September 23-24, 2008
Sep 23 00:54 Tinklenberg To Team With Jim Oberstar On Earmark Reform Sep 23 10:57 Pelosi's Stealth Energy Embargo Sep 23 11:21 Another Day, Another Forum Sep 23 17:05 Chamber Health Care Forum Sep 23 19:49 Sen. Gaffemaster Keeps Chugging Along Sep 23 20:16 This Isn't Final Victory....YET Sep 24 00:39 What Are Rob Jacobs' Qualifications? Sep 24 01:11 Leader Boehner's Impactful Statement Sep 24 16:29 Obama: The Debate Must Go On; McCain: Let's Solve This Crisis
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Tinklenberg To Team With Jim Oberstar On Earmark Reform
Monday afternoon, I posted my notes from Monday's candidate forum on transportation issues hosted by the Minnesota Transportation Alliance at St. Cloud's Kelly Inn. Rob Jacobs provided the most astonishing quote of the day when he admitted that "I'm not a transportation expert so I won't pretend to be."
That said, I could make a powerful case that El Tinklenberg's statement that he'd go to Washington and "work with my good friend Jim Oberstar" on earmark reform was the most astonishing quote of the day. First off, thinking that a lobbyist working with an entrenched incumbent who's used to getting lots of earmarks will result in true earmark reform doesn't pass the laugh test. Mr. Tinklenberg is right that we need greater transparency in earmarks. It isn't possible to picture such a man as leading the charge against K Street.
I can't picture him taking on John Murtha, David Obey and Jim Oberstar on earmark transparency. That group wants to airdrop a few hundred (thousand?) earmarks into a conference report without disclosing their requests. Does that trio sound like they're interested in transparency?
It's worth noting that Mr. Tinklenberg said that he looks forward to working with Rep. Oberstar on next year's Transportation reauthorization bill. That's a Republican's worst nightmare. You'd see more pork in CD-6 than at a bacon and eggs brunch.
That's quid pro quo you could bet on.
Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:54 AM
No comments.
Pelosi's Stealth Energy Embargo
At midnight of October 1, the ban on oil exploration and production could come to an end. It would also mean that the federal government would shut down temporarily. In the meantime, Speaker Pelosi is trying to pass a continuing resolution that includes an extension of the various moratoria. Here's the statement from the Institute for Energy Research:
Having failed to pass the required measures to fund the government for the next fiscal year, Congress must now pass what is known as a Continuing Resolution (CR) in order to avoid a government shutdown. A draft of the resolution contains a provision taken from the recently passed House bill, H.R. 6899 , to continue the ban on energy exploration and production on nearly all of the taxpayer owned Outer Continental Shelf in the lower 48 states for another year. At present, the ban is set to expire at the end of September . Dan Kish, Senior Vice President for Policy at IER issued the following statement:Speaker Pelosi has made it clear through her actions that she isn't interested in increasing oil production. Quite the contrary. She's doing everything possible to "save the planet" while letting working people suffer through high gas prices in the summer and step heating bills in the winter.
"In 9 days the long-outdated ban on energy exploration on the energy rich, taxpayer-owned Outer Continental Shelf will come to an end. But like a thief in the night, it appears our government is attempting to sneak a new energy ban into a must-pass spending measure, thus continuing the decades-old, government-imposed American energy embargo ."
"This move makes it clear that our government would prefer to stick it to Main Street as they bail out Wall Street. With continued record gasoline prices and high home heating bills right around the corner, American families are calling for increased domestic energy exploration and production, not less. Letting the OCS ban expire, as scheduled, is an important component of a sound national energy policy and adheres to the well-known precept of first do no harm. Extending the ban fails that test."
The language from the draft CR is as follows:
FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASING; INTERIOR:
SEC. 152. Notwithstanding section 101, the terms and conditions for Federal oil and gas leasing set out in title I of the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 6899), as passed by the House of Representatives on September 16, 2008, shall apply in lieu of the terms and conditions in sections 104, 105, and 433 of division F of Public Law 110; 161.
In 2004, John Kerry talked about how Bush administration policies had created a middle class squeeze. The accusations weren't true but that's what his mantra was. Compared to those economic conditions, you'd have to say that the conditions we're facing now aren't just a squeeze; they're a choke hold that's choking the life out of our economy.
There's only one group that can justifiably be blamed for this oil crisis. That's the Democrats. They passed a bill in 2007 that they said would make us less dependent on foreign oil. It failed so miserably that they returned to the issue eight months later. That's when Ms. Pelosi started acting like a dictator, not allowing Republican amendments to any of the Democrats' bills.
It isn't coincidence that prices started rising quickly after the bill passed in 2007. I think they're a direct result of the bill. Passing that bill told commodity markets that the United States would be putting itself at the mercy of OPEC rather than bringing our supplies online.
The national average of a gallon of gasoline was $2.46 on Election Day, 2006. Eighteen months later, that national average had risen to $4.10 a gallon. According to my trusty calculator, that's a 67% jump.
My dad always taught my brother and I that "Stupidity is was gets people in trouble. Pride is what keeps them there." I've always tried living life with one eye on that tenet. That's why I'm laughing at Ms. Pelosi's subsequent attempts to distract people's attention away from their initial stupid decision.
Instead of admitting that they'd made a stupid decision, they 'doubled down' on their initial mistake. They're still sticking with the tenets that put us in this mess. They're still pushing legislation that limits domestic production of energy. They're still talking about alternatives being the only solution. What they won't admit, though, is that the alternatives that they're talking about are years away from the marketplace.
It's time for a good Housecleaning, similar to the one that happened in 1994. A vote for a Democrat is a vote to retain Ms. Pelosi as the person setting the energy agenda. That's something we can't afford.
Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:59 AM
No comments.
Another Day, Another Forum
I'm leaving to cover another candidate forum in a couple minutes. This forum includes the candidates for House Districts 14 and 15. Health care will be the focus of this debate. The event is part of the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce's series of forums.
Check back this afternoon for my notes on the event.
Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:21 AM
No comments.
Chamber Health Care Forum
12:23 -- I'm at the new St. Cloud Public Library. The candidates are slowly filing in. Jim Stauber, Dan Severson & Josh Behling are here thus far. Larry Schumacher & Cassie Hart are here to represent the media. I just noticed Rob Jacobs and Larry Haws, too.
12:28 -- I will be taking video of the event, too. Editing it should be a new venture.
12:29 -- Larry Hosch and Joanne Dorsher just arrived.
12:30 -- Thus far, there are a lot of empty chairs, with possibly only 15 people here thus far.
12:35 -- We're officially underway. Theresa Bohnen is telling everyone the format. She's now introducing the candidates.
12:42 -- Dan Severson starts the opening statements. He's talking about the smoking ban bill. Then he says that health care reform must be market-oriented.
12:44 -- Rob Jacobs is next. He's repeating his line that he isn't an expert on health care but that he'll keep an open mind. He says that health care is a serious problem in Minnesota. (Hasn't he heard that 93% of Minnesotans are insured?)
12:45 -- Larry Hosch is talking now, saying that we need free markets. "We can't afford partisan wrangling."
12:47 -- Jim Stauber is next. "I'm trying to take Larry's job." He then talks about his experiences with health care. He says that "we can't keep putting healthcare on the backs of the taxpayers' ." "The grand majority of people would purchase insurance."
12:49 -- Steve Gottwalt is talking about his committee assignments. He's talking about the baby boomers. "Medicare pays for complexity" not results and health.
12:51 -- Joanne Dorsher says that we have wonderful health care in Minnesota. Then she says that "We're on the cusp of a crisis." Based on what information? Mentions that she was endorsed by a nurse's group. "We need a rational solution involving everyone." /"It doesn't have to be single payer."
12:54 -- Larry Haws says that he doesn't serve on any health care committees but that he serves on committees that touch health care. He talks about uninsured.
12:56 -- Josh Behling mentions St. Cloud Hospital, various clinics. He's now talking about his wife being a nurse, his currently recovery from surgery, his business experience including the inclusion of Health Savings Account.
12:59 -- Jim Stauber gets the first question: What is your vision for reform? He's talking about the "rule of numbers", a hybrid allowing pooling. Steve Gottwalt is nodding approvingly of Stauber's answer.
1:01 -- Hosch is talking about "payment reform." Incentivize healthy habits. Electronic
1:03 -- Joanne Dorsher talking about health care reform as a moral issue. Increase risk pool. "We need to bring everyone to the table." There should be a basic plan." "We should bargain with pharmaceutical companies"
1:06 -- Steve "We shouldn't think that employers aren't already making many of these improvements." "There aren't enough incentives for healthy habits." Health Savings Accounts part of the solution.
1:08 -- Josh Behling "One of the things we focus on specific issues" at the health care board he serves on. "Taking care of things on the front end saves money on the back end."
1:10 -- Larry Haws says that "Minnesota nurses association endorsed me" because he voted on smoking bill. He's now talking about Whitney Senior Center, then talking about extending MinnesotaCare to small businesses.
1:13 -- Josh Behling is responding to Haws' statement. He says that he isn't against people not smoking. He's just against government regulations restricting private property rights.
1:15 -- Rob Jacobs says "I don't think that insurance companies will make the reforms", saying that "Government has a role in the reforms."
1:16 -- Dan Severson is talking about state mandates driving costs up. We need to give people choices.
1:18 -- Steve Gottwalt is asked about employer-based insurance. He says that we can't get rid of that but he's also saying we need to tie people to their health decisions. Individuals need tax credits. Minnesota has the highest number of mandates.
1:20 -- Joanne Dorsher is saying that we need to move towards portability. People can't afford health insurance. Expanding risk pools. "Insurance can't not cover you because of pre-existing conditions."
1:22 -- Larry Haws thinks that we can't continue with employer-based insurance. He's pushing MinnesotaCare again. He's now talking about being a health consumer.
1:25 -- Josh Behling "Let's look at the root cause of health care." MinnesotaCare isn't the answer. Who's gonna pay for anything above the $10,000 limit on MinnesotaCare?" Josh is then talking about customizing health care plans rather than having a ton of mandates.
1:27 -- Larry Haws is defending his MinnesotaCare answer. He's doing a poor job with it.
1:28 -- Dan Severson is next, saying that one obvious answer is portability, making people health consumers. "There needs to be a major shift" onto the individual level. Creating incentives makes sense.
1:30 -- Rob Jacobs is talking about getting drugs for free from Canada. HUH??? This guy is seriously liberal. Now he's back to saying "the state needs to be involved."
1:32 -- Larry Hosch thinks we still need employer-based insurance. He agrees that we need better portability. He's also talking about paying for health, not illness. We need to pay attention to pooling if we go to patient-based plan.
1:34 -- Jim Stauber is talking about administrative costs' role in health care costs. One in 4 are on Minnesota based plans.
1:36 -- What other strategies can we look towards? Joanne Dorsher is talking about risk pool. This isn't answering the question but that's her answer. Next she's talking about "nursing homes & services for seniors."
1:38 -- Steve-- Managing chronic disease. We need more, not fewer options. HSA's important. Tax credits vital.
1:40 -- Josh is talking about shopping for insurance & health care.
1:41 -- Larry is talking about Farmers Market selling organic vegetables.
1:42 -- Rob Jacobs is talking about Gov. Pawlenty's health care recommendations. Talking abut transparency.
1:43 -- Dan Severson is talking about personal responsibility & mandates, then talking about tort reform.
1:44 -- Jim Stauber is talking about educating health consumers, talking about websites that educate consumers. Finally, he's talking about cafeteria-style plans. GREAT ANSWER.
1:45 -- Larry Hosch talking about health care costs & transparency.
1:47 -- What is your assessment of the economy's effect on health care?
1:48 -- Larry is talking about finding efficiencies. How that fits with dumping people into MinnesotaCare? I am very scared about the economy.
1:49 -- Josh is talking about people making tough decisions. We need to get back to tax breaks on health care. "we don't have an endless supply of money" We can't just continue to dump people into MinnesotaCare.
1:51 -- Dan Severson says that we increased spending by billions of $$$ into the HHS budget. "We increased HHS by $122 million for 2010-2011" which drives up costs for private insurance. We need to set priorities.
1:53 -- Rob Jacobs says we need to pay attention to people, then says that most people are "one catastrophe away from bankruptcy." People can't keep affording 10% increasing. Then he repeats that Joanne Dorsher is right that we might be on the cusp of a health care crisis.
1:55 -- Larry Hosch is saying that the economy will have an impact on health insurance. Next, he says that demographics are driving costs. We need to keep people in their homes longer.
1:57 -- Jim Stauber says that we increased spending by 10% this biennium with a slowing economy. We can't keep putting people on MinnesotaCare. Personal responsibility a key. Aging population a concern.
1:59 -- Steve agrees with Larry about demographics & Jim about personal responsibility. Steve says that MinnesotaCare is just a cost shifting mechanism. Programs must meet a sustainability standard.
2:01 -- Dorsher is giving an "America is a massive soup line" answer. Then she shoots down HSA's & tax incentives.
2:04 -- Moratorium on building hospitals. Larry says the moratorium is justified. Jim Stauber agrees with Larry.
2:06 -- Steve Gottwalt agrees with Hosch & Stauber. He says that it's a good process, saying that hospitals need to justify things.
2:07 -- Dorsher agrees, saying that it's a reasonable process.
2:08 -- Larry Haws says that he agrees.
2:09 -- Josh says that there needs to be a good overall review procedures. He talks about competition.
2:10 -- Dan Severson says that this should be taken out of the political realm. "We fought to put this process in place."
2:11 -- Rob Jacobs agrees with moratorium, then repeats the role of good government.
After closing statements, St. Cloud Chamber President Theresa Bohnen mentioned how intelligent the conversation on health care was. I totally agree with that statement. Amongst the incumbents, I thought Larry Hosch, Dan Severson and Steve Gottwalt had good days. I thought that Larry Haws' insistence in bringing more people into MinnesotaCare was a big mistake.
I thought that Josh Behling had good command of the various issues involved in health care. His frequent references to serving on a board that deals with individual health issues added to his credibility. I'd feel perfectly at ease trusting Josh Behling with reforming the health care product in Minnesota.
Jim Stauber had a strong performance today. He had a strong grasp of the various things affecting health care costs. He also had a solid vision of what a 21st Century health care system should look like. His performance at Monday's MTA transportation was good but today's performance was strong.
I thought that Joanne Dorsher showed an understanding of some issues but she didn't address the role mandates play in driving up health care costs. She also didn't seem to mind a significant role for government programs.
Which leaves us with Rob Jacobs. I won't go into the details here. I'll simply say that Mr. Jacobs is getting a seperate post.
Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment 1 by Chuck Hardin at 23-Sep-08 08:01 PM
Do you still believe Joanne Dorsher espouses single-payer health insurance?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-08 08:29 PM
Chuck, To be honest, I don't think she cares what the system is. I think she'd rubberstamp a singlepayer system if that's what the DFL proposed. If it was market-based, she'd vote for it if that's what she was told to do.
That's my opinion.
Comment 3 by Chuck Hardin at 23-Sep-08 08:41 PM
Not too long ago, you asserted that Joanne Dorsher espoused single-payer health care based on a letter she didn't write that never mentioned single-payer health care. You now have evidence that she does not espouse it. When do you intend to admit your error?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-08 10:15 PM
I still think that she'd enthusiastically support that. After seeing her at the health care forum, where the only plan that got talked about was singlepayer & where the activists clearly showed a preference towards singlepayer, & with none of the politicians disagreeing with that position, yes, I'll stand by my opinion.
I think today's answers were lip service to market-oriented plans because that's what that audience wanted to hear.
In other words, I suspect she was pandering to the audience.
Comment 5 by Chuck Hardin at 23-Sep-08 10:16 PM
In other words, there's nothing Joanne Dorsher can say that will get you to admit your error.
That's cowardly. That's deceptive. You should be ashamed.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-08 10:45 PM
She said she would push as a lawmaker to make sure everyone has access to health care that's "affordable, available and portable."
Most of them pushed for increasing coverage through government health care programs such as MinnesotaCare.
What types of insurances are there that are "affordable, available and portable"?
Dorsher, Haws & Jacobs pushed for expanding MinnesotaCare while saying that health care needed to be "affordable, available and portable." Does that sound like it's market-oriented health care solutions.
It's also worth noting that she mentioned twice that Minnesota "is on the cusp of a health care crisis." Does that sound like someone who just wants to tinker around the edges?
Comment 7 by Chuck Hardin at 23-Sep-08 10:51 PM
You still haven't proven your original assertion, and you still won't admit you were wrong. Joanne Dorsher isn't espousing single-payer health care, and quoting a letter that never mentions it from someone who isn't Joanne Dorsher is laughable.
Also, you've painted yourself into a corner here. Are you really asserting that there are no market-based insurance schemes that are "affordable, available and portable"? Do you think so little of market-based solutions?
Sen. Gaffemaster Keeps Chugging Along
Sen. Biden has provided alot of fodder for late night comedians thus far. How much more late night fodder the Obama-Biden can take is anyone's guess. Here's Sen. Gaffemeister's latest:
Here's the transcript:
Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence. It is to demonstrate that he or she knows what she's talking about & communicates with people. If you're following & listening, we can fix this.FDR got on TV immediately after the stock market crash? Do tell. Let's start with a history lesson. FDR wasn't president when the Stock Market crashed. Hoover was. Second, There weren't more than a virtual handful of TV's in operation in 1929. For that matter, people were still probably arguing where this new thing called radio was a passing fad or if it would last.
When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on television & he didn't just, you know, talk about the princes of greed. He said, "Look, here's what happened."
Sen. Gaffemeister is right. Part of what a leader does is "demonstrate that he or she knows what she's talking about." By that definition, he's just told America that he isn't a leader. I expect him to distance himself from this comment ASAP. That still won't change opinions, though. He's still making a fool of himself.
Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 7:50 PM
No comments.
This Isn't Final Victory....YET
I don't often disagree with Captain Ed. This is one of those rare times when I must, though. In this post , Ed says that Democrats have waved the white flag of defeat on drilling on the OCS. Here's the article that he's basing that off of.
Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.Here's the specific statement of Captain Ed's that I specifically disagree with:
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.
This effectively ends this as an issue for the 110th Congress. Democrats thought they could get a partial moratorium past the Republicans, one that would have kept drilling at least 50 miles off from shore, but President Bush threatened a veto on any continuing resolution with that kind of language.It doesn't end this issue by a long shot. One of the things that Republicans argued last week was that the sham energy bill didn't include including financial incentives for states in the bill. This article doesn't say that there are financial incentives for states in the CR.
Without that, all we can say is that the moratoria will have expired. It doesn't mean that the main goal , increasing oil exploration and production on the OCS, will have been achieved. That's the only goal that matters.
Harry Reid gives it away in this statement:
"The White House has made it clear they will not accept anything with a drilling moratorium, and Democrats know we cannot afford to shut down the government over this," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. " We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue ."Why would Harry Reid issue a statement saying that he looks forward to working with "a new president" to hammer out a "final resolution" if they've waved the white flag of defeat?
I'd maintain that this was a Freudian slip, a tipoff that they know that they didn't provide incentives for states to start letting leases on the OCS.
I'd further suggest that this action alone doesn't take this issue off the table. I'd argue that this remains an issue until the ban is lifted AND incentives are included.
Until that happens, then I'll continue believing that they haven't waved the white flag of defeat.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit readers. I have an additional tidbit of information about the Democrats 'incomplete' capitulation on drilling. Follow this link to the next post which has the additional information.
Originally posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008, revised 24-Sep 1:14 AM
No comments.
What Are Rob Jacobs' Qualifications?
Let me start by admitting that I don't often agree with liberal policies. Let me further say that that isn't why I'm questioning Rob Jacobs qualifications to represent the citizens of HD14A. Let me explain why, in my opinion, he isn't qualified to represent the citizens of HD14A:
Monday, at the Minnesota Transportation Alliance's Candidate Forum at the Kelly Inn, Mr. Jacobs' presentation included this statement :
I'm not an expert on transportation so I won't pretend to be an expert."After the event, several MTA members I talked with on background told me that they thought this wasn't a smart answer, though they agreed that Mr. Jacobs was being honest. That type of mistake could've been overlooked if not for this statement at Tuesday's debate on health care:
He's repeating his line that he isn't an expert on health care but that he'll keep an open mind.If he isn't an expert on transportation and he isn't an expert on health care, just what are Mr. Jacobs' qualifications? Considering Dan Severson's understanding of transportation and health care, voters in HD-14A have a simple choice. They can pick a guy who is a leader on two of the most important issues facing Minnesotans or they can pick a guy who'd need on-the-job-training and who'd likely rubberstamp whatever the DFL leadership told him to vote for.
If you applied truth in advertising laws to Mr. Jacobs' campaign slogan, the most accurate slogan could possibly be "Vote for me. I'm not qualified but I support unions."
Later in the debate, Mr. Jacobs mentioned something about agreeing with Gov. Pawlenty, then mentioning us getting free drugs from Canada. Several people told me afterwards that the candidates couldn't believe what they'd heard.
I can respect Larry Hosch's opinion that an aging population is driving health care costs up, though I suspect that we might disagree on the solution. At least there's a basis to start working from.
For the record, I thought that Jim Stauber showed a strong understanding of health care issues and that he had a solid vision of what a 21st Century health care plan should look like. Mr. Stauber faces a tough fight against Rep. Hosch but he's acquitted himself well the last two days. Unlike in HD-14A, voters in HD-14B face a choice between two people who have a grasp of these imporatant issues.
I'm of the opinion that voters in HD-14A will pick Rep. Severson if they know about the understanding gap between the incumbent and the challenger.
Technroati: Rob Jacobs , Transportation , Health Care , Dan Severson , Jim Stauber , Larry Hosch , Election 2008
Originally posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008, revised 26-Oct 3:51 PM
Comment 1 by kb at 24-Sep-08 06:02 AM
Well, his lawn signs say "No B.S." Looks like he's keeping that promise.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Sep-08 09:02 AM
He isn't kidding with that.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 24-Sep-08 10:09 AM
"...they can pick a guy who'd need on-the-job-training and who'd likely rubberstamp whatever the DFL leadership told him to vote for."
LIKELY? Does that mean I can still get 8:5 odds on that wager? If I could, I could be making a fortune, though not enough to pay for my increased DFL taxes. Voting in lockstep with leadership is what DFLers do. They don't have a clue about what they're voting on, so they listen to their leaders, who don't have a clue, either.
Fortunately there is a solution. Liberals and DFLers should NEVER, EVER be entrusted with political power.
Leader Boehner's Impactful Statement
John Boehner's office has issued this statement on the Democrats throwing in the towel on drilling. Leader Boehner sounds the same caution I sounded earlier. Here's the money quote from Leader Boehner's statement:
Lifting these outdated bans is a long-overdue but crucial step toward American energy independence. But it is just that: a step. Congress still has a great deal of work left to do before the 'all of the above' energy plan proposed by House Republicans becomes a reality. Two months ago, we introduced the American Energy Act to increase environmentally-safe drilling that gives states a stake in energy production occurring off their shores and on their lands , encourage more conservation and efficiency, and promote the use of renewable and alternative fuels.Giving states a financial incentive would be the last domino that's needed to fall to achieve final victory for the American people. States would get healthy in a hurry if they got annual checks in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
There isn't an upside for Democrats on this issue once the final domino falls. At that point, they will have only delayed the inevitable. They will have stayed on the wrong side of a 70%/30% issue for almost 3 months. Fianlly, they will have lost despite putting their environmental friends first instead of putting the American people first.
They will also have weakened their freshmen by demanding that they vote in lockstep with Ms. Pelosi's obstructionist policies. When that final domino falls, their only PR move will be spin, spin, spin and spin some more. They won't be able to argue that they fought the good fight for the American people. They won't be able to argue that they fought for farmers or small businesses or for OTR truckers. They'll only be able to argue that they fought for the Sierra Club and other anti-drilling special interest groups.
I don't think that the American people will appreicate hearing that that's what the Democratic majority fought for. If the NRCC is smart, which I think they are, they should prepare ads saying that a vote for Rep. ____ is a vote for letting Nancy Pelosi set the nation's legislative agenda.
Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:15 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Sep-08 09:47 AM
You think the NRCC is smart? What evidence do you have? I do not see a Contract with America, and haven't for, oh, about 14 years. What I do see is a continuing attempt to get us to vote for "moderate" Republicans, just because they're Republicans. While being GOP is /something/, it's certainly not everything in a candidate, and I don't think the NRCC appreciates the vast difference.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Sep-08 12:21 PM
Thus far, they've run a pretty smart campaign. That's what I'm referring to.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 24-Sep-08 06:57 PM
JR:
El Tinklenberg isn't running a smart campaign. In his latest campaign email soliticition he's got this comment:
In the midst of our country's fiscal crisis, Rep. Bachmann is still pushing the same old "Drain America First" stratetgy on drilling ANWR.
Excuse me:
* Her strategy on energy is more than drilling in ANWR. So quit lying.
* Let me get this straight. If we drill for oil in ANWR we are draining from America? How? Money that would've gone to Saudi Arabia or somewhere else is spent in the US. That doesn't sound like draining from America. The state of Alaska gets oil revenues which help create wealth and income in the United States. American oil companies produce jobs in America.
* So we don't have a financial crisis because we're exporting $700 billion dollars a year in oil Tink?
What closed school of economic tought you your economics.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama: The Debate Must Go On; McCain: Let's Solve This Crisis
This afternoon, John McCain said that he's suspending his campaign until the financial crisis is solved:
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.In response, the Obama campaign said that Friday's debate is still on :
I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.
We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.
I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.
However a senior Obama campaign official said Obama "intends to debate." "The debate is on," a senior Obama campaign official told ABC News.This is a PR blunder of disastrous proportions on the Obama campaign's behalf. If he's the only one on stage Friday night, people will know that he chose politics over solving a crisis. Postponing this debate isn't a big deal. Solving this crisis is important.
Rest assured that Sen. Obama will look petty if he's the only one on stage Friday night. This plays into Sen. McCain's Country First theme. It will create a Me First theme for Sen. Obama.
Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 24-Sep-08 08:37 PM
When you spin that fast, do you ever get dizzy?
While the campaign suspension may have some merit and the Obama Campaign appears to be on board with it, the debate suspension is overreaching. If you cannot even be honest about that, you have descended into a partisanship few have ever seen.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 24-Sep-08 10:02 PM
"few have ever seen"? I don't know, I think Harry Reid's telling McCain not to come back to D.C. ranks right up there, along with the Democrats crafting this bill in secret, and presenting it to Republicans in Congress just an hour or two before the first vote. Of course, there's also Obama saying that McCain ought to be able to do both, since /he/ can, while saying he won't go back to DC. There is partisan, and then there's partisan AND stupid.
