October 27-31, 2009
Oct 27 01:57 Pawlenty Endorses Hoffman Oct 28 06:30 TPaw Slices, Dices Opt-Out Plan Oct 30 02:36 Tarryl Raises Minnesota Cash Oct 31 06:40 Stuck On Stupid Oct 31 09:30 This Doesn't Fit The Dems' Template UPDATE: SCOZZAFAVA SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Pawlenty Endorses Hoffman
Tim Pawlenty made it official Monday. He officially endorsed Doug Hoffman to be the next representative for NY-23. RedState's Erick Erickson made this statement about Gov. Pawlenty's endorsement:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is now adding to the momentum becoming the first sitting Republican Governor to endorse Hoffman. This comes on the heels of Sarah Palin's endorsement from last week.People have questioned Gov. Pawlenty's ties to the GOP establishment. Clearly, he wasn't seen in the same light as Sarah Palin as an outsider out to clean up the political establishment. Because he's been seen as a party man, this move changes people's perspectives.
What makes this stand out even more than the Palin endorsement is that Pawlenty has not been seen as diverging with the Republican establishment. He's not seen as the maverick that Palin is.
But Pawlenty has a huge amount of stature inside the Republican establishment, more so than Palin. That he is now willing to come out in favor of Hoffman is going to resonate among the Republican establishment in ways Palin's endorsement will not.
Here's the statement Gov. Pawlenty sent to RedState:
"We cannot send more politicians to Washington who wear the Republican jersey on the campaign trail, but then vote like Democrats in Congress on issues like card check and taxes. After reviewing the candidates' positions, I'm endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York's special election. Doug understands the federal government needs to quit spending so much, will vote against tax increases, and protect key values like the right to vote in private in union elections."The momentum is clearly shifting in Hoffman's favor. Getting Pawlenty's endorsement adds to that momentum.
It also helps his fundraising down the stretch. It doesn't say that FFPAC contributed to his campaign so I won't speculate on that. Still, every day that a new endorsement goes his way keeps Hoffman as the story. He's essentially sucking all the oxygen out of the race, which means he's got a legitimate shot at winning.
That must be getting under the NY GOP's party bosses' skin. They thought they could pick a liberal without worrying about consequences. That's clearly not the case. In 7 days, the will of the people will be known. I doubt that the party bosses' priorities will be the same as the voters of NY-23.
Thanks to Pawlenty's endorsement, Hoffman's chances of winning are getting better every day.
Erick is quick to point out in this post that there are consequences for not endorsing Doug Hoffman:
At a time when the conservative brand is ascending and the Republican brand is still in the gutter, candidates like Romney and Huckabee have a chance to man up and stand with the base of the GOP, a base that is tired of TARP, No Child Left Behind, indictments, and out of control spending.Perhaps Romney and Huckabee think that there's an advantage to being the establishment, go-along-to-get-along candidate. They're badly mistaken if they think that. We're living in a TEA Party world. Establishment isn't where the action is. Establishment is where candidates like Romney and Huckabee go to their political graveyard.
If candidates step up before noon Wednesday, we should applaud them for their help. An endorsement by that time can still have a meaningful, positive impact on Doug Hoffman's candidacy.
But know this: waiting until after noon on Wednesday is a clear indication that the candidate is endorsing for show, and not really to help. We in the conservative movement want leaders who will stand with us, not suck up to us. Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty are breaking with the party at a key moment.
I'll differ with Erick in this: Even if Romney and Huckabee endorse Hoffman, I'll still wonder whether their endorsements are nothing but political opportunism. It isn't like it'd be the first time with either of these gentlemen.
That's what sets Palin, Pawlenty, Fred Thompson, Rick Santorum and others apart from the Romneys and Huckabees of the GOP universe.
Posted Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:36 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Oct-09 07:05 PM
What a man of conscience.
TPaw Slices, Dices Opt-Out Plan
One thing that's clear from Tim Pawlenty's interview with Greta Van Susteren is that he isn't a fan of Harry Reid's latest gimmick to sell the public option:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: It seems like a simple question, but apparently it isn't. What is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care plan? Senator Reid says a government-run public option will be in the bill but states will be allowed to opt out of the plan. But what does that really mean?It isn't much of an opt-out if you're still required to pay taxes on something that you aren't using. That sounds more like a rip-off. What incentive is there to opt out?
Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty runs a state, as we just noted. Hopefully, he can answer some of those questions. The Governor is here with us. Governor, what is this opt-out plan? I understand if you don't want to be in something, you can opt out. But what does it really mean?
GOV. TIM PAWLENTY, R-MINN.: Well, we don't know yet, Greta, but what we know for sure is this. Government-run health care is a bad idea. I hope it gets killed. But now they're offering up the opt-out as an alternative. The Democrats are. And I think it's going to end up being a sham because there are reports that I'm getting, at least, from Republican sources that the opt-out is going to require you to pay the money ahead of time, in other words, pay increased taxes for four years, then the program will fully kick in four years out. And even if you do opt out, your state and your citizens have to continue to pay their share of the bill.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you know any governors who have come forward or said, Hey, that sounds like a great idea, even a Democratic governor?The notion that the government is simply a competitor is insane. Instead, they're a predator. They don't need to make a profit. Instead, they'll just raise taxes to make up for their inefficient operations. That's what they've always done. That's what they'll always do. It's the nature of the beast.
PAWLENTY: Well, I am sure there are many who do like government-run health care, most of the folks on the other side of the aisle. I do not. I think we've got a, you know, philosophical problem here and a financial problem. I don't like the idea of the government taking stuff over. Like I said before, what's next? If you're concerned about toothpaste prices, are we going to have government-run Wal-Marts? If we're concerned about gasoline prices, is the government going to take over the gas station down the street from my house? This is a very slippery slope and it's inconsistent with the tradition that this country's economy was built on.
VAN SUSTEREN: What you think possesses Senator Reid? Because the thing that I find the most curious about it is that there are, there were hearings held, and the hearings coming out of the Senate Finance Committee and the HELP Committee in the Senate, HELP Committee came out with a public option, not with a trigger, not with an opt-out, but just a public option. The Senate Finance had no public option. And then suddenly, essentially, Senator Reid goes behind closed doors, and suddenly, there's new provision, this opt-out. What possessed him to do this?I've said before that this is the Democrats' Holy Grail, their crowning achievement. If they passed this, they'd die contented. It isn't that it's good policy. It's that they've wanted this so badly so long that they just want it so bad they can taste it.
PAWLENTY: I think, Greta, if you know anything about Democrat party politics, within their party, the universal health care or single-payer health care or government-run health care part of their party is very militant. And this is not just, you know, an accident or good public policy. This is driven by partisan, liberal, bare-knuckled pressure and politics. And that's what's driving this decision making. It's a bad idea. The country doesn't like it. But they won't let go of it, I think, because of internal liberal politics.
I've said before that it's better to approach it from an affordability standpoint so more people think it's worth buying, whether they're young people or middle class folks that think it isn't worth buying AT CURRENT PRICES.
It's time that Washington started over with a different premise.
Gov. Pawlenty just couldn't let it go without needling Greta for being a Packer fan:
VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned the word jersey, and I got to go, but I just have to point out one other thing. I'm going to be on a plane. I'll be out of the country. I'm going to miss the game this weekend with your Minnesota Vikings against the Green Bay Packers. But I'll be anxious to see what happens, Governor.Tim Pawlenty's sense of humor will serve him well in Iowa and New Hampshire.
PAWLENTY: Well, I will, too. But I think it'll look a lot like that game in the Metrodome that broke your heart.
VAN SUSTEREN: I'm not so sure! I mean, you know, this is one of the peculiar things where, you know, I love to watch Brett Favre play because he loves the game. And of course, I got a long history with the Packers, so I'm very conflicted on this one. But Governor, thank you very much. Thank you, sir.
Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:30 AM
Comment 1 by apathyboy at 28-Oct-09 11:23 AM
If you believe that the Democrats are trying to elminate private insurance companies (if you don't just say so) what do you believe is their motive for doing so?
[I'm not trying to be rhetorical, I'm honestly curious.]
Comment 2 by eric z. at 29-Oct-09 01:15 PM
Gary, hello. That apathyboy question is a good one. Clearly if that's the thinking as you suggest, and unless you say they are irredeemably evil, which you have never said, it would have to be because they think they are doing the right thing. So I guess there's a sub-question there. Would it be a bad thing? Are they wrong? Or, what's the good of keeping insurance private? With marketing and profit and higher-than-public-sector wages, where's the efficiency of opposing them?
Tarryl Raises Minnesota Cash
According to this Strib article , Tarryl Clark is raising money in Minnesota. It sounds like her campaign is thinking of this as a non-endorsement endorsement:
What does the candidate's staff say about the non-endorcement endorsements? "We are proud to have the support of thousands of Minnesotans in this campaign, including many whom Tarryl has a long history of working alongside," Clark spokeswoman Andrea Mokros said via e-mail.It's been obvious from the outset that Tarryl would be able to raise alot of money in challenging Michele. The questions that still remain are whether she's a good fit for the district and whether she's able to catch up with Michele in CoH. My opinion is that the right answer is no to both questions.
Tarryl would have faced a tough fight had she run for the SD-15 state senate seat again because she'd lost most of her support from the St. Cloud business community. Now she's facing a similar dilemma but on a bigger scale. Twin Cities businesspeople have seen her voting for the biggest tax increases in state history.
They've also read about her enthusiastic support of the pro-choice position. That isn't a good mix in a district that's been called "Minnesota's Bible Belt." While Tarryl has worked hard to portray herself as a centrist, her voting record SHOUTS that she isn't.
Meanwhile, Michele is a near-perfect fit for this district. Michele's portrayed herself as a conservative from Day One. She's consistently voted that way from the outset. Her conservative credentials are impeccable. Almost as important as Michele's voting record is that she's who she's always said she was: a social and fiscal conservative.
In a district that's socially and fiscally conservative, that's a great advantage.
Another thing that Michele's got going for her is her celebrity. She's the darling of the Club For Growth, conservative talk radio and FNC. Michele's got a strong, national fundraising circuit to draw from. That will help her maintain a CoH advantage over Tarryl.
It's too early to predict a winner in this race but it isn't too early to say that Michele starts with several advantages over Tarryl, including fundraising. After that, it's a matter of who's a better fit for this district and who runs the better campaign. If a Stuart Rothenberg or a Charlie Cook was rating this race, they'd categorize it as leans GOP or strong GOP. They wouldn't rate it a tossup.
Posted Friday, October 30, 2009 2:36 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Oct-09 11:08 AM
Michele needs a third term to maximize the pension take down the government [aka taxpayers] will suffer for her having gone to DC.
For one who preaches all the time against government subsidy, she will not turn down the pension, nor the Bachmann Wisconsin family diary farm subsidies.
She's apparently of two minds over too much government, when that's bad, when it's okay.
Comment 2 by Eva Young at 31-Oct-09 12:29 PM
Michele Bachmann failed to get the St Cloud Chamber of Commerce endorsement the last time she ran. I don't think the business community is behind either candidate.
Stuck On Stupid
Ever since last November's elections, it seems like the Democratic Party is stuck on stupid. The WSJ's Daniel Henninger suggests that it's more like they're stuck in the stone age in some important respects :
If you're an elected Democrat anywhere to the right of Barney Frank, and trying to defend a competitive seat next November, you've got to be starting to sweat.In an age of customization, the Democrats are pushing a one-size-fits-all health care model. Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama must know that they're leading their party off an electoral cliff, especially Thursday's release of a gigantic 1,990 page health care bill in the House. They've got to know that alot of Democrats who were elected in swing districts will get defeated.
You wake up in the morning and just like every other morning as far as the eye can see the only thing in the news is the president's health-care reform. It's starting to look like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are leading the Donner Party, the snowbound emigrants who bogged down in the Sierra Nevada winter in the 1840s and resorted to cannibalism to survive.
The betting is that with raw political muscle and procedural magic, the Congressional Democrats will pass something, call it reform and hand Barack Obama a "victory." Maybe, but I think what we are seeing with this massive legislation is that the Democrats in Washington have a bigger problem: Their party is looking so yesterday.
In a world defined by nearly 100,000 iPhone apps, a world of seemingly limitless, self-defined choice, the Democrats are pushing the biggest, fattest, one-size-fits all legislation since 1965 . And they brag this will complete the dream Franklin D. Roosevelt had in 1939.
During his address to the joint session of Congress, President Obama said that the bill he'd sign couldn't cost more than $900,000,000,000 and it couldn't add a penny to the deficit. According to CBO, it fails on both counts. According to CBO's scoring, the bill costs $1,055,000,000,000 :
The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so.The CBO just admitted what the Democrats don't want you to hear: that penalties to employers or employees account for $161,000,000,000. Americans for Tax Reform has put together a list of taxes included in this bill:
Penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, would raise $161 billion over that time-frame. That brings the net cost of the bill to $894 billion through 2019, CBO said.
That's thirteen tax increases. In the Senate Finance Committee bill, texcise tax on medical devices totaled $121,000,000,000, which drew the ire of Tim Pawlenty, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. Sen. Klobuchar is drafting legislation to eliminate that tax because it would hurt Minnesota companies like Boston Scientific and Medtronic.Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee's health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent ( <$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted. Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).
Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.
Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent-a new effective top rate.
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.
Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act.
Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.
Codification of the "Economic Substance Doctrine" (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Application of "More Likely Than Not" Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.
That's before we talk about the $245,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts that won't happen. Yes, it's the same $245,000,000,000 that was defeated 47-53. Not only couldn't Harry Reid not get close to ending the filibuster, he didn't even get 50 Democrats to vote for this sleight of hand gimmick.
Adding back in the $245,000,000,000 of Medicare cuts adds to the $1,055,000,000,000 initial price tag, putting the total at $1,300,000,000,000. After subtracting out the $245,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts that won't be realized (which Pelosi's bill promises) and the $121,000,000,000 in medical device tax increases adds up to $366,000,000,000 of deficit spending.
Meanwhile, the bill does nothing to drive down defensive medicine costs, does nothing to eliminate lawsuit abuse and does nothing to give single people and families the flexibility they insist on.
Only in Washington, DC could something like this be considered a reform.
Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 6:56 AM
No comments.
This Doesn't Fit The Dems' Template UPDATE: SCOZZAFAVA SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN
According to this press release , Christian conservatives are enthusiastically rallying to Doug Hoffman's campaign. This certainly doesn't fit the Democrats' template that Christian conservatives are hurting the GOP's chances of electoral victories. For that matter, it doesn't fit the template of many just-barely-center-right Republicans like Lindsey Graham, either.
Social conservatives are expanding their efforts to support Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in next week's special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. The Susan B. Anthony List, in partnership with the National Organization for Marriage, is leading the social conservative effort to mobilize votes for Hoffman. The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List has spent over $125,000 in the race so far, including over $50,000 in pro-Hoffman radio ads. Hoffmann materials and signs are being distributed so fast that the organization had to order an additional 50,000 pieces of candidate comparison literature just to keep up with demand.That's the type of enthusiastic GOTV operation that every candidate dreams of having. There's a lesson in this if the GOP is willing to listen. (Unfortunately, I'm not certain they are willing to listen.) That lesson is that milquetoast traditional candidates don't inspire people to work passionately for them. We needn't look further than John McCain's campaign for proof.
"Doug Hoffman's surge in the polls matches a corresponding surge in action by enthusiastic grassroots activists across the district," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "It's amazing how many veteran political observers got it wrong, spinning this story in the conventional 'conservatives as GOP electoral spoiler' narrative. To the contrary, there is a unique reason so many are endorsing a third party candidate for the first time, the GOP choice was the least desirable of the three candidates. Doug Hoffman provides pro-life people a viable choice."
The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund, in partnership with the National Organization for Marriage, is organizing the conservative grassroots ground program in the district. Field staff are recruiting over 200 volunteers to staff polls on election day, canvass churches, and distribute literature, lapel stickers and yard signs across the district. The fund is also sponsoring over 150,000 robocalls and live GOTV calls to identified pro-life voters in the district.
"Our efforts on the ground give a voice to the thousands of voters in the district who believe that life, marriage, and fiscal responsibility all matter. We didn't create these people. They were there all along, despite being ignored by the Republican Party. This is not an issue of making perfect the enemy of the good, but the good as the enemy of the unacceptable. And if things continue on this track the good guy, Doug Hoffman, will prevail on November 3rd."
Another lesson worthy of the GOP's attention is that picking true conservatives in districts where they have a good shot at winning will make fundraising immensely easier. After seeing the Obama administration's spending/bailout spree, people are looking for fiscal conservatives more than ever before, more than they were looking for one when Reagan entered the national stage.
Settling for candidates like Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Charlie Crist and Dede Scozzafava is the best way to pour cold water on the fire that the TEA Party activists and townhall goers are generating. If the GOP embraces the TEA Party activists, they'll score a resounding victory in 2010. That's because they'll be on the positive side of the enthusiasm gap that Democrats had in 2006 and 2008.
Carly Fiorina thinks that free speech needs regulation . Charlie Crist thinks that wasteful federal spending is the right economic elixir . These aren't the best candidates available. In fact, if the Heffley-Hitler-Crist scandal continues growing, which I'm betting it will, Crist might be forced to end his campaign.
Here's another lesson that national GOP strategists must learn ASAP: Pick the candidate with gravitas and charisma over the candidate with the built-in fundraising network and name recognition. We've seen what Ron Paul and Howard Dean did through the internet fundraising network. Anyone caring to wager that Jason Chaffetz, Marco Rubio and Doug Hoffman won't be properly funded in 2010 should contact me ASAP. I can use the easy money I'd make on those bets.
UPDATE: WOW!!! I didn't see this coming:
Dede Scozzafava, the Republican and Independence parties candidate, announced Saturday that she is suspending her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District and releasing all her supporters.Saying that this changes the dynamics of the race is understatement. WOW!!!
The state Assemblywoman has not thrown her support to either Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, or Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate.
"Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community," Ms. Scozzafava wrote in a letter to friends and supporters. "It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations."
UPDATE II: My Representative in the U.S. House, Michele Bachmann, issued this statement on Dede Scozzafava's dropping out of the race:
First I want to thank Dede Scozzafava for her hard-fought campaign in this special election. And, I'd especially like to thank her for dropping out of this race for the good of the Party. I'm certain that it was not an easy decision for her to make, but it was the right one.
I'd also like to urge anyone who can help Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in that race, to mobilize all their energy and resources to ensure Hoffman's victory next Tuesday.
The polls all show that Hoffman's message of fiscal responsibility and conservatism are resonating strongly with the voters in that district. I am very hopeful that they will send him across the finish line in first place Tuesday night.
Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 1:56 PM
Comment 1 by CottonMan at 31-Oct-09 01:43 PM
Let Freedom Ring in a new political party. The Republicans no longer listen to us...they feed their candidates to us & we have to vote for them. I say that we get a 3rd option & maybe this is the election where the Conservatie Party can win & incite others to run outside the mainstream. It happened earlier this year in Europe.
If you want a great read then I am encouraging others to read about a small town in America that fought federal tyranny, corrupt politicians & bureaucrats & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. It's insightful & has the current issues facing us now. It's a great read!!
www.booksbyoliver.com
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Oct-09 01:48 PM
Reagan didn't like the GOP of 1976. Rather than starting a third party, he simply grew his conservative base, got them involved in GOP activism & took over the party. Third parties are better in concept than in actuality. It's better to clean up the party you've got than to rebuild from scratch.
