May 23-27, 2010
May 23 00:55 Voter Fraud In Our Midst? May 23 07:18 Stop The Hyperventilating May 24 02:24 Testable Theory For 2010 May 26 05:37 Health Care Facts The DFL Omitted May 26 06:55 Hensarling Interview May 26 12:28 Bishop Interview May 26 17:01 Alliance for a Better America Opposes School Choice May 27 06:21 Obama Tanking May 27 12:54 Alliance For Better Minnesota Not Concerned With Telling Truth
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Voter Fraud In Our Midst?
The only chance Mark Ritchie has of getting re-elected is if his corrupt allies convince Minnesota voters that the recount didn't expose corrupt processes and training errors. This LTE attempts to sugarcoat the truth:
Minnesota law requires a recount when the margin of votes is less than one-half of 1 percent. Before the recount, the votes separating the two candidates was 206 votes. During the recount, nearly 3 million ballots were reviewed and counted. The recount was meticulous at all stages and finalized following a trial heard by a three-judge panel. The appointed judges had affiliation with Democrats, Republicans and independents.The recount wasn't meticulous. Dozens of absentee ballots that didn't have signatures on them were accepted . Minnesota election laws require the person that applied for the absentee ballot put his/herr signature on the envelope. Likewise, the person witnessing the filling out of the absentee ballot must also put their signature on the envelope that the absentee ballot is put in.
That's before talking about Minnesota Majority's investigation . This information is disturbing:
VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has flagged the addresses recorded for nearly 100,000 voters as being either "vacant" or "undeliverable". We visited approximately two-dozen of these undeliverable addresses to verify the USPS results and discovered approximately 50% of the addresses in our sample to be correctly flagged, in that the addresses did not exist. We have taken photographs of empty lots and non-existent addresses where our investigation revealed invalid addresses.Having 54,000 PVCs returned to the SecState's office is stunning anbd disturbing. If a person's address can't be verified, then the integrity of the system is questionable. I wouldn't trust voter registrations that can't be physically verified.
RETURNED POSTAL VERIFICATION CARDS: In addition, the state's primary registration verification tool is the Postal Verification Card (PVC). These post cards are mailed to newly registered voters. If the PVC is successfully delivered to the stated address, the voter is assumed to be legitimate. If the card is returned as undeliverable mail, the voter's identity is in question and they are supposed to be challenged for proof of identity and residence at the polls in the next election. Over 80,000 of these postal verification cards have been returned to the secretary of state's office as non-deliverable since 2004. Over 54,000 of them were from 2008 and when that number was generated, mailing of PVCs to 2008's Election Day registrants was not yet complete.
The question that people must ask themselves before voting this November is this: Does this sound like an airtight system?
Another thing that people should ask themselves is whether they'd trust a SecState who thinks that a reporter who shows him improperly accepted ballots is ambushing him.
Theoretically speaking, Mark Ritchie is a public servant. In reality, he's anything but a public servant. Ritchie shows every indication that he wants everyone to vote, whether they're felons, whether they're registered in that precinct or whether they don't fill out their absentee ballot paperwork properly.
With Mr. Ritchie, it's the intent that matters, not whether they followed the law. Think about this: When an absentee ballot is submitted and there isn't a signature on the envelope, what's the guarantee that the person casting the ballot is the person who the vote belongs to?
Vouching is another thing Mr. Ritchie advocates. That needs to be abolished because it's too easy to commit fraud. Ritchie advocates for vouching because he thinks we should tear down walls to voting at all costs. I reject that policy because election laws must strike a balance between making voting easy for legal residents of that precinct but that protect elections' integrity.
Mr. Ritchie will point out that a citizen can lodge a dispute against a person who's been vouched for. That's true but it relies too much on a person being there to challenge the residence of a vouched-for voter.
Severson's reform agenda deals with vouching:
The fix to the vouching issue is to go to a provisional ballot which is cast but not counted until proper verification is received. The voter has 10 days in which to produce the required information and once the information is received the vote is counted, if a recount is required.By casting a provisional ballot, then providing identification within 10 days after the election, we can be certain that the voter is a legal voter. Without Rep. Severson's reforms, there's no guarantee that the people voting are legal voters.
With all due respect, I'm not that trusting because my vote is too important in a close election. Mr. Ritchie has made clear that he's perfectly willing to ignore sensible safeguards in the name of getting as many people voting as possible. That's the type of thinking that strips elections of their integrity.
The argument that's been made against these provisions is that voter fraud is statistically insignificant. That's what David Schultz talked about in testifying against PhotoID. The point isn't whether there's a statistically insignificant amount of voter fraud. It's whether there's a enough fraud to tip tight elections.
Remember that voter fraud doesn't happen in districts where the winner gets 70 percent of the votes. It happens where there's tight races. Here's an example of what I'm saying: In 2008, Gail Kulick-Jackson and Lisa Fobbe beat Sondra Erickson and Alison Krueger by 159 total votes. I'm not accusing Jackson or Fobbe of cheating but that's a place where vouching might've made a difference.
I'm not buying into the 'we haven't seen fraud so we aren't changing anything' argument either. Shouldn't we tighten things up that have great potential for fraud? What's wrong with being proactive, especially when it comes to something that important?
Posted Sunday, May 23, 2010 12:55 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-May-10 05:51 AM
Mr. Ritchie seems to be pulling that classic fuzz-the-issue routine, making you wonder if the misbehavior you have proof positive of is the result of criminality or outright incompetence. The real question is whether either explanation qualifies him for the office he holds, to which the answer seems obvious. His official duties include keeping the voter lists correct, and he has failed miserably. End of story.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-May-10 06:27 AM
When he told the KSTP reporter that showing him the absentee ballot envelopes that were improperly accepted constituted an ambush, I took that as proof positive that he didn't like being exposed.
Whether it exposed him as corrupt or incompetent is almost irrelevant.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 23-May-10 06:28 AM
Gary:
I and other people have harped on voter fraud and the usual response has been that it's nonexistent or even if it doesn't exist it couldn't determine the election.
I think given the size of Franken's victory and everything that went on in 2008 no rational person can claim that voter fraud exists or that it's a problem that has to be dealt with.
I guess Ritchie has proved that he is a rational person. I guess that means he can't hold office.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z at 24-May-10 06:11 AM
You guys always want to stack the deck as in Florida, 2000; Ohio, 2004; and are feeling sore because Kiffmeyer was such a turkey in office that the Dems now have the SoS office. The Franken recount proved the system works. Get over it.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 24-May-10 07:54 AM
With thousands of absentee ballots improperly accepted because they didn't have signatures on them, how can you say that the system worked? Minnesota's election laws explain the things that must be present for absentee ballots to be accepted. That fell far short of Minnesota's expectations.
That's before talking about the fact that felons voted in the last election. That's before talking about the fact that thousands of voter registration notifications weren't delivered because the addresses didn't exist.
Speaking just for myself, this doesn't have anything to do with Mary Kiffmeyer. This only has to do with Minnesota election laws not being properly followed, which necessarily means that some Minnesota voters were cheated by people voted illegally.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 24-May-10 12:19 PM
Eric:
Check your history. In Florida the Democrats first went and kicked out a bunch of legal votes that wouldn't have been challenged just because they thought they were Bush votes. They then proded Democrat counties to recount votes and even though people failed to do what was a legal vote create votes for Al Gore.
In Ohio you had all the ballots looked at. Bush still won the state by about 80,000.
In 2008 Franken and his group played the same game that Gore tried to play in Florida. The only difference in Minnesota ballots which should've been rejected got counted, in districts where democrats out numbered Republicans their ballots were given less scrunity than in counties where Republicans out number democrats. In some cases beause the judges didn't know the rules they accepted every ballot.
Oh then throw in 50,000 voters who don't exist anymore. Um lets say it's just 5,000 phony votes. Those 5000 phony votes were created for Franken and not Coleman.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by LadyLogician at 24-May-10 12:54 PM
AND let's not forget the 10's of thousands of military votes that somehow never ever got counted....
Funny the lengths the DFL supporters will go to defend this kind of voter disenfranchisement.....
LL
Comment 7 by Sam Ellis at 30-May-10 05:58 PM
Sadly all the "truths" you speak are only fabrications. You can (and do) stir up people with the rhetoric however you cannot prove any of this was intentional or even really happened in the way you spin it.
The review was heavily televised, the panel was more both republican and democrats, the courts heard and thru out most of Coleman's complaints (not Ritchie) and yet you cannot concede.
The rise of the right will be the end of this great country. You do not represent freedom and justice. You represent just the opposite
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 30-May-10 06:09 PM
The truths that I listed are physically verifiable. When the list of evidence is as extensive as this evidence is & when it fits with the Democrats' policy beliefs of letting felons vote, that's called circumstantial evidence. More than a few people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.
Stop The Hyperventilating
Conservative/Republican pundits are suddenly hyperventilating because Mark Critz won a special election in PA-12, a district where D's outnumber R's by a 2:1 margin, on a night when Critz benefited from a tightly contested U.S. Senate primary. I have a word of advice for those hyperventilating pundits:
STOP!!!
Doug Schoen states in this post that Critz ran as opposing Cap and Trade, Obamacare and against President Obama himself. The voters in PA-12 bought it. Perhaps they will again. Perhaps they won't.
One thing's for certain, though: The disparity in turnout because of the Specter-Sestak primary will vanish during the general election, especially with Pat Toomey leading Sestak and Republican Attorney Gen. Corbett leading in the contest to be Pennsylvania's next governor.
If I were advising the Burns campaign, the first thing I'd tell him is that he should question whether Critz will represent his constituents or whether he'll do what he's told when he's told by Speaker Pelosi.
If the health care debate exposed anything, it's that Blue Dog Democrats are Democrats first. They're only Blue Dogs when they have Speaker Pelosi's permission.
Here in Minnesota, there's much reason to be optimistic about November's election, starting at the top. Tom Emmer has a significant advantage just by not being Speaker Kelliher or Sen. Dayton. According to this Strib article , Sen. Dayton is highlighting the fact that he'll tax small businesses into neighboring states:
Mark DaytonRaising taxes on small businesses by $4,000,000,000 per biennium only guarantees one thing: U-Haul will have one banner year after the other during a Dayton administration.
Dayton, a DFLer, has a simple answer to lop off two-thirds of the problem: taxes.
"Make taxes progressive. Make the richest people in Minnesota pay their fair share," Dayton said.
He said hiking taxes on Minnesota's highest earners could raise $4 billion for the state in two years, much more than recent tax increase proposals. One failed proposal this year would have hiked the income tax rate for married couples with taxable income of more than $250,000 a year, raising about $500 million in the next biennium.
I'd also question whether you can raise taxes by $4,000,000,000 if you only raise taxes on the rich. The Strib article said raising taxes on the rich would've netted "about $500,000,000." Reality is that creating a new income tax bracket with a rate that's almost 2 points higher than the current highest bracket would've netted $435,00,000. That means Dayton's projections aren't realistic. They aren't even close.
In fact, I'd bet that you'd have to dip well into the middle class to raise taxes by $4,000,000,000.
Speaker Kelliher didn't help herself by picking John Gonyou as her running mate, meaning the DFL will have their work cut out for them and then some if they want to win the governor's race.
Based on what I saw at the DFL and GOP flyaround press conferences , it's apparent that the DFL is in disarray, though I'm sure they won't stay that way forever. Nonetheless, it's apparent that independents have fled the DFL locally and the Democrats nationally because their agenda is simply too radical.
Between now and Election Day, it's our responsibility as activists to remind people that, when President Obama, Speaker Pelosi or Sen. Reid demand that a so-called fiscal moderate vote for new entitlements or other reckless spending bills, the so-called fiscal conservatives vote exactly like Bernie Sanders.
Whether it's Collin Peterson getting some meaningless concessions on Cap and Trade or Ben Nelson accepting his 30 pieces of silver for a temp fix on Medicaid expansion or Bart Stupak trading his vote for a meaningless scrap of paper, the reality is this: Democrats don't have a spine to stand up to their leaders' radical agenda.
The best thing we can do to win people over is to remind them that Democrats are spineless wimps who'll do what they're told by their leadership and their special interest allies when they're told to betray their constituents.
The next best thing we can do in this fight is remind people that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda is the most radical agenda in American history and that it's taking us in the wrong direction. FAST.
It's time we stopped with the whining and we got back to reminding people that why they left the Democrats in the first place. If we do that, we'll have a very strong, possibly even historic, election year.
Posted Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:29 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-May-10 07:09 PM
Gary:
The first thing I will do if I'm the Burns campaign I'll take away one of Critiz's arguments. He claims that he would've voted for the health care bill, but now that it's law he won't vote to repeal it.
Burns should be saying in everything "what that means is that I favor the health care bill and I'm happy that I didn't have to vote for it. Unless you vote to repeal you're on the record as voting yes!"
That should change about 10% of the vote by itself.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 24-May-10 06:09 AM
Yeah, band aid changes would not raise much.
Really soak the bastards. None of this little bit here and there. Do it right.
National level on down. If they move headquarters to Ireland or the Caribbean, tax whatever they do here, where their big markets are.
And if a few sorehead Republicans move to Iowa, I hope the doorknob does not cause serious injury.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-May-10 08:02 AM
Good luck funding your welfare state when profitable businesses leave. The only thing funding government are profitable businesses. You think that money just falls from Heaven? Get serious. I know you're not that stupid. When was the last time you heard of someone that was hired by a poor person? Why haven't you learned that you can't strengthen the weak by weakening the profitmakers?
People have figured it out that progressives hate profitmakers, that they want to punish achievers. That's why you're about to see a sea change elections this year & in 2012.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 24-May-10 08:44 AM
The thing Republicans have to do is to tarnish all Democrats just because they're Democrats, even those that sometimes vote with the Republicans. Democrats in a tiny minority are no threat to the nation. Given sizable majorities, many of them can vote sensibly and still allow nonsense to pass. Speaker Pelosi has to go, and the only way to do that is to not elect every Democrat you can find, regardless of what they say.
Comment 4 by eric z at 26-May-10 07:30 AM
So, how would Emmer change things if governor? He has shown himself over time to be part of the process of diddling up to the deadline and then passing a big sack of good stuff and pork, with the Republicans doing their best for getting THEIR pork. You did not hear them bleating in Washington when Dennis Hastert, king of pork, was the Speaker. There's a bit of mendacity, and Oberstar has called them on this election year ploy by saying okay, if you do not want pork, that reaches to your long term pet projects - and the bleating was as loud as it was predictable, from the GOP.
Comment 5 by eric z at 26-May-10 07:35 AM
It seems Sutton and Brodkorb have done more for your party in terms of popularity, and Emmer is leading them to a smaller insular core not numerically large enough, or ideologically diverse enough, to win.
Testable Theory For 2010
In my opinion, this election will be more about ideology than events. What I mean by that is that it's more likely that people will reject the Obama administration's attempts to grow government.
Arthur Brooks' op-ed in this morning's Washington Post lays it out nicely:
This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise: limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.I'd argue that there's a great indicator as to which side will prevail. I'd argue that that indicator is the enthusiasm gap, which dramatically favors Republicans.
It is not at all clear which side will prevail. The forces of big government are entrenched and enjoy the full arsenal of the administration's money and influence. Our leaders in Washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of recent years and the panic it induced, have seized the moment to introduce breathtaking expansions of state power in huge swaths of the economy, from the health-care takeover to the financial regulatory bill that the Senate approved Thursday. If these forces continue to prevail, America will cease to be a free enterprise nation.
The reality is that Americans are mostly a freedom-loving, capitalist bunch. More than any other nation, Americans treasure their independence. That, not the opportunity of wealth, is what brings people to our nation.
The radicalism of the Obama administration, supported substantially by the Pelosi Regime, is at odds with the American people. They've spent most of the first 16 months of the Obama administration defying the will of the American people.
Nobody thinks that this administration and this Speaker won't pursue their radical agenda just because they've gotten a couple items of their radical agenda passed.
The Obama administration's radicalism has led to an economy that's still struggling and a debt that's crippling future generations with stifling debt levels. Their policies haven't improved lives. At best, their policies have forced people and state governments to tread water until someone who knows what they're doing is in power.
Here in Minnesota, the DFL's lone 'victory' was a budget agreement that gives the next governor the 'opportunity' to opt into the Obamacare Medicaid's expansion. Last Tuesday, Sen. Berglin took great pains to explain that, should the next governor opt into this expansion, Minnesota would get $7.45 in federal matching funds for every dollar Minnesota spends.
What Sen. Berglin was careful to omit was that those matching funds were only guaranteed through 2014. Sen. Berglin also omitted to mention that Minnesota would have to sign maintenance of service agreements with the federal government that would guarantee that maintain the federally mandated level of service after the matching funds disappeared.
When Speaker Pelosi said that we'd have to pass the health care bill to see everything that's in the bill, what she really meant was that we wouldn't know all the different ways that we'd get blindsided until it was too late. For instance, they won't like reading that the Obamacare legislation includes a 3.8 percent sales tax on home sales :
Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day, the day they sell their house and buy a new one.Rest assured of this: though there's a calm in politics right now, that's just living in the eye of a storm. When the August recess rolls around and the campaign starts dominating the news, focus will shift to the penalties, tax increases and costly individual mandates included in the Obamacare legislation.
Likewise, talk will shift to the unprecedented and unsustainable deficits that are the direct fault of the Obama administration's policies and priorities. When that happens, I'll be thankful the candidates I'm supporting won't have to run with a D after their name.
Posted Monday, May 24, 2010 2:29 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-May-10 07:21 AM
That stuff from Brooks, Gary, to you it's impressive????
It is bloviating name calling, and there is comparable garbage from the other party's hacks, but seizing on party hack rhetoric, from either side, only serves to lower and not raise the debate.
Comment 2 by eric z at 26-May-10 08:51 AM
Second thought, Gary, is the "two cultures" tirade as phrased by ultra-rightists marching to success or to yet another drubbing?
November is the proof, and intermediate polling and rhetoric only gasoline onto an uncertain fire.
The RINO charges and purges could work. I allow that, since we are not to November yet, and neither side has had any key inspirational victory or gotcha victory either, so far.
As to the question, not from an uber-rightist, this is a good link:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/move-right-and-win-well-soon-see.html
Kilgore has a May 25 update, the question revisited, that describes and links to some poly-sci prof's voodoo study, reading chicken entrails it looks like to me, but the original post is more sound.
And the poly-sci profs on either side, they are barkers and shills - initials KB come to mind but the label preferred there is economist - same thing, however: read tealeaves or chicken entrails or crystal balls or Tarot cards - but the future plays out on its own terms. Voodoo is interesting because we'd all like an edge on time running its course in its own ways, but ---
I look forward to your mid-November analysis even more than current content, Gary, since it will be based on something akin to fact and outcome.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-May-10 11:34 AM
Eric, We KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that the GOP isn't heading for another drubbing. PERIOD. Such talk is foolishness. At worst, Republicans will win a net 6 seats in the Senate & 35 seats in the House.
We KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT that America is a capitalist nation. There isn't a capitalist serving in the White House. There's few Democrat capitalists serving in Congress. Most of the Democrats' gains the past 2 cycles have come from wing districts where Democrats ran as centrists.
After the health care debate, America knows that Pelosi can get however many votes she needs from the Blue Dogs. She proved it time & again.
Health Care Facts The DFL Omitted
When Sen. Pogemiller and Sen. Berglin visited St. Cloud last week during the DFL post-session flyaround, she talked repeatedly about how Minnesota would get $7.45 back for every Minnesota dollar spent on Medicaid expansion. Meanwhile, the Rochester Post Bulletin criticized Republicans for not accepting that money :
Clinic lobbyist Frank Iossi said Mayo Clinic and Mayo Health System stand to lose $20 million to $25 million a year because lawmakers chose not to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program available at the federal level. On top of that, he said hospitals had agreed to a 2-percent rate cut and to delay rebasing, which reassesses Medicaid rates, in order to get the Medicaid expansion. But while those additional cuts went through, the Medicaid expansion got bogged down in political wrangling.What the Mayo Clinic isn't mentioning is that there are some expensive strings attached to that money. Since the article ran, I've done some digging into what's attached to the fed's money. Here's just a few things attached:
"Hospitals paid for the state's share of early enrollment in Medicaid but didn't get it," Iossi said.
In total, Iossi said the 2-percent cut will cost hospitals statewide $44 million, and roughly a $6.6 million cut for Mayo Clinic and Mayo Health System. The rebasing delay also amounts to an estimated $100 million loss for hospitals statewide.
First off, ObamaCare doesn't guarantee that the federal money will be there after 2014. That means the states might be left with the entire cost of MA or having to kick people off health care coverage.
Even with the federal government paying a larger share, there is still an increased cost to the state for moving more people onto MA (in Minnesota, we'd have to come up with another $1 billion next biennium as we push 100,000 people into the program). If you're like Minnesota, your state doesn't have the extra cash laying around!
The early MA provision imposes NO residency requirement: if you're income eligible, all you need to do is indicate you "intend" to live in the state. So, if your state gets into this before neighboring states, you can imagine the flood of welfare recipients who will come looking for ObamaCare in your state at your taxpayers' expense.
It's time the MNGOP started telling people that we can't afford the 'free money' from Obamacare. There's no such thing as free money. It always comes with strings attached. Except with this administration, there aren't strings attached, there's cables attached.
When Sen. Berglin made it sound too good to be true, red flags went off. It turns out I was right. It was too good to be true. Now I know what parts were too good to be believed.
Posted Wednesday, May 26, 2010 5:37 AM
Comment 1 by Paul Thissen at 26-May-10 08:13 AM
Here are the facts.
1. We already pay for 82,000 single adults that would be covered under the new Medicaid option at a cost of $1.2 billion. those are unmatched, state only dollars. No one in either party has proposed that we elimate coverage for those individuals. So we will be paying $1.2 billion whether we take the option it not.
Under the Medicaid option, an additional 10,000 to 20,000 individuals would get coverage because there is no 4 month waiting period under Medicaid as there is under MNCare among other things. Those additional people will cost up to $188 million.
So with the Medicaid option, the $1.2 billion we are already spending gets matched by the Feds. Because it becomes a Medicaid program instead of MNCare which (as I said) has a waiting period, 10,000-20,000 more folks are projected to become eligible so the stare share increases somewhat. Hence the additional $188 million. But with that $188 million comes $1.4 billion in federal dollars which primarily go to higher reimbursement rates for hospitals, clinics and drs which in turnmeand those folks won't be passing on the cost of their losses for treating uninsured and undercompensating patients on to those of us fortunate to have insurance.
As to the residency requirement, it is essentially the same as most current programs exc a bit shorter than Mn Care. As a result, the Gov Pawlenty's Dept of Human Services expects zero additional enrollment as a result.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about many aspectsof the federal health care reform. But this is not one if them. It involves none of the mandates, etc that has been tagged with the name Obamacare. This is simply using a 40 year old federal program for a new population of childless adults who make under $700 per month. Wisconsin and other states already do this (indeed the MN House Republicans promoted this idea last year because it made such financial sense).
In short, unless someone proposes that we eliminate coverage for the 82,000 Minnesotans we're already paying for, the simple fact is that we draw down an additional $1.4 billion for our hospitals for an additional investment of $188 million.
Thank you for your willingness to engage in these political and policy discussions
State Rep Paul Thissen
Hensarling Interview
Already this morning, I had the privilege of interviewing Rep. Jeb Hensarling, (R-TX), about the GOP's addition of a new tool to their online toolbox. I'm referring to America Speaking Out .
My first question for Rep. Hensarling was whether he thought that America Speaking Out was an online version of the TEA Party movement. Rep. Hensarling said that he "hadn't thought of it that way" but that "it certainly could be thought of that way."
Rep. Hensarling said that the health care debate showed people that Democrats weren't listening to them. He later said that that's what got people who were nominally involved in politics to get actively involved in politics for the first time in their lives. According to Rep. Hensarling, these people clearly want to return the country to its first principles of personal liberty and limited government.
I then mentioned that I'm one of Michele Bachmann's constituents. Rep. Hensarling's response was quick and filled with enthusiasm. "I am a big fan of Michele Bachmann's. You are so lucky to have her as your representative. She's done so much to energize the Republican Party."
My reply was that "the guy living in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. hadn't done too bad a job of that, too." Rep. Hensarling's response was that he agreed, adding that "Who would've thought that Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan would be the two presidents that energized the Republican Party the most?"
I strongly encourage this blog's readers to visit America Speaking Out . Once you're there, you can create your own login ID. My limited experience with the website is that it's extremely user friendly.
Finally, I asked Rep. Hensarling about the YouTube video with Kevin McCarthy's face on it meant that this website was about a new Contract with America. He said that it isn't, that it's about stemming the 111th Congress's strong leftward turn.
I'd like to thank Rep. Hensarling for taking the time for the interview. It's part of the GOP's effort to promote its new website. I'm actively involved in that effort, with another interview coming later today with Rep. Rob Bishop, (R-UT), and with a blogger conference call with House Chief Deputy Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy, Chairman for the America Speaking Out project, Congressman Peter Roskam, Co-Chairman of the project, and Republican Conference Vice Chair Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
Posted Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:00 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-May-10 07:14 AM
I suppose "Jeb" is short for Jebediah, like the guy who was in Iron Man, he was called Jebediah and made an even bigger Iron Man suit to be better and more bad.
This Jeb, praising Bachmann, is an Iron Man with feed of clay.
Gary, can you name one paycheck Bachmann's gotten in her adult life that's not been from a government, i.e., she has no private sector work experience.
Add to that the farm subsidy checks we are all paying for so she can live more comfortably in her McMansion, and the recently published info about her family faith healing business taking subsidy money, and what have you got? Sincerity? Biting the feeding hand is what you've got.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-May-10 08:08 AM
Eric, Shame on you for suggesting that Michele doesn't have any private sector experience. Do you think her clients have been the state & federal governments?
If you're asking if Michele's fought against government overreach, the answer is yes. I don't think that that's the same as not having private sector experience.
Comment 3 by eric z at 26-May-10 08:31 AM
She was housewife, then went to law school and became tax collector lawyer. Then more housewifing, until in the State Senate. Then to DC.
All her paychecks - government.
She has no clinical competence. Marcus runs the faith healing operation, competent as it might be.
ALL her paychecks have been drawn of State and federal accounts.
It is fact. And she bites the hand that has fed her.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 26-May-10 08:53 AM
Eric, Shame on you again. You wonder why Republicans & Democrats don't get along after you say that "Marcus runs the faith healing operation..."
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 26-May-10 08:57 AM
Biting the hand that feeds her? THANK HEAVENS she does. Would that we had 500 more just like her in Washington! I'm starting to care a lot less about allegations of conflict of interest or other "wrong" motivations, so long as Michelle and those like her are doing the right thing.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 27-May-10 08:24 AM
Eric:
Just curious are you saying being a Mom is a worthless job with no meaning. What's worse it's horrible underpaying since all you count for benefits is Hugs, "Thank yous", and "I love yous"
By the way those three things don't come from the government like you falisly claim.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by LadyLogician at 27-May-10 04:31 PM
Nice try at mis-information Eric. Besides the family farm that she has worked on and the family business she did WORK as a tax attorney prior to joining the legislature.
But then again, in typical DFL form - never let the FACTS get in the way of a good slime attack.
And I would dearly LOVE to see you be the stay at home parent of 5 kids of all ages. You wouldn't last a month before just absolutely LOSING it.
LL
Bishop Interview
This morning, I interviewed Rep. Bishop, (R-UT). Rep. Bishop said that America Speaking Out was designed to solicit the public's input on a range of issues, including making known their priorities and specific policy ideas. Rep. Bishop also said that there would be a two-way dialogue between legislators and constituents.
During the interview, Rep. Bishop said that there would be a series of townhall meetings after enough data had been collected. The goal is to give people a voice in their future.
Rep. Bishop said that Republicans will gather information from a number of different sources in determining what the people's priorities are. He then added that they'd also use this information when talking with their governors and with the various governor's associations.
Rep. Bishop also said he was part of the Tenth Amendment Task Force, with Marsha Blackburn and Randy Neugebauer, Jason Chaffetz, Michael Conaway, John Culberson, Scott Garrett, Doug Lamborn, Cynthia Lummis and Tom McClintock.
Rep. Bishop said that the purpose of this task force was to work hand-in-hand with America Speaking Out , with America Speaking Out gathering information that the Tenth Amendment Task Force could use.
When I said that America Speaking Out seems like an online version of the TEA Party movement, Rep. Bishop said that the description seemed like a good fit.
I'd like to thank Rep. Bishop for his leadership in getting the House GOP Tenth Amendment Task Force going and for this interview. It's this type of thing that will help Republicans earn the trust of the American people.
Rep. Bishop said that we'd likely be in better financial shape had President Obama signed the Republican stimulus plan rather than signing the Democrats' bill.
Posted Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:30 PM
No comments.
Alliance for a Better America Opposes School Choice
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota's Xavier Lopez's recent post calls for their activists to call Sens. Klobuchar and Franken to Speak Up For Education and Kids :
As a Minnesotan, I take pride in our state's education system.What's odd about this is that David Obey wrote language into the Omnibus Spending Bill to kill the DC Opportunity Scholarship program . The leaders of D.C.'s school choice movement, Kevin P. Chavous (former D.C. Councilman) and Virginia Walden Ford (executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice issued this statement criticizing Obey's bill:
But Republican Governor Candidate Tom Emmer, and his support for Tim Pawlenty's cuts to K-12 education, are putting Minnesota on the wrong track.
Our state's economy is closely tied with the success of our schools. Without enough funding, our schools have crowded classrooms, little or no music, arts and physical education programs and some schools are even being forced to move to a four day school week.
We can't succeed in a global economy if we're cheating our kids out of the quality education that they deserve.
Instead of addressing these problems, Republicans like Emmer and Pawlenty are playing partisan games with our children's education by not applying for free federal money money that could fill part of the budget hole.
You have an opportunity to reverse the mistake of Republicans and secure funding to protect teacher jobs around the state.
Please call Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken at at 1-866-608-6355 to urge them to support the Keep Our Educators Working Act. This legislation will help Minnesota provide desperately needed money to school districts that will save or create 5,200 jobs across the state.
"House and Senate Appropriators this week ignored the wishes of D.C.'s mayor, D.C.'s public schools chancellor, a majority of D.C.'s city council, and more than 70 percent of D.C. residents and have mandated the slow death of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This successful school voucher program "for D.C.'s poorest families" has allowed more than 3,300 children to attend the best schools they have ever known.The Democrats keep talking like they're for the children. At the time, I wrote a post titled " The Lobbyists vs. the Children ", in which I scolded the Democrats for putting a higher priority on what the unions want than on what's best for children.
The decision to end the program, a decision buried in a thousand-page spending bill and announced right before the holidays, destroys the hopes and dreams of thousands of D.C. families. Parents and children have rallied countless times over the past year in support of reauthorization and in favor of strengthening the OSP.
Yet, despite the clearly positive results and the proven success of this program, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jose Serrano, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Secretary Arne Duncan worked together to kill the OSP. Funding the program only for existing children shrinks the program each year, compromises the federal evaluation of the program, denies entry to the siblings of existing participants, and punishes those children waiting in line by sentencing them to failing and often unsafe schools.
What is incredibly disappointing to low-income families in Washington, D.C. has been the silence of President Barack Obama. The President, who benefited from K-12 scholarships himself, worked on behalf of low-income families in Chicago, and exercises school choice as a parent, has stood silently on the sidelines while his Secretary of Education belittled the importance of helping such a small number of children in the nation's capital.
Now, the fate of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and the low-income children it serves and could serve depends on the willingness of Congressional supporters to insist that the FY 2010 budget allows additional children to participate in the OSP. We call on President Obama and Senator Durbin to stand up and do the right thing. Stand with the children of low-income families in Washington, D.C. who deserve access to a quality education right now "not five years from now" but right now. These children deserve that opportunity."
According to this lengthy policy paper , the NEA opposed the OSP:
NEA opposes any extension of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program beyond what is currently provided for under current law. This voucher program, designed as a five-year pilot, has already been extended for one additional year specifically to allow participating students and schools to adjust to the program's termination and make the necessary transitions. The program has not been proven to increase student achievement. There is no reason to continue to divert scarce resources to a pilot program that has been proven ineffective.The premise of their statement is wrong. Parents should be given the widest range of educational opportunities possible. Saying that "1,700 children are pulled out of" public schools is backwards thinking. The public schools aren't entitled to the money regardless of what the NEA or EdMinn says.
Vouchers are not real education reform. Pulling 1,700 children out of a system that serves 65,000 doesn't solve problems; it ignores them. Real reform will put a qualified teacher in every classroom, keep their skills up to date with continuing education, and raise pay to attract and retain the best teachers. Rather than offering a chance for a few, we should be ensuring that every child has access to a great public school.
I'd also take issue with the statement that the DC public school system serves 65,000 students. I'll agree that there are 65,000 students currently attending public schools but I refuse to agree that the schools are serving them. I'd argue that the NEA did underprivileged DC children a disservice by opposing the DC Opportunity Scholarship program.
It's the height of chutzpah for the Alliance for a Better Minnesota to criticize Tom Emmer's education policies simply because he wants to give parents the biggest set of education options rather than giving EdMinn the funding that they want. After a certain point, it's about the educational outcomes, not the dollars.
It's time for the Alliance for a Better Minnesota to get called on their advocacy for union policies rather than advocating for children. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Originally posted Wednesday, May 26, 2010, revised 15-Feb 12:06 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-May-10 06:06 PM
All they know is that the only thing which matters to "educating" children is how much money can be spent doing it. Since there is no actual correlation between the two (and in fact the apparent correlation is negative), it is utter nonsense on its face, and we ought to start saying so.
I find one of the best questions for these dimwits is "if we increase funding as you request, how much will academic achievement improve?"
Obama Tanking
According to Scott Rasmussen's polling , President Obama's approval rating is tanking:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That's the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.It doesn't get much worse than when party loyalists stop enthusiastically supporting a president. That's a splash of cold water to the face. The news that the strongly approve number dropped 17 points amongst Democrats is the ultimate slap in the face.
Enthusiasm for the president among Democrats, which bounced following passage of the health care law, has faded again. Just 48% of those in the president's party now Strongly Approve of Obama's performance. That's down from 65% earlier.
Here's another tidbit of information that's likely causing heartburn at the White House:
The number who give the president good or excellent marks for handling the economy has fallen to 35%.That isn't good news when the economy, the $1,000,000,000,000+ annual deficits and jobs are the most important issues to voters.
Combine that with the fact that people are increasingly uneasy because of the stock market's wild fluctuations and Europe's debt crisis and you've got alot of people worried about their current lot in life and about their children's future.
That's before we factor in that the first stimulus bill has been a total failure to this point. Now they're having to craft new stimulus bills. This new stimulus bill, which won't be called a stimulus bill for obvious reasons, won't do much to trigger a widespread, sustained economic recovery.
Factor in things like the Democrats' lack of support for Arizona's immigration/law enforcement law and the crisis in the Gulf and you've got the fixings of a difficult year for Democrats.
Posted Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:25 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-May-10 09:38 AM
People thought Obama would make changes. Because he promised that. This is more of the same. GOP-lite.
Who needs that?
He has de-energized a large part of the people who hoped expectations would be met.
By that I mean progressive people who were not drinking all the campaign rock star staging Koolaid, but simply hoping his low key analytical approach would work as he indicated he'd want it to.
To a large measure he deserves people cutting some slack because the Blue Dogs and the host of other Dem appeasers who knew where their lobbyist friends stood over the past congressional session did undercut his chances at showing leadership and effectiveness.
Still, in comparison to the Cheney-Bush imperial presidency; disdainful of the rest of us in favor of big corporate and other wealthy interests - such as the stock market plungers who relied on the GOP -&- Uncle Sam partnership for their bailout when their junk went rotten.
When looking at all that, at the big picture, Obama has been disappointing, but not all that bad when you consider how disastrous a McCain-Palin thing would have been, especially with the old guy having one foot in the grave and the young Alaskan into a range of things way, way, way, way, way over her cheerfully ignorant head (and with her offensive cloying pride over her inabilities and limitations, as if her being a turkey is a badge of honor).
Give me Obama-Biden in a heartbeat over what you guys put on your ticket. Still. Even with the Dems in both houses undermining him.
Until a competent GOP alternative is presented - and Pawlenty is anything but that - what do you expect but four more years, after the first four run their course.
You can see dissatisfaction at both ends of the political spectrum, but I have seen no viable offering at either end - mine or yours.
And all the anti-RINO bleating from the uber-right part of the GOP is leaving you to the chances of a Tom Emmer candidacy; one who can give a speech; but who has yet to prove he has any traction beyond the zealot crowd.
I know, Emmer got the GOP endorsement - but in Minnesota the GOP machinery, except at the Sutton-Brodkorb level, has been taken over by the zealots. Not that Sutton-Brodkorb represent middle ground; just a bit less intense and self-agrandizing and more practical than others.
Are Sutton and Brodkorb RINOs?
You tell me, Gary.
Or is my view more correct, just political wannabe kingmaker-bosses, turning out to be captains without an obedient crew?
Alliance For Better Minnesota Not Concerned With Telling Truth
I've never doubted that politics is a contact sport. People seeking political office should expect their opponents taking shots at them from time to time. The higher the office, the more candidates should expect to be a target.
That said, I've noticed that the unions aren't even slightly concerned with telling the truth about Tom Emmer. Their latest post at Tom Emmer's Minnesota is no more in touch with reality than any of the others but it's a perfect example of what the unions are willing to say about Tom Emmer:
Settle in high flying corporate executives, because Tom Emmer's Minnesota is going to be more fun than your last trip in a golden parachute. Here in Tom Emmer's Minnesota, we believe that paying for good schools and hospitals is the job of the unwashed masses. That's why the slightly regressive taxes of the past have been replaced by a massively regressive tax code in Tom Emmer's Minnesota.That these unions are that hostile towards the people who write the checks isn't surprising. It's just sickening.
In Tom Emmer's Minnesota, we don't even care if you have your interns set up post office boxes all over the world to avoid paying your taxes. Even if those funds would go to fund nursing homes and other medical facilities, in Tom Emmer's Minnesota we want nothing to get in the way of the gobs and gobs of money coming your way, not even fair play.
Rest assured, my very rich friend. This isn't just a one-time deal. You can trust that in Tom Emmer's Minnesota, solid investment in good schools, nursing home facilities, clean lakes, fixing roads or health care for "regular folk" will never get in the way of your extreme wealth and stealthy tax maneuvering.
It isn't surprising because we've already learned that the NEA opposed the DC Opportunity Scholarship program and got the program killed :
House and Senate Appropriators this week ignored the wishes of D.C.'s mayor, D.C.'s public schools chancellor, a majority of D.C.'s city council, and more than 70 percent of D.C. residents and have mandated the slow death of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This successful school voucher program "for D.C.'s poorest familie" has allowed more than 3,300 children to attend the best schools they have ever known.Here's what the NEA had said previously about the OSP:
The decision to end the program, a decision buried in a thousand-page spending bill and announced right before the holidays, destroys the hopes and dreams of thousands of D.C. families. Parents and children have rallied countless times over the past year in support of reauthorization and in favor of strengthening the OSP.
The Opportunity Scholarship Program was established as a five-year pilot under the Bush Administration. It was imposed on the residents of the District of Columbia over the objections of numerous pro-public education Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and the residents of the District of Columbia. Congress has never imposed a federal voucher program on any other jurisdiction in the nation, but chose to implement this experiment in the District of Columbia, whose residents have no vote in Congress, despite opposition from a majority of the City Council.This is important to know because the NEA is one of the organizations included in ABM's 'family of organizations'. The Alliance for a Better Minnesota isn't a stranger to outrageous accusations. Here's one of their golden oldies :
What do I mean? I mean drastic cuts to school budgets, essentials services like road plowing in the winter, and Minnesotans having to hold out their tin cup begging for a charity check-up from their doctor.This is the first set of dishonest accusations I read that Alliance for a Better Minnesota made against Tom Emmer.
The fact that Tom wants to reform government that's more responsive to the people scares the unions because they've taken decades to build a system of resisting change. The fact that Tom wants to upset their racket is forcing them to respond. Their responses have been erratic, over the top and not even loosely associated with the truth.
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota isn't building a reputation for telling the truth. Frankly, their scare tactics aren't working in defining Tom Emmer. Anyone with half a brain knows that their accusations are either dishonest or the rantings of a paranoid person. And I'm fairly certain that few voters think that paranoid people get the funding for this type of website.
It's time to expose the Alliance for a Better Minnesota for what it is: an organization created to distort and destroy candidates it doesn't agree with. I haven't seen proof that they hesitate in making things up.
Based on their organizational pedigree, I'm not holding my breath on that happening.
Originally posted Thursday, May 27, 2010, revised 14-Feb 11:22 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-May-10 07:12 AM
The fundamental of all of their deceit is the false choice: pretending that if the government doesn't spend, and wastefully, on something, that it doesn't get done at all. It's a false choice because there are two alternatives: the government could provide the same services at lower costs or, the private sector could pay for those services it needs and wants, absent the thumb of dictatorial government.
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-May-10 09:16 AM
I saw what they emailed, linking to their website, and it seemed purile and not aimed at reason but at inflaming passion.
If both sides would quell that, including Bachmann's inflamatory pand4ering to low passions, it would be best.
I agree that this thing is not elevating the debate or showing where Emmer and Dayton differ, in terms of policy and where the big tax hits should be focused - Emmer is not saying give the lower and middle class a break. He's more of the same.
Dayton is saying "Tax the rich."
What's wrong with that. So they move to the Dakotas and live with the emptiness and wind. Bless them and hope they get no doorknob injuries.
Seriously, have you any reliable data beyond GOP folklore about tax reform causing mass exodus?
I have heard the rhetoric. I await the evidence.
