September 13-14, 2008
Sep 13 10:22 A New Phenomenon: Obama Fallout Sep 14 00:17 Summarizing Friday's Debate Sep 14 15:29 This is What Stupidity Looks Like Sep 14 17:39 Vikings Lose: TJax & Shiancoe Stink
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
A New Phenomenon: Obama Fallout
Democratic strategists are so worried about Sen. Obama being a drag downticket that they've started planning for that contingency . Here's what an anonymous fundraiser said about that problem:
"If people are voting for McCain, it could help Republicans all the way down the ticket, even in a year when the Democrats should be sweeping all before us," said the fundraiser, a former Hillary Clinton supporter. "There is a growing sense of doom among Democrats I have spoken to. People are going crazy, telling the campaign 'you've got to do something'."This quote tells me several things, starting with the fact that this is proof that Washington insiders shouldn't run campaigns. Washington insiders, by nature, are defeatists. Defeatists are easily rolled. They're often panicky.
Second, that quote tells me that the Democrats aren't anchored to something solid that they can turn to when they're experiencing a rough patch. When Sen. Obama's 'friends' told him he can't get swiftboated, he started taking ill-advised shots at Gov. Palin, something that's backfired badly on him.
When his plans backfired, Obama's advisers didn't have something to fall back on. When Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992, anytime he got in trouble, he'd return to his 'I'm going to focus on the economy like a laser beam' position. Soon things stabilized. Sen. Obama doesn't have that issue that he can return to and stabilize. BTW, Hope and change aren't issues, they're themes.
Tony Podesta, a senior Democratic lobbyist, said members of Congress were "a little nervous" after Mr McCain shook up the race with his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate and intensified attacks on Mr Obama. "Republicans have been on the offensive for the past two weeks. You don't win elections on the defensive."That you don't, Tony. You dodn't win elections when you're flailing, either, which is what Sen. Obama is doing right now. Democrats likely will face a decision about whether to be seen wih Sen. Obama in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana.
House Democrats likely face another decision, namely should they run away from Speaker Pelosi. People remember her memo telling vulnerables to say whatever they needed to say:
But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she's encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.The NRCC would be wise to put out ads asking whether vulnerables would talk a good game on drilling but stop short of abandoning Ms. Pelosi. There's signs that they might actually abandon Ms. Pelosi. If that happens, expect panic to kick into a higher gear.
The closer you get to an election, the more scrutiny each event gets. Any sign of weakness gets notice and the chance for overreactions increases. Whatever the case, this could be a fun last 50+ days.
Posted Saturday, September 13, 2008 10:38 PM
Comment 1 by lkhllywd at 13-Sep-08 02:35 PM
"Phenomena" is plural. The singular is "phenomenon," as in, "A New Phenomenon."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Sep-08 10:38 PM
Good point. What can I say? I'm human.
Summarizing Friday's Debate
Friday morning, I liveblogged the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce Voter Forum. Now that I've had some time to think things through, several things are apparent.
Steve Gottwalt gave a commanding performance. Several times, Rep. Gottwalt's statements advocated pro-growth policies, including tax rates and regulatory burdens. Rep. Gottwalt's quote that "It's time for governmnent to get off businesses' backs" was clearly well-received.
That's a nice seque into my second observation: I didn't think Joanne Dorsher connected with the audience. One of her answers was bizarre at best. The candidates were asked what could be done to make Minnesota more business-friendly. Ms. Dorsher's statement started with "Yes, we have to look at taxes", before talking about the need for "better living wage laws." That's just another regulation that employers would have to deal with. It's worth noting that Ms. Dorsher's response followed Rep. Gottwalt's answer in which he talked about better tax rates and less regulatory burdens.
Frankly, I didn't think she came across as sincere about examining marginal tax rates. I thought this was a purely reflexive response to Rep. Gottwalt's answer, which clearly found favor with the Chamber audience.
Rep. Gottwalt got into a spat with Ms. Dorsher about taxes and closing the budget deficit. Both Ms. Dorsher and Rep. Gottwalt got a questionnaire from AFSCME. Here's the wording of Q13:
Many believe we will have a billion dollar deficit in the first year of the upcoming state budget biennium. Do you support raising the revenue necessary (e.g. raising taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans and corporations) to close this deficit? If not, how do you propose to deal with the deficit?Here's Ms. Dorsher's answer:
"Yes. We must seek all sources of revenue."It's important that we notice the wording. Saying that "we must seek all sources of revenue" means that she's talking about more than one tax increase, a rather disquieting thought.
The thing I noticed with Larry Haws was how little he talked about private sector jobs. The only time I recall him talking about the private sector jobs was (a) when he talked about his family owning Farmers Market just outside St. Cloud and (b) when he talked about the impact the Civic Center expansion would have on restaurants and other downtown businesses.
My impression is that Larry's committed to a public works-based budget, which is erratic at best. If you look at the history of budget deficits and surpluses, Minnesota's chart would look like a mountain range. Larry has often defended this by saying that these are important projects. To an extent he's right. Unfortunately, he's missing the bigger picture.
1) Public schools are hurt by having that type of volatility in revenues. They get a funding increase one year, then see it reduced the next. That type of instability can't help schools' budgetting process.
2) If the legislature took a more pro-growth perspective to taxes, we could build a sustainable economy that would stabilize revenues for school districts.
3) Finally, having a pro-growth business climate gives businesses a reason to expand into Minnesota.
One thing that St. Cloud Chamber President Theresa Bohnen highlighted was that Outback Steakhouse left the state. They're still doing very well nationwide. In fact, I talked with one Chamber member who was a regular visitor on Friday nights. This member said that the crows were still large.
That points to one diagnosis: that Outback left because Minnesota's hostile business environment.
Rep. Haws and Ms. Dorsher clearly aren't pro-business. They haven't figured out that small businesses aren't just tax collecting units taht support their public works economy.
One last thing about Rep. Haws: Early in the forum, he mentioned his record of public service. He hasn't had any appreciable experience with the private sector in half a century. Is this the type of representation we want in St. Paul? Or do we want someone with genuine private sector experience. That brings us to just such a candidate, Josh Behling.
Josh Behling has been involved with Buffalo's Chamber of Commerce prior to moving to St. Cloud. He's currently employed by a local granite company. Part of Josh Behling's responsibilities are dealing with the emplyoee's benefit packages. This year, Josh took the initiative to include HSA's in their company's benefits package. That makes employees health care shoppers rather than health care consumers. Anytime businesses have to compete for the right to serve people is a situation where the people win.
It's clear that Josh understands the imporatance of a vibrant private sector economy. That's a stark contrast with Rep. Haws. It's obvious that Josh would work towards a more business friendly climate if he's elected. He'd be a stark improvement over Larry in that Larry isn't interested in a private sector economy.
There's an important point that can't be highlighted enough. Liberals like saying that our business climate (taxes and regulations) are fine, that we aren't driving businesses away. If that's the case, why did 3M pull its headquarters from Minnesota? Why did Outback Steakhouse close all its restaurants in Minnesota?
Most importantly, why hasn't Minnesota seen any high-tech businesses move here or start here in God knows how long? I posed that question to King recently. He thought that was "an interesting point", one which the DFL doesn't have the answer for.
If the business climate is so good, why aren't we a magnet for high-tech, good-paying jobs? It's obvious that Larry Haws doesn't have a clue about market-based private sector jobs. It's obvious that Joanne Dorsher isn't any better.
Minnesota's recent history has seen volatile swings from big deficits to big surpluses and back again. That's because we don't have a thriving, growing private sector. That's directly attributable to the worthless business climate.
That business climate won't improve with the DFL controlling the legislature. That's why the most important thing to take from Friday's debate is that the DFL is hostile to businesses.
Posted Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:18 AM
Comment 1 by Chuck Hardin at 14-Sep-08 01:24 PM
Outback Steakhouse is not closing in Minnesota generally, just in St. Cloud. Also, one restaurant chain would not establish a persuasive trend, even if your news item were true, which it is not.
It took me two minutes to falsify you on this point. I see no reason to believe you on any other facts you assert.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-08 02:26 PM
There's been over half a dozen restaurants that've closed.
Comment 3 by Chuck Hardin at 14-Sep-08 03:02 PM
You probably want to cite a source on that. What are you, the New York Times?
Comment 4 by Chuck Hardin at 14-Sep-08 03:04 PM
Ah, you mean other non-Outback restaurants. That's nice, but it's not what you claimed about Outback, and it proves nothing about Minnesota's business climate generally.
Admit your error and get it over with.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-08 03:32 PM
One of the questions at the candidate forum was about Outback leaving the state & why so many restaurants have gone belly up within the last couple months.
Comment 6 by Chuck Hardin at 14-Sep-08 04:01 PM
Outback isn't leaving the state. If you have proof that it is, please post it.
You seem particularly resistant to backing your mouth with anything but more mouth, and you won't admit mistakes. You probably think this looks like strength. It isn't. It's a weakness, and it makes you unworthy of trust.
Back your claim or retract it.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-08 04:43 PM
Charlie, I told you where I got that information from. You might not like what I said but that's where I got the information from.
If you don't like it, go find another blog to read.
Comment 8 by Chuck Hardin at 14-Sep-08 04:49 PM
Thanks for the invitation to the egress, but I'm enjoying myself here.
You don't check your facts and you won't admit error. Thanks for so advising your readers.
This is What Stupidity Looks Like
This Washington Examiner article shows how stupid some senators are. Here's the proof justifying my statement:
Chambliss and Isakson dismiss the criticism, arguing that voters want Congress to set aside differences and agree on something that will make a difference, even if it requires trade-offs.Sen. Chambliss and Sen. Isakson couldn't be further from the truth. The Gang of 10 legislation wouldn't appreciably drop prices at the pump. That's the only criteria that people care about. If playing hardball is what reduces the price at the pump, then that's what they're content with. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PRICE.
Let's frame this a different way. If Democrats stand in the way of progress, we expect Republicans to expose them as working against the will of the American people. At that point, We The People will let our voices be heard. If the Democrats persist in working against actually increasing drilling, then we'll make certain that their colleagues pay a price at the polls this November.
Let's remember that Democrats don't have the votes in the House to pass a CR that would maintain the drilling moratoria. Eventually, Democrats will be forced to pass a CR that doesn't extend the moratoria on the OCS. That puts an exceptional amount of pressure on Harry Reid's Democrats. If the Senate Democrats don't ratify the House's CR, Democrats are on the hook for shutting down the government. Does anyone think that Reid's Democrats won't cave at that point?
Picture this headline a month before the election:
Reid, Pelosi Can't Agree on Drilling Bill, Government Shuts DownI said here that the Gang of 16 should stop negotiating and accept victory. It's time Sens. Chambliss, Isakson and the rest of the Gang of 16 Republicans started listening to the will of the American people instead of getting caught up in Washingtonspeak that says "Congress [should] set aside differences and agree on something that will make a difference."
The legislation isn't compromise. It's total capitulation by Senate Republicans. The bill doesn't do nearly enough to lower gas prices. The Gang of 16 legislation doesn't do enough to get nuclear power plants built. The Gang of 16 legislation nullifies the hard work and smart legislation that the House Republicans have crafted.
Simply put, if the Gang of 16 Republicans up for re-election don't pay attention to We The People, they'll make the race much closer than it needs to be. Those Gang of 16 Republicans up for re-election in 2010 will find themselves facing well-financed primary challengers.
Posted Sunday, September 14, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 14-Sep-08 04:05 PM
The problem is that members of the gang 10 or is that 16 now think in terms the people want legislation to pass. They still have to remember the principal that a good bill should be passed instead of a bad bill.
The people will understand opposing a bad bill. The people will punish voting for bad bill.
Of course it's those silly beltway pundits that think in terms of passing a bill works wonders.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Vikings Lose: TJax & Shiancoe Stink
The code from the lockerroom is that "there's alot of season left" and that it isn't time for panicking. The reality, though, is that Tarvaris Jackson and Visanthe Shiancoe lost the game today. The defense played exceptional ball in the first half. The defense played well in the second half, too, though not as well as in the second half.
There's a couple reasons for the defense not playing as well in the second half. First, they were on the field too long in the second half. That leads to the second point. If you give Peyton that many opportunities, he'll eventually figure things out.
The reason why the defense was on the field too long today is easily pinpointed:
Tarvaris Jackson was disastrously inconsistent and Visanthe Shiancoe dropped a pass in the back of the end zone in the second quarter with no one within 5 yards of him. Had he caught that pass, the score at that point would've been 10-0 instead of 6-0. had Garrett Mills or even Jim Kleinsasser been the TE in the back of the end zone, it's likely a 10-0 game.
I just listened to the KFAN's Vikings Fan Line with Jeff Dubay and Mike Morris. Morris' frustration was palpable. He mentioned TJax's mechanics being sloppy. He talked about some throws that sailed that wouldn't have had he used proper mechanics.
Next week is line in the sand week. If Tarvaris Jackson doesn't throw for 200 yards, then he's gotta go. I'm under no illusion. I don't think Gus Frerotte is a game-changer but he'll at least make enough plays to keep the defense honest. That said, alot of veteran QB's have been plugged into this system and looked bad. I strongly suspect that TJax is part of the problem and that Chilly is the other part of the problem.
Zygi has proven that he's willing to spend the money, unlike his predecessor. If this season goes poorly like I think it will, then it's time to lure Bill Cowher out of retirement. It's also time to either draft a quality big-school QB or sign a quality FA QB. I wouldn't be opposed to giving up a pick for Brady Quinn, either.
I don't have the answers but I know this isn't working. AD is a stud but he's getting pounded because they're playing eight guys in the box. That's because our QB isn't consistent and because our playcalling stinks and politics aren't letting the coaches put the right people in the right places to win.
If you're trying to sneak a TE into the back of the end zone, isn't it logical that that TE be one that's likely to catch the pass? Politics is why Shiancoe was out there. They gave him a big contract that wasn't warranted. He shouldn't be on the field in that situation. At best, he should be kept in for protection.
Signing Shiancoe was a mistake. Daniel Graham was on the market, too. Graham was a productive TE with the Patriots. Why they didn't pursue him instead of Shiancoe is beyond me. Now they're playing Shiancoe because they've given him a big contract, not because he's earned playing time.
Posted Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:39 PM
No comments.
