unbelted drivers and issue a $25 ticket without observing another violation, a senseless "secondary enforcement" provision that has been on the books since 1986.

Question to Mr. deFiebre: What's the precise tie-in between the federal government funding the Iraq War and the proposed Minnesota seat belt law? Aren't those issues distinct and totally unrelated?

There's actually several lessons to be learned from that portion of deFiebre's op-ed. The first lesson I take from it is that the logic used at Minn2020 isn't liberally applied. In fact, I'd say it's almost devoid of coherent logic. If we were playing a word association game and the subject was logic at Minn2020, the first response I'd have would be S-C-A-T-T-E-R-S-H-O-T .

DeFiebre would've been wise to just talk about transportation policy instead of conflating the Iraq War with the transportation issue. It would've been easier to focus on the issue that way. (That's a lesson I'm betting first year journalism students learn, but I digress.)

The second lesson we should take from this is that one of the Strib's longtime reporters/editors is a perfectly fit at a progressive think tank. While this isn't shocking to anyone who's read the Strib through conservative eyes, it's still worth exposing to the public at-large. I don't think that nonpolitical people pay much attention to that sort of thing.

It's time that we started exposing the agendas of these progressive organizations, whether they're think tanks or whether they're other low-profile types of organizations. We can't discredit these organizations fast enough because they can swing public opinion. If we're going to win this fight, then part of the battle is disarming the left's weapons.

---

Posted Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:53 PM

No comments.