November 19-23, 2009
Nov 19 03:05 Mark Ritchie: Still Partisan After All These Years Nov 20 04:01 Bachmann vs. Clark Nov 20 19:44 Fake District, Fake Jobs, Real Representation Nov 22 00:10 That's An Interesting Take Nov 22 02:02 DFL, Cowardly Establishment GOP Strategist Criticizes Bachmann Nov 22 02:42 How Toxic Is It? Nov 22 11:45 Obama's Undeniable Incompetence Nov 23 01:34 One For the Ages Nov 23 09:56 Health Care Support CRATERING
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Mark Ritchie: Still Partisan After All These Years
During the 2006 campaign, Michael Brodkorb's MDE certainly questioned whether Mark Ritchie was as nonpartisan as Ritchie claimed. It's 3 years later and questions remain as to whether Ritchie is as impartial as his DFL supporters tell us he is. This memo certainly suggests that Ritchie is still a partisan DFL activist:
Notice that this event isn't a nonpartisan training program. It's a training event designed to teach DFL union activists how to put together winning campaigns. the training includes conducting voter registration drives, doing voter ID and updating data bases and doing GOTV operations. The thing that I'm curious about is what they're teaching about absentee ballots.
The fact that this training session is being held in a union hall doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Mr. Ritchie's role in this event is as an impartial Secretary of State. Considering the fact that the main campaigns will be represented at the event and considering the fact that the training is very DFL-specific, I'd say it's unlikely that Mark Ritchie's role is that of an impartial Secretary of State.
It's important that we question whether Mark Ritchie ever stopped being the radical activist that helped start the leftist Campaign for America's Future :
While Ritchie says that the office of Secretary of State should operate in a non-partisan manner, it should be noted that he's listed as a founder and advisor to the Campaign for America's Future , one of the left's most partisan organizations. CAF shares office space in Washington, DC with Americans United for Change, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and USAction. Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is run by Tom Matzzie, who also chairs MoveOn.org. This office space is located on K Street, the lobbyist capitol of the nation's capitol.The link for CAF's founders was part of a post I wrote in 2007. Now that list has disappeared. What hasn't disappeared from CAF's website is the list of their board. A brief scan of CAF's board made my eyes pop. Eli Pariser, one of the officers of MoveOn.org, is a board member. The deeper I dig, the more questions I have about whether Mr. Ritchie is nonpartisan. CAF's treasurer is Robert Borosage. That name likely won't trigger any alarms because he's a below-the-radar operator. A quick search of Borosage's name yields alot of fruit, thanks to the great work of DTN :
A former New Left radical and onetime Director of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Robert Borosage co-founded (with Roger Hickey) both the Campaign for America's Future and the Institute for America's Future. He also founded and currently chairs the Progressive Majority Political Action Committee, the activist arm of a political networking organization whose aim is to help elect as many leftist political leaders as possible. In addition, he is a contributing editor at The Nation magazine and a regular contributor to The American Prospect.It's impossible for me to think that Mark Ritchie ever stopped being a far left radical/anarchist, especially after finding Mr. Ritchie listed as a founder/advisor of CAF in OCTOBER, 2006 :
Listed as "Founders or Advisors" as of October 2006: Gar Alperovitz, Ira Arlook, John Atlas, Morton Bahr, Peter Barnes, Ann Beaudry, George Becker, Berkley Bedell, Lara Bergthold, Paul Berman, Jules Bernstein, Mary Frances Berry, Susan Bianchi-Sand, Moe Biller, Norman Birnbaum, Arthur Blaustein, Barry Bluestone, Julian Bond, Heather Booth, Robert Borosage, Jim Braude, Thomas Buffenbarger, Marc Caplan, David Carley, Hodding Carter III, John Cavanagh, Bob Chase, Richard Cloward, Jeff Cohen, Mitchell Cohen, Barry Commoner, Ken Cook, G. William Domhoff, Douglas H. Dority, Peter Dreier, Dudley Dudley, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Eisner, Jeff Faux, Diane Feldman, Edward Fire, Dick Flacks, Nancy Folbre, Steve Fraser, Betty Friedan, Jeannette Galanis, James K. Galbraith, Herbert Gans, Paul Gaston, Thomas Geoghegan, Todd Gitlin, Chester Hartman, Heidi Hartmann, Tom Hayden, Denis Hayes, Roger Hickey, Jim Hightower, Adam Hochschild, Patricia Ireland, Amy Isaacs, Jesse Jackson, Christopher Jencks, Jaqueline Jones, Michael Kazin, Jackie Kendall, Charles Knight, George Kourpias, Jonathan Kozol, David Kusnet, Robert Kuttner, Rev. Peter Laarman, Thea Lee, Nelson Lichtenstein, Judith Lichtman, David Liederman, Joseph Lowery, Ray Marshall, Steve Max, Jay Mazur, Michael McCloskey, Gerald W. McEntee, Howard Metzenbaum, Harold Meyerson, S.M. Miller, Lawrence Mishel, Nan Grogan Orrock, Paul Osterman, Maurice S. Paprin, Richard Parker, Wallace Peterson, Frances Fox Piven, Ron Pollack, Robert Pollin, Steve Protulis, Miles Rapoport, Robert Reich, Frank Riessman, Mark Ritchie, Dennis Rivera, Cecil Roberts, Joel Rogers, Richard Rorty, Sumner Rosen, Richard Rothstein, Lillian Rubin, Arlie Schardt, Tom Schlesinger, Susan Shaer, Stanley Sheinbaum, Jack Sheinkman, John Simmons, Theda Skocpol, Francis Smith, Paul Soglin, Andrew Stern, John Sweeney, Linda Tarr-Whelan, John E. Taylor, Ellen Teninty, Robert Theobald, Richard Trumka, Katherine Villers, Philippe Villers, Ron Walters, Michael Walzer, Roger Wilkins, Linda Faye Williams, William Julius Wilson, Leslie R. Wolfe, Stephen P. Yokich.Some of the people on this list are so far left that they'd make Howard Dean look positively moderate. Mary Frances Berry, Julian Bond, Betty Friedan, Tom Hayden, Patricia Ireland, Jesse Jackson, Gerald W. McEntee, Howard Metzenbaum, Harold Meyerson, Robert Reich, Andy Stern, John Sweeney and Richard Trumka are a who's who of far left lefties. In fact, Mary Frances Berry used to carry a copy of Mao's Little Red Book in her purse. That's what a committed leftist does.
I'm not willing to believe that Mark Ritchie ever shed his radical leftist spots. That's why I'm skeptical that his presence at this training session is as an impartial secretary of state.
In fact, I'd argue that Mr. Ritchie is still committed to advancing the DFL's radical agenda. I haven't seen proof that Mr. Ritchie hasn't eliminated his radical spots. Until I see that proof, I'll assume that he's a bitterly partisan man.
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:05 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Nov-09 09:05 AM
Just yesterday you were raging around about Michele Bachmann facing rules against partisan abuses of her congressional webpage as a "speech issue" and now you say an official cannot have freedom of association under the First Amendement.
That means you are critical of Pawlenty going out of state to interfere [ineffectively] in New York's CD 23?
Or does it mean consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Nov-09 09:44 AM
now you say an official cannot have freedom of association under the First Amendement.First things first: It's an apples to green beans comparison. Ritchie is the chief election officer in the state. That means Ritchie's supposed to be impartial.
If Mark Ritchie sticks with telling them what the relevant laws are, he can associate all he wants. It's my opinion that Ritchie isn't there in an impartial role. I can't prove that but his history suggests that he'll forever be a partisan with strong ties to radical leftism.
Comment 2 by Colin at 19-Nov-09 11:20 AM
Wow, you need a detective to just figure out what a partisan is! Apparently, one can even tell what Mark Ritchie secretly represents by looking at organizations he's spoken to in the past and then figuring out what other businesses are sharing the same street and building in Washington. Did you hire Encyclopedia Brown for this report? It seems like the work of a third grader.
Comment 3 by owen at 19-Nov-09 06:23 PM
The issue should be whether his personal political beliefs affect the objectivity of his office. That is the same test that dogged Republican Mary Kiffmeyer and every other personal. Surely the price of holding office is not denial of ones' right to also have personal beliefs?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Nov-09 06:37 PM
Owen, you're right. The benchmark should be whether his personal beliefs affect how he performs his job. It's a FACT that he didn't provide leadership in following the law on accepting & rejecting absentee ballots last year, which caused all kinds of problems in the Coleman-Franken recount. Based on his getting that big thing wrong, my answer is that he's competent & should be sent packing.
Comment 4 by Larry at 20-Nov-09 07:06 AM
The event announcement you've included clearly describes it as a DFL event, not an official state function. The fact that an elected DFL office holder speaks at a DFL event is not news. Your post tells us a lot about your partisanship (as if we didn't already know!); nothing about Ritchie's.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-09 11:37 AM
Larry, Don't be stupid. The Secretary of State is required to be impartial. Yes, Ritchie has the RIGHT to talk at this event as long as his election advice stays impartial. The minute it meanders into being partisan, Ritchie would be showing that he isn't impartial.
We know he isn't impartial. We know because he utterly botched the handling of the absentee ballots.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 20-Nov-09 12:20 PM
Gary, you can disagree with the State Supreme Court on the way Ritchie conducted the recount.
Please do not take offense, but I value the Justices and their capabilities in deciding issues.
You are saying Kiffmeyer was impartial? Get real. We both know her efforts at making it harder for people to register has always been to lessen the DFL counts in favor of the GOP regulars, and their counts.
Ritchie is far, far, far less an advocate of any side over the other than Mary Kiffmeyer is, was, and likely will be.
End of story.
Spin things all you want.
Ritchie is a vast improvement in office. Ritchie has character and intelligence.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-09 08:03 PM
Eric, the KSTP investigation showed physical absentee ballots that didn't have signatures on them. According to Minnesota's election laws, absentee ballots that don't have a signature on them must be rejected. With all due respect to the justices, they got it wrong. BADLY WRONG.
Even a sixth-grader would've done better than they did.
It's insulting to hear you say that Ritchie is impartial. I thought you could set your partisanship aside to see that Ritchie screwed up but I guess that's too much to hope for.
Aside from being a partisan hack, Ritchie is incompetent, as this post clearly proves.
Comment 6 by The Lady Logician at 20-Nov-09 01:54 PM
Every one of you has missed the one tiny little FACT that Mr. Ritchie called the former SOS a radical partisan for doing the EXACT SAME THING that he is now doing. He CAMPAIGNED saying that if he were elected he would NEVER EVER do the exact same thing he is doing now and all of the DFL apologists said "yeah - what he said..." so the freedom of association straw man really falls flat.
LL
Bachmann vs. Clark
Lately, there's been a slew of articles about the CD-6 race ostensibly between incumbent Michele Bachmann and challenger Tarryl Clark. One article talks about this being a proxy war between Norm Coleman and Al Franken . Another highlights the fact that Al Franken is supporting Tarryl .
While people are writing about those aspects of the race, I tend to think that the more telling tale is that Michele is a threat to Pelosi's Democrats, persistently hounding them for their votes :
Conservative site WorldNetDaily is running a campaign to send members of Congress a "pink slip" warning that if they vote for "government health care," "cap and trade," "hate crimes," or "any more spending," their "real pink slip will be issued in the next election." Since September, WorldNetDaily has offered to send pink slips to all 535 members of Congress on behalf of readers for a price of $29.95.The DCCC will target Michele this year...again. They'll do it more because they'd love to get rid of Michele's ability to attract attention to their most controversial legislation. That's easier said than done.
The organizers of the campaign held a press conference on Tuesday to announce that it had sent out 5 million pink slips. The press conference, held on Capitol Hill, was attended by Republican politicians including Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).
"This is part of the reason...why we haven't seen this legislation on health care come through earlier," said Bachmann, who received the pink slips along with all other congressmen. "People are shocked that 5 million people have taken the time and the money...to send these pink slips."
Even if the Democrats bring their A game, it's still unlikely they'll defeat Michele. Before we get started with the makeup of the Sixth District, it's important that we highlight that this election cycle favors Republicans. The Agenda Media's pundits will try selling the fact that that's mostly because that's the historical trend in a new president's first midterm.
While that's certainly true, the reality is that there's more at work than just midtermitis. Earlier this month, suburban and independent voters in New Jersey and Virginia threw the Democrats overboard, reversing the trend from 2006 and 2008. Most of these voters abandoned Democrats because they're seeing how fiscally irresponsible the Democrats have been this term. In the House, especially, Democrats have voted for the failed stimulus bill, a job-killing cap-and-trade bill and the health care monstrosity in addition to passing President Obama's overbloated budget.
After plugging Tarryl's record of voting for job-killing tax increases , her unwillingness to find savings in the budget and her record of voting for big spending increases into this equation, you've got a an uphill climb to make in the Sixth District. Factor in Tarryl's staunchly pro-choice history and the Sixth District just isn't a good fit for Tarryl.
One line of attack Michele's detractors will employ is to remind people of controversial things Michele has said. The defense against that is reminding people that Michele voted against Cap-And-Trade, against the irresponsible Pelosicare and the failed stimulus bill while voting to increase domestic energy production, including increased nuclear energy production.
Another 'outside' factor weighing into this fight, albeit on the periphery, is the incompetence of the Obama administration. Saying that Recovery.gov is a laughingstock is understatement. While Recovery.gov is a laughingstock, it wouldn't exist without the Democrats' failed stimulus bill. Adding to the Democrats' image of incompetence is the administration's announcement about new restrictive guidelines on mammograms.
Factor these things together and it's looking like Michele will finally be running with the wind at her back. This undoubtedly will be a race to watch. That doesn't mean it'll be as tight a race as some pundits think it will be.
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 4:01 AM
Comment 1 by Minnesota Central at 20-Nov-09 09:56 AM
QUERY : Why not call the "pink slip" marketing scam what it is ... a way to fleece money ?
This is the second "mass mailing" that this group has tried this year. Then the price was only $10.95 to send protest letters to every member of the Senate ... the result Kit Bond, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, John Ensign, Judd Gregg, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dick Lugar, John McCain, Olympia Snowe and George Voinvoivh rejected the message and voted with the Democrats ... and that is a pretty divergent group of Republican Senators.
Realistically, do you think that any congressional staff is taking the time to respond to any of these "pink slips" .... much less even opening the boxes ?
Conversely, do you think that if Representative Bachmann got mass mailings to support Healthcare Reform that she would pay any attention ?
My advise would be that if you oppose a piece of legislation, call your elected Representative's office ... most have local or toll free numbers ... but then again, if you don't want to make the call, send me $29.95 and I will make the call on your behalf.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 20-Nov-09 12:15 PM
Gary, any thoughts you'd care to share about Maureen Reed?
You seem as presumptive as some of the union people.
Fake District, Fake Jobs, Real Representation
Grant Bosse is onto something. Let me go further than that. Grant Bosse is a genius. This video will explain why he's a genius:
Here's a transcript of the interview he did with FNC's Brian Sullivan:
SULLIVAN: Your next guest has just announced his run for Congress from the phantom Double-Zero district of New Hampshire, one of those mentioned in the stimulus plan that don't actually exist. Grant Bosse says that if it's good enough to be cited as creating jobs, it ought to have a congressman.
Grant Bosse, Brian Sullivan in for Neil today. Forgive the tongue in cheek.
BOSSE: Oh, of course.
SULLIVAN: The Fighting Double-Zero, isn't that what you're calling it up there?
BOSSE: The Fighting Double-Zero. It's about time we had representation in Congress. Just because we don't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't count. We're just as serious, we're just as real as the jobs that were created under the stimulus plan.
SULLIVAN: What is your phantom platform?
BOSSE: Well, to keep the jobs here that the stimulus bill created.
SULLIVAN: Real jobs, though, right? Double-Zero would be happy to push them out to a real New Hampshire district, I assume?
BOSSE: We supposedly found out this week, through the Franklin Center's report on 440 fake congressional districts nationwide, that New Hampshire's Double-Zero District got about 2,800 jobs from the stimulus plan, which was quite a shock to the people who don't live there because it doesn't exist. And then when they changed the website, they took those 2,800 jobs away, so I'm gonna fight to bring them back and I think we need the type of fake jobs that, um...
SULLIVAN: If I was a fake member of that fake district, I'd be really upset because I was being discounted as being fake.
BOSSE: And that's why I'm asking you to pretend to vote for me.
SULLIVAN: You know, you've got my pretend vote. Now the problem is that it's in real reports. So it's not a fake report. That's the problem. It's a fake district with fake jobs but it's a real report.
BOSSE: Yeah, we spent $84,000,000 as part of this stimulus plan for the recovery.gov website and what we got is a very nice website with a great interactive map and the data on it is complete garbage. And in fact, the people that run that website now admit that they can't tell how many jobs the stimulus bill created because the data, they never bothered to check if the data was any good or not.
SULLIVAN: Listen, if I get up to the Phantom Fighting Double-Zero District, we'll go out for a fake burger, a fake beer and a real conversation.
BOSSE: No, the beer will be real.
SULLIVAN: That's the best part. Grant Bosse, thank you very much and good luck with your campaign.
BOSSE: We'll need it.
While the interview was thick with sarcasm, there's an important point that needs to be made, namely, that government can't keep track of anything with any reliable degree of accuracy. That's a big deal with health care 'reform' looming in our immediate future.
Let's get serious a minute.
Checks are getting cut for projects nationwide. The departments sending out the checks should track which districts the checks are going to and the projects that the checks are paying for. This isn't difficult if accountnability is important to the department cutting the checks. Every business in America knows where their checks are going, usually with an invoice number included on the register.
Obviously, that didn't happen with these stimulus checks. They just got sent out without regard for accountability.
Here are the serious-as-a-heart-attack questions we should ask after finding out about this:
1. Single-payer advocates say that overhead in a single-payer system is substantially less than it is with a private insurance company. Based on Recovery.gov's faulty information, what proof is there of that claim?
2. Harry Reid said that his health car bill would "saves lives, saves money and saves Medicare." Based on the mishandling and incompetence found at Recovery.gov, shouldn't we question government's ability to get anything right?
3. If bureaucrats can't get something as straightforward as this right, why would we think that they'll get something as complex as administering health care right?
4. If the CBO preliminary number is $850,000,000,000, why shouldn't I think that the REAL NUMBER is closer to $3,000,000,000,000 or higher?
It's time to get serious. This administration is woefully incompetent. This administration talks about accountability but won't practice accountability. Why would we think for a split second about turning 16 percent of our economy over to them?
Originally posted Friday, November 20, 2009, revised 25-Feb 2:10 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Nov-09 06:05 AM
There are two ways in which the relative efficiency of single-payer versus private, competitive health insurance should be viewed.
1. The biggest reason why private insurance premiums and administrative costs are high is because of the excess burden of existing government regulation of the health insurance and health care industries. If single payer had to comply with the same mandates and without subsidies, costs would be even HIGHER (because bureaucracies have no incentive to be efficient, just the opposite).
2. Single payer CAN be more efficient than an equivalent free-market insurance system IF they have streamlined and completely arbitrary set of rules they apply to claims. For example, if I simply deny anybody under the age of 50 (or 60, or 70) a mammogram, it lowers administrative (and total) costs for my program. Saying this kills people is just racist hate speech.
That's An Interesting Take
The Columbia Journalism Review has an interesting take on Andrew Breitbart's interview with Sean Hannity:
Memo to Sean Hannity, who is calling for James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart to get a "journalism award" for their video sting of ACORN: Generally, when in possession of what one believes to be newsworthy information, the journalistic thing to do is get it out to the public-not attempt to blackmail the attorney general.In CJR's warped little world, BigGovernment's Andrew Breitbart blackmailed US A.G. Eric Holder when Breitbart said this:
Not only are there more tapes, it's not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it's not just ACORN, and we're going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don't give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.First, if we didn't have a corrupt A.G., Mr. Breitbart could count on the A.G. prosecuting the crimes that've been committed. Mr. Breitbart wouldn't need to make these comments because the A.G. would be asking him for the tapes/evidence so that his prosecutors could start putting their investigations/prosecutions together.
Second, CJR's commentary about blackmailing the A.G. is, at minimum, incendiary. Don't think that that's unintentional. According to Dictionary.com , the definition for blackmail is " any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations ." It's an extreme stretch to think that a citizen telling the A.G. to do his job is intimidation. It's true that Mr. Breitbart delievered an ultimatum. As a citizen talking to the administration, that's his right because the administration works for We The People.
If any administration didn't prosecute an organization that was a criminal enterprise and that's been caught on film agreeing to teach people how to commit tax fraud, I'd be critical of that administration much like Mr. Breitbart is with this administration.
If telling an administration on national TV to do its job in enforcing the law is blackmail, then I'll support those that 'commit' that type of crime.
Posted Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:16 AM
No comments.
DFL, Cowardly Establishment GOP Strategist Criticizes Bachmann
It isn't a secret that some within the GOP establishment prefer keeping Michele Bachmann arm's distance away. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Michele wore that as a badge of honor. Nonetheless, the establishment snipers persist like they did in this City Pages hit piece :
But more importantly, many worry that those and similar remarks are detrimental to the national Republican Party's credibility, which is why not everyone inside the GOP is thrilled at the prospect of Bachmann becoming the face of their party. One senior Republican strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, concedes that there's some trepidation within the GOP establishment.The problem with the GOP, both locally and nationally, is that strategists like this coward won't fight for their principles in public. They'd rather be quoted anonymously than fight on the battlefield of ideas. It's quite likely that they don't like fighting for their principles because their principles are constantly shifting and/or indefensible.
"I can tell you she has a few quiet detractors within the Republican Party," says the strategist. "Put it this way: There've been some who've raised an eyebrow over the things she's said."
I've respected people of different political persuasions if they've fought intelligent fights for their principles and their priorities. When two sides passionately clash in that setting, both sides learn, often causing each side to sharpen their arguments.
Based on these paragraphs, the DFL doesn't get it:
"There are certainly people inside the DFL who think she's good for the party," says Jeremy Powers, a DFL chair in Bachmann's district. "Some think fighting for the Sixth District isn't worth it, because the sum advantage of having her around is better than ousting her."What DFL Chairman Melendez calls ineffective representation, most people think of as fiscal conservatism at a time when the Obama administration and the Democratic congress are spending money and piling up deficits that'd make President Bush and the last GOP majority look like spendthrifts .
It's a point DFL Party Chair Brian Melendez concedes but doesn't endorse.
"While obviously I like being able to raise money against Republican candidates, and while I like for there to be a convenient boogeyman like her, the price of having an ineffective representative for an entire congressional district is just too high."
That's why Tarryl Clark is a bad fit for the district. To be fair, Tarryl has a fairly loyal base of support. That base is as big as it'll get, though, because she isn't a fiscal conservative at a time when fiscal conservatism is badly needed. Michele's principled leadership on fiscal accountability fits the Sixth District and this elction cycle perfectly .
In the other corner you have state Sen. Tarryl Clark, a DFL up-and-comer who, by virtue of having nabbed labor union endorsements, appears to be the frontrunner. Like Reed, she might be handicapped by an overreliance on wonky pragmatism in a district that seems to perennially reward folksy pathos.Tarryl's worked hard to portray herself as a moderate. Voting for every major tax increase in Minnesota history isn't a great way of building up a person's moderate credentials. Coupling that voting record with Tarryl's quiet approval of a single-payer health care system is a fine if you're running in Keith Ellison's district and possibly Betty McCollum's district but that's about it.
"If you're looking to fire someone, you need a reason," she says of the incumbent. "She's not doing her job. She's not helping to secure Medicare, or lowering tuition, or ensuring health care for veterans. 'No' is not an answer. You have to be willing to work toward a solution."
Here in the Sixth District, we call people with that voting record a full-fledged liberal.
Despite all the whining from cowardly GOP strategists and the attacks from DFL attack puppies like Chairman Melendez, Michele Bachmann has a strong and growing base of support in the Sixth District. That's why, on Election Night, 2010, we'll call Michele our representative in DC for the next 2 years.
Posted Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:02 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Nov-09 08:16 AM
I disagree with you Gary, most of the time, and certainly about Bachmann.
Are you calling me a coward?
I think you need to reevaluate your choice of words for those holding opinions differing from your own.
If you would call Bachmann brave, I would disagree, and suggest shrill as a better single word description.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-09 11:05 AM
Eric, I said that the GOP strategist who spoke on condition of anonymity is a coward. Last I checked, you weren't a GOP strategist.
I'm saying that people that disagree should have the cajones to do it openly.
That's what you've done, therefore you aren't a coward. You're just someone I disagree with philosophically.
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 22-Nov-09 09:13 PM
Gary, it is not difficult to find Republicans who are very willing to say negative things about Michele Bachmann off the record. People tend to be afraid to speak on the record about this - and that's too bad.
As far as Bachmann's fiscal conservativism goes - it's mostly talk. When she had a chance to get her TABOR bill heard in the tax committee, Bachmann refused - and on more than one occassion.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-09 01:04 AM
Eva, insinuating that Michele isn't a fiscal conservative is laughable & that's being charitable. Your insinuations are predictable, though, since your vitriol for Michele is well-documented.
How Toxic Is It?
In 2006, people said that the conditions surrounding GOP candidates were toxic. Four long years later, Charlie Cook is describing President Obama as "beyond radioactive in their districts ." Veteran Washington Post columnist David Broder paints a grim picture , too:
It's simply not true that America is ambivalent about everything when it comes to the Obama health plan.There are nineteen Democratic incumbents up for re-election in 2010. How many seats they'll lose this far away from Election Night is anybody's guess but it's quite possible Democrats will lose 5+ seats based on this list of Democratic incumbents :
The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results.
This poll may not be as famous as some others, but I know the care and professionalism of the people who run it, and one question was particularly interesting to me.
It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit ?"
The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters, 19 percent of the sample, think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink . By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.
Evan Bayh, (D-IN), Michael Bennet, (D-CO), Barbara Boxer, (D-CA), Roland Burris, (D-IL), Chris Dodd, (D-CT), Byron Dorgan, (D-ND), Russ Feingold, (D-WI), Daniel Inouye, (D-HI), Patrick Leahy, (D-VT), Blanche Lincoln, (D-AR), Barb Mikulski, (D-MD), Patty Murray, (D-WA), Harry Reid, (D-NV), Charles Schumer, (D-NY), Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-NY), Arlen Specter, (D-PA), Ron Wyden, (D-OR)Of that group, I'd rate Bennet, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Lincoln, Reid, Gillibrand and Specter as being highly vulnerable. If opposition to the Democrats' big spending agenda just maintains its current level, that list is pretty much history.
Bayh, Boxer, Feingold and Murray are vulnerable only if the atmosphere is totally toxic for Democrats. Inouye, Leahy, Mikulski and Schumer are safe seats. If any of this group loses, then DC's punditry will be stunned.
Finally, the Delaware open seat is a good pickup opportunity for the GOP, too.
As usual, Jim Geraghty asks the right question:
Just how unpopular do you have to be, by the way, to be described as "beyond radioactive"?If the Democrats lose 6+ seats in 2010, we'll have Jim's answer.
Posted Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Nov-09 03:49 PM
Gary:
Two points, one Reid and the Democrats are already doing gimmicks. Reid removed $200 billion from his health care to make it a seperate bill so the CBO will score it as reducing the deficit. It's a given health care reform increases the deficit.
Two, I thought Burris wasn't running for reelection. Doesn't that make his seat open and make it a little safer for the Democrats?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-09 06:18 PM
Prominent Democrats have said that they aren't running, though I suspect Jesse Jr. will. Count that one leaning GOP.
Obama's Undeniable Incompetence
There are times when I watch President Obama when I'm forced to wonder question President Obama's competence. I'm forced to question his competence because he hasn't done a thing to increase entrepreneurial activity. Just as I'm certain that there's a certain amount of incompetence involved, I'm also thinking that he won't change directions because his ego won't let him admit that he's wrong.
The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes is noticing that course corrections aren't President Obama's strength :
Aboard Air Force One, Obama chatted amiably with Owens and Schock. Owens showed Obama two pages of a PowerPoint presentation. The first gave the details of China's stimulus, devoted mostly to infrastructure. The second was Obama's stimulus (drafted by congressional Democrats), with far less money going to building and repairing roads, bridges, and other projects. That was the problem, Owens told Obama: too little for infrastructure and thus too little to engage companies like Caterpillar, which had just furloughed 20,000 workers.President Obama's behavior shows that he's willing to ostracize people who tell the truth in disagreeing with his policies and agenda. Yes, his ego is that fragile. His conversation with Jim Owens didn't change his stimulus bill one iota.
When Obama delivered his speech in Peoria, he either hadn't understood what Owens told him or simply refused to accept it. The stimulus package, he said, would be "a major step forward on our path to economic recovery. And I'm not the only one who thinks so." Owens, the president said, had told him that "if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."
This was not only untrue, but proved to be embarrassing for Obama. After the speech, Owens talked to reporters at the foot of the podium. No, he wouldn't be bringing back any workers. (Later, Caterpillar announced that 2,500 of the layoffs would be permanent.) Owens and Schock flew back to Washington on Air Force One. This time, Obama ignored them. There was a chill. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and adviser David Axelrod walked past Owens and Schock repeatedly to speak to the press pool in the rear of the plane. They didn't stop to chat either.
Now that his stimulus has failed to stimulate the economy or create jobs, President Obama understands that he's toast if his policies are seen as failing. That's what's behind his Jobs Summit. His Jobs Summit isn't a signal that he'll change directions back towards capitalism or that he'll admit he was wrong. It's about him saying with his actions that he feels people's pain and he's doing his best.
Obama has his own theory of our current economic situation. His "first job," he told Chuck Todd of NBC News, was to stave off another "Great Depression," save government jobs (police, firefighters, teachers), and "make sure certain sectors of the economy were supported," such as "construction and infrastructure." "We've gotten that job done," he said.When GDP is revised this week, King said we should expect it to be revised downward. That's what makes President Obama's statement that their "next job is to make sure we can accelerate the job growth..." My question for President Obama is simple: What job growth is there to accelerate? Let's hope that President Obama isn't referring to the phony jobs his failed stimulus plan has supposedly saved.
"Our next job is to make sure we can accelerate the job growth," he said. "So what we're seeing now is businesses are starting to invest again, they are starting to be profitable again, but they haven't started hiring again."
What's the matter with these business guys? The suggestion here is they ought to be hiring. But they're "sitting on the sidelines," the president told Major Garrett of Fox News. He regards them as not-very-conscientious objectors, avoiding the struggle to revive the economy and put people back to work. They're not doing their part, their duty.
Stronger words from Obama may follow. During the Depression, President Roosevelt demonized business and the wealthy ("economic royalists") and raised their taxes. When they declined to invest and stir economic growth, he accused them of staging a "capital strike." The Obama equivalent, if it comes to that, would be a "hiring strike."
President Obama has repeatedly threatened businesses, whether it was when he told a group of bankers that " My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks " or when he said as a candidate that people could still build coal-fired power plants if they liked, that his Cap and Tax bill would just bankrupt them .
I disagreed with President Clinton but I didn't question the fact that he was, more or less, a capitalist. President Clinton offered proof of that by being the best free trader to occupy the Oval Office. He offered proof by knowing when to get out of the way of private industry.
President Obama and this Democratic congress keep showing us that they'd rather take companies over than establish policies that help companies create jobs. This administration hasn't shown that they're all that interested in capitalism. The most abundant proof they've shown is that they love government, big, robust, expanding government.
Early in his administration, President Obama railed that we wouldn't return "to the failed policies of the last eight years." If Obamanomics continues to fail at its current rate, voters will tell this administration and congressional Democrats that they're turning away from the Obama administration's failed policies.
Posted Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:53 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Nov-09 03:51 PM
Gary:
A major difference between Obama and Clinton is this. Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress which battled him to restrain spending and cut taxes.
Obama and the Democrats have no one controlling their out of control spending ideas.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Nov-09 12:58 PM
Given the act he's following, he looks like Shakespeare on stage, to me. I suppose you've forgotten, Gary. Selective amnesia, whatever.
Comment 3 by David Koski at 23-Nov-09 03:25 PM
Wow, without even mentioning 8 years of "W". You sir, are either completely insane or a bald faced liar.
What trash.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-09 03:35 PM
Mr. Koski, You're either illiterate or you're too partisan to admit that this statement referenced "W":
Early in his administration, President Obama railed that we wouldn't return "to the failed policies of the last eight years."Sir, I'd suggest you measure your words better & that you read everything. I'd further suggest that you provide examples of where you think I lied or where my logic was faulty. This time, I'll approve your comment to illustrate a point. Next time you make a harsh accusation without proof, though, your comment will be deleted.
That's the way I roll around here. Accusations backed up with verified proof are accepted. Accusations based on nothing are rejected.
One For the Ages
Brett Favre isn't your ordinary 40-year-old football legend. What he is is the NFL MVP-in-waiting. Long before Sunday's game against Seattle, there was little doubt that he'd dramatically changed the Vikings. After Sunday's game, lifetime Vikings fans like myself can only shake our heads in amazement at the high level he's playing at.
After starting slowly in the first quarter, Favre the maestro orchestrator took control of the game. Once he got things rolling, Seattle was toast and Favre was the toast of his new hometown. Going 22-for-25 for 213 yards will do that for a legend's image. That he had more TD passes than incompletions, 4 TDs to 4 different receivers vs. 3 incompletions, says just how accurate Mr. Favre is.
Last year at this time, Favre still had the 'zip on his fastball' just like this year. The difference is that Favre's significantly more accurate this year than last, thanks to offseason surgery by Dr. James Andrews.
Sunday's performance was Favre's personal best in terms of completion percentage. His 88% completion percentage is also a Vikings franchise record.
What's making the Vikings a dominant team is the number of weapons they have. It also starts with Favre as triggerman & maestro. Favre's job is made easier because he can hand the ball off to Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor or throw it to Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Visanthe Shiancoe and Bernard Berrian. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Mssrs. Rice & Harvin are future superstars. Larry Holmes could figure that out.
The last 3 seasons, the Vikings offensive line was decent but they suffered from Ryan Cook's troubles at right tackle. After last season, they were left with a gaping hole at center when Matt Birk signed with Baltimore. John Sullivan has taken over for Birk & rookie Phil Laodholt has shown signs of being a budding star in this league.
Though they aren't the best in the league at protecting their QB, they've kept Favre upright most of the time, especially when the game moves into the 4th quarter. When Favre was in the Pack, their offensive line was pretty good alot of the years but they didn't have the weapons that this Vikings team has. As good as some of those Paker teams were, they weren't as explosive or as balanced as this Vikings team.
That's why longtime Vikings fans think of this team as the 1998 Vikings team that set the NFL season scoring record. With Favre at QB, they've become a pick your poison type of team. Shut down Adrian? Fine. He'll kill you with Sidney & Percy. Doubling Sidney & Percy, are ya? Fine, he'll kill you with Adrian running & Visanthe Shiancoe running free between the hashmarks.
Indianapolis and the Saints both have perfect 10-0 records. They've earned the top rankings in the various power ranking polls. They are elite teams, especially until they're beaten. The Vikings are the other elite team in the NFL this year.
If Favre keeps playing like this, it'll be fun watching in January.
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 1:34 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Nov-09 12:54 PM
Saints play New England next Monday.
Colts play Titans, who are on a role, Sunday, Dec. 6.
Vikings would want to aim for decisive leads by mid-third quarter, in remaining games, to give Jackson reps with the starters until wholesale substitutions in the fourth quarter, both sides of the ball, to keep fresh for the playoffs and to have an option if Farve is injured.
Being where they are now will permit Childress and staff that luxury.
The O-line's allowed few sacks, Farve scans the options and unloads quickly - his QB rating, as complicated as it is, leads the league.
Dec. 28, Monday night, in the cold at Soldier's field - Vikings v. Bears, by then only wild card and home field in the playoffs will be at issue.
Hey, how about those Gophers? Weber at QB, due back next season.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 23-Nov-09 01:31 PM
Related, Mauer wins AL MVP:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/11/23/mauer-mvp/
Health Care Support CRATERING
According to this morning's Rasmussen polling , support for the Democrats' health care plan is cratering. It isn't likely to get more popular as more information is reported on. Here's what Rasmussen's latest polling shows:
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.According to Ed's post , the crosstabs must worry Democratic strattegists:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
The big takeaway from the internals is, as always, independent voters. They are looking a lot more like Republicans on this issue. Where Republican voters oppose ObamaCare 83/13, independents aren't far behind at 70/23. Self-described moderates have fled as well, opposing ObamaCare by almost exactly the overall topline, 55/39.After the Tuesday Night Massacre, Democrats were quick to spin their defeats as the result of local issues and bad candidates. Based on what this polling is showing us, I'd say that voters are telling us the same things on health care as they were telling us that night: that they're rejecting Democrats for being too radical.
In fact, the Democrats' rating with independents has deteriorated since the election. Bob McDonnell won with 66-34 percent support amongst independents. Chris Christie won with 58-31 percent support of independents. According to this morning's reporting, independents are now abandoning Democrats on health care by a 3:1 margin.
Nothing indicates that independents will start supporting Democrats anytime soon. If this trend continues, this could be a major indicator of an impending disaster for Democrats in 2010. While it's still a ways off, these trends should worry candidates and strategists alike.
It's time for sane Democrats like Doug Schoen and Joe Lieberman to retake their party. It's time that they flushed the demagogues from the Democratic Party.
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 10:06 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Nov-09 01:30 PM
I don't necessarily want the Democratic Party to move right, as a matter of pure political advantage. It permits a center-right Republican Party to gain the necessary majorities to begin reversing this "great leap forward" that the Democrats are pushing. After this begins, it would be useful for Democrats to moderate (whether they would or not is questionable) to push the Republicans further to the right (whether the GOP would do so or already had is questionable). It's the basic beauty of the two-party system, though, IMHO.
Comment 2 by jim jackson at 23-Nov-09 08:30 PM
dont this it will pass..its horrible what has come of this country to steal from the poor to give to the rich, when are people going to wake up.
go have a look at the best 1 minute video you will see on youtube that explains just what I am talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyN5RCGq5g
