October 19-20, 2009
Oct 19 03:16 Michele-Tarryl Race Shows Which Direction the Wind Is Blowing Oct 19 12:03 Here's My Response, Laura Oct 20 03:28 Frightened Franken? Oct 20 10:47 Sen. Specter's Talking Points Dilemma Oct 20 16:52 Three Cheers For Jake Tapper Oct 20 23:42 Another Crack in the Wall
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Michele-Tarryl Race Shows Which Direction the Wind Is Blowing
When it comes to 2010, there's list doubt that there's a wind at Republicans' backs. That doesn't mean that all Republicans will benefit equally from the current wind at the Republicans' backs. This observation from Dan Balz's article is right on target:
There are aspects of this movement that could dampen the potential benefits for Republicans. One is the Perot-like quality to some protests, which is to say that some of the anger among these Americans is aimed at both parties and at Washington, rather than just at Obama. Republicans were skillful in 1993-94 in catering to the Perot voters. But Republican leaders today cannot automatically count on all the angry populists for enthusiastic support.Milquetoast Republicans like Lindsey Graham, if he were running this year, wouldn't benefit from the TEA Party Movement. Right now, people of most political stripes are looking for fiscal conservatives. I've seen nothing that translates into much support for candidates like Tarryl Clark.
Some of the loudest voices on the right are virulently anti-Obama and see the world in starkly different terms than much of the rest of the electorate. The Democracy Corps, a liberal organization headed by Democrats Stan Greenberg and James Carville, sponsored focus groups among very conservative Republicans and concluded: "The Republican base voters are not part of the continuum leading to the center of the electorate; they truly stand apart."
In fact, Tarryl will have a difficult time with Michele Bachmann. Michele has a huge fundraising advantage but she's a fiscal conservative at a time when people are worried sick about Washington's out-of-control spending, Washington's bailouts and the Democrats' insistence to spend trillions of dollars on health care legislation that will raise insurance premiums, drive medical prices higher and that does nothing to solve the problem of insuring everyone.
In addition to Michele having $617,000 CoH heading into Q4, Michele has raised another $125,000 online to start this quarter.
Tad Devine sounds the right cautionary tone with this quote:
Possible disaffection among independent voters may be even more critical in shaping the 2010 political landscape. "Right now, I believe we as Democrats must be most concerned about disaffection in the middle," said strategist Tad Devine. "Middle-class voters put their faith in our party and its leaders in the last two elections, and that faith needs to be vindicated by concrete results."Democrats are painting themselves into a corner with their spendaholic ways in DC. The thing that started the independents' exodus was the pork-filled stimulus bill. People who had read the initial House legislation knew it was nothing but pork. When Pelosi and Reid passed the conference report without letting leegislators read it, independents got mightily upset.
When Democrats tried pushing their health care reform bills before the August recess, independents asked why the Democrats were rushing things. When the Democrats' response was "People are losing their health care every day", independents said that it was more important to get it right than getting something mediocre done quickly.
Simply put, independents are questioning the Democrats' insistence on going fast because they're thinking that the Democrats are rushing because they don't want to know what's in the bills they're passing.
If Democrats keep insisting on pushing their agenda through without people knowing what's in the bills, independents will rebel in larger numbers than they're already revolting at.
Posted Monday, October 19, 2009 3:23 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Oct-09 09:34 AM
In terms of which way the wind is blowing, City of Anoka now has a wind turbine on ground [I don't know if it is yet operational, this morning it was not turning but also there was no wind]. It is across Hwy. 116 from the library, adjacent to the Anoka-Henepin High School at intersection Hwy. 7 and 116. Not a big one, but on ground.
Beyond that, you write off Maureen Reed. Gary, have you a reason beyond belief she will be a non-factor? I mean, any specific evidence more than op-ed thinking?
What, if anything, has Bachmann in her several years in DC done for the district? That is a concern.
She did vote against TARP and ceased stalking W, but ... that's not district specific.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Oct-09 10:44 AM
Beyond that, you write off Maureen Reed. Gary, have you a reason beyond belief she will be a non-factor?I'm basing this more off of Tarryl's union endorsements & superior fundraising than anything else. The DFL's leadership seems to be behind her, too.
Frankly, I don't think Dr. Reed or Tarryl stands much of a chance against Michele in this district under the current political circumstances.
What, if anything, has Bachmann in her several years in DC done for the district?That isn't a concern for me since she's in the minority. I'd add that it's more difficult to get things done when the House is ruled by a dictator like Speaker Pelosi.
Put Michele in the majority, though, & I'd bet the proverbial ranch that she'd get alot done.
Comment 2 by apathyboy at 19-Oct-09 04:01 PM
I had written off Maureen as well, because the DFL isn't happy with her and I assumed you don't beat out Bachmann without the DFL endorsement. However upon further reading that's not necessarily a safe assumption. Here's an article I found that seems to touch on different scenarios at play if there is a 3 way race:
http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/3143/maureen-reed-vs-michelle-bachmann
Comment 3 by eric z. at 20-Oct-09 06:46 AM
Gary, I tend to agree that Reed has an uphill challenge in the DFL. My guess is she will fold her hand after the caucuses, but intends up to that point to pitch her more conservative stance as better fitting the district [something I have never believed - running two Republicans with one GOP endorsed will get only one result - so take a chance].
But - correct me if I am wrong --- going back to Bush-kissing days, Bachmann was doing nothing then, and we both can then agree she is currently showing consistency.
Here's My Response, Laura
Rep. Laura Brod posted a question regarding health care on Facebook this morning. Specifically, she's asking for opinions on Ross Douthat's NYTimes op-ed . First, Mr. Douthat's intro is important to tackle the question:
Three major problems plague American health care. The cost of premiums is eating up an ever larger share of take-home pay. The cost of our public health care programs is eating up an ever larger share of the federal budget. And millions of people who need insurance are priced out of the market.The key, in my opinion, to figuring out this mess is understanding the role that politicians' mandates play. For whatever reason, politicians have felt the need to overregulate. I don't accept the premise that health insurance must cover every possibility. In fact, I'd argue that such policies are the problem, not the solution.
Now that Max Baucus's version of health care legislation has been blessed, at least provisionally, by the hands of Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, it's increasingly likely that Congress will pass reforms that address the third problem, while making the first two problems somewhat worse.
First, I'd question why the state of Minnesota needs 65 seperate health care mandates. Can each survive a justification process? I'm betting not. What I know is this: that a basic policy that covers catastrophic injuries and illnesses, covers annual checkups for various types of cancer, diabetes screening and cholesterol checks, coupled with a modest-to-high deductible, would lower costs dramatically. I'd further adjust the tax code to incent people to buy HSAs to cover the deductible.
If you did those things, the cost of health insurance would drop instantly and dramatically, which addresses the main reason why the people who choose not to buy insurance don't purchase insurance. I'm betting that 90% of the current prblems with our health care system would be eliminated by doing those simple things.
That won't happen until politicians stop looking for political solutions to a financial/medical problem. In short, GET THE POLITICAL 'SOLUTIONS' out of the way. They're doing more harm than good.
It's important that we understand that the Democrats' bills don't control costs on a sustainable basis. The Democrats' idea of controlling costs is the imposition of price controls. While there's no doubt that that helps in the short term, there's equally no doubt but that that can't help in the medium- and long-term.
If you want less of something, tax it more, regulate it more or artificially cap the price of that something. Within a year, you'll see fewer young people signing up for medical schools and nursing schools, which leads to shortages of medical personnel. That's what's happening in Canada right now.
I wrote here that there's a shortage of primary care physicians in Canada:
O'REILLY: Doctor, What would you say is the biggest problem with your health care system in Canada?This tells me that the Democrats' goal of covering everyone is a noble goal but that they're going about it the wrong way. I'd argue that we should do thing that lower health care costs on a sustainable basis rather than capping prices. The federal government imposes price controls through Medicare and Medicaid. As that becomes more prevalent, more doctors and clinics are limiting the amount of Medicare and Medicaid patients they'll treat.
DR. BRIAN DAY: Well, the biggest problem is access & by access I mean we have 5,000,000, In the Canadian system, the first line of defense is the primary care physician & in a population of 33,000,000 people, 5,000,000 people don't have a primary care physician .
Price controls hurt all hospitals but it especially hurts rural hospitals and nursing homes, who get most of their revenue from Medicare. If ruining nursing homes and rural hospitals is our goal, then voting for the Democrats' legislation is what's needed.
If, however, our highest priorities are lowering health insurance costs and increasing affordability, then there's no higher priority than defeating the Democrats' anti-reform plans.
Posted Monday, October 19, 2009 12:10 PM
No comments.
Frightened Franken?
I'm suspicious of some of the things written in this article in the St. Cloud Times. First a little background is needed.
Members of the public were able to listen in on a roundtable on health care and aging issues Sunday with U.S. Sen. Al Franken at Whitney Senior Center. The table was lined with about 10 people including caregivers, senior advocates and state legislators. State Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, and Rep. Larry Haws, DFL-St. Cloud, participated in the meeting.I've attended a few of the health care forums in St. Cloud. Saying that "about 10 people including caregivers, senior advocates" and state legislators like "Tarryl Clark Rep. Larry Haws" is saying that a group of DFL activists met with Al Franken Sunday. This paragraph raised red flags for me:
Despite a miscommunication about who could attend the meeting, about 10 people came to meet the senator and hear the discussion.What I'd like to know is what type of miscommunication happened. I'd also like to know if Sen. Franken's staff didn't send a notice to the St. Cloud Times and to WJON announcing the meeting. Did Whitney Senior Center staff botch the announcement? How did these 10 people just happen to show up there? Or is this another attempt by Sen. Franken to talk with his allies without talking with people he disagrees with?
More disappointing, though, is the spin coming from Franken's meeting:
Franken, a member of the Senate's Special Committee on Aging, discussed the need for the quality of life for seniors to remain high. He also stressed keeping seniors home and keeping them active. "What we're trying to do is incentivize and make it possible for people to stay home," Franken said. "It not only increases quality of life, but it's much cheaper. It's a win-win."Supposedly, nursing homes are one of Franken's priorities. I'm saying supposedly because he's said that he won't vote for a bill without a public option. The Democrats' bills cut Medicare payment rates, meaning less money for nursing homes.
Other topics raised during the discussion included the cost of home care, space in nursing homes, Medicare and long-term health care.
Perhaps Sen. Franken held this meeting in such a cozy setting to prevent a nosy reporter from questioning him. It's too bad that Sen. Franken doesn't have the courage to hold a real townhall where real people ask him questions. I'd submit that he won't hold that type of event because he'd be exposed as being unqualified for the office.
I'll make Sen. Franken a promise. If he holds an open townhall in St. Cloud and answers all the questions with something more than Harry Reid's talking points, I'll apologize for what I just said. If he's unwilling to hold an open townhall in St. Cloud or if he's unable to answer with detailed, nuanced answers, then I'll continue to ridicule him.
I'm confident that I won't be apologizing anytime soon.
Posted Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 20-Oct-09 06:40 AM
Unlike Michele Bachmann who holds teletownhall closed events where claques do the "questioning," this was in person. It's a step upward, whatever your complaints.
Second thought, a newspaper that does not name all ten at the table is not doing its job. If a press release was worded that way and simply flowed through w/o demanding the names, what's that reflecting on the quality of the news outlet? On its diligence?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-09 07:58 AM
Actually, Michele's teletownhalls are open to Republicans & DFL alike. I know because I've participated in calls where clearly opposition questions were asked. Michele answered those questions with the same respectful tone as those from supporters.
Second, I've attended health care events in St. Cloud. I'd be surprised if I didn't know at least half the citizens at the meeting.
Third, Eric, I totally agree with you on the paper doing its due diligence. The Times isn't famous for that.
Sen. Specter's Talking Points Dilemma
Sunday morning, I watched Sen. Specter make a fool of himself on FNS With Chris Wallace. It's a rare 'gift' he has. In a brief spurt, Sen. Specter managed to get in the b est volley of White House talking points in recent history :
SPECTER: Listen, on the Republican side, it is no, no, no, a party of obstructionism. This is no longer the party of John Heinz and Mac Mathias and Lowell Weicker. You have responsible Republicans who had been in the Senate like Howard Baker and Bob Dole and Bill Frist who say Republicans ought to cooperate.Let's see if I got them all. The Republicans only say no, no, no. They're a party of obstructionists. They're telling past leaders to stop supporting Obamacare. What's worse, they don't have a plan of their own. Finally, this isn't the party of moderates that I used to know and love. I think that's all of them.
Well, they're not cooperating. Bob Dole reportedly wouldn't even return a telephone call from a Republican leader who wanted him, who wanted him to back off. Take a look at the absence of any Republican plan.
To borrow a phrase George Will made famous: "Well."
Sen. Specter clearly isn't a primetimer on Sunday mornings anymore. His presentation is all talking points and no substance. What's worse is that his talking points are easily disproved. First, how can the Republicans be obstructionists when the Democrats have a filibuster-proof Senate? Second, while it's true that the likes of Dole and Frist support the concept of health care reform, they've never supported this specific health care reform legislation. Third, just because Sen. Specter says that Republicans don't have a plan to improve our health care system doesn't mean he isn't lying. In fact, Sen. Specter knows that Republicans have a plan. If he doesn't know that Tom Coburn and Richard Burr co-sponsored the Patients' Choice Act, then he isn't doing his job.
Sen. Specter isn't a principled man. Frankly, he's a corrupt politician, willing to sell himself to the highest bidder. Shame on Sen. Specter.
Posted Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:49 AM
No comments.
Three Cheers For Jake Tapper
After Jake Tapper confronted Robert Gibbs on the Obama administration's attacks on FNC, can it be very long before he's targeted too? Here's their exchange:
Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one ;Jake Tapper is right in questioning this administration's attempt to discredit FNC. Notice Gibbs is saying that FNC isn't a real news organization because of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Others have ceded that Beck and Hannity aren't real journalists, including Beck himself.I'll respectfully disagree, mostly because it was Sean Hannity that exposed Obama's connection with Jeremiah Wright and it's been Glenn Beck who's exposed the extremism of Van Jones, John Holdren, Cass Sunstein and Anita Dunn.
(Crosstalk)
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say ;
Gibbs: ABC -
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization"; why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That's our opinion.
This tactic is a loser for this administration. The more they attack FNC, the bigger their audience gets. The more they attack FNC, the more people see the reports about the Democrats' health care plan. The more they attack FNC, the more people see the reports critical of President Obama's economic policies. Finally, the more they attack FNC, the more people conclude that they're a whiny bunch of thin-skinned divas.
That isn't the image that the Obama administration should be cultivating.
Posted Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:54 PM
No comments.
Another Crack in the Wall
Another crack in the wall known as Charlie Crist's inevitability developed Tuesday when Sen. Jim Inhofe endorsed Marco Rubio to be the next senator from Florida:
Conservative Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has endorsed former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in Florida's open Senate race. Inhofe's endorsement means he will oppose the NRSC-backed candidate in the race, Gov. Charlie Crist (R).Couple Sen. Inhofe's endorsement with Sen. DeMint's endorsement of Rubio and Rubio suddenly has some strong conservative credibility at a time when Republicans are trending more conservative. Virginia isn't that dissimilar to Florida in that there's alot of military voters in both states as well as alot of persuadable independents. The latest polling from Virginia shows 3 solid conservatives holding 7-8 point leads in the governor's, lt. governor's and attorney general's races.
"Like me, Marco believes that the federal government works best when it returns dollars, decisions and freedom to our local communities and families," Inhofe said in a statement. "In the Senate, Marco will stand up for America's taxpayers, not with President Obama and dangerous big government spending."
The Inhofe endorsement comes a week after Rubio announced raising a strong $1 million in the third quarter. His campaign appears to have new life, as Crist's standing as the presumptive nominee begins to be called into question.
I see no reason to believe that that trend won't continue well into next year.
Couple that with Gov. Crist's campaigning with President Obama for passage of the stimulus bill and his raising taxes and you've got a fairly unattractive candidate. If it weren't for his high name recognition, he'd be toast already. With Rubio's fundraising picking up, there's plenty of time for him to erase that gap.
The thing that I'm waiting to read about is the size of Rubio's GOTV army, which I suspect will be large. It isn't a secret that Jeb Bush doesn't like Gov. Crist that much. It also isn't a secret that Jeb's chief fundraiser, Ann Herberger, is working on Rubio's campaign. Herberger's prowess shined through when Mr. Rubio reported raising $1,000,000 for Q3. Rubio's off to a good start for Q4, too, with Karl Rove already contributing $1,000 to Rubio's campaign.
There are too many intangibles to ignore Rubio, though that's precisely what establishment Republicans are trying to do. This race will get alot more competitive in the months to come. At some point, people will notice that it's a real race with the consistent conservative being the supposed underdog and with the establishment's more liberal favorite. I'm betting that the establishment RINO won't play well in this TEA Party environment.
Posted Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:44 PM
No comments.
