April 16-17, 2012
Apr 16 01:40 Denise Cardinal, progressives, propaganda and FactCheck.org Apr 16 02:47 Mismatch: Michele Bachmann vs. Jim Graves? Apr 16 05:45 Is Team Obama running on fumes? Apr 16 22:41 ABM's spin machine fully operational Apr 17 02:03 DFL legislators kill Vikings stadium in committee Apr 17 09:43 Sen. Klobuchar strikes a blow against...centrists Apr 17 11:22 Media (and campaign communications) malpractice Apr 17 15:28 President Obama treats symptoms, doesn't fix problems
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Denise Cardinal, progressives, propaganda and FactCheck.org
This morning, Denise Cardinal debated Brian McClung during the Face-Off segment of @Issue. During the introduction, host Tom Hauser said that Denise has a new title, that of executive director of ProgressNow :
ProgressNow operates under the direction and leadership of Executive Director Denise Cardinal. Denise is also executive director of Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM), ProgressNow State Partner in the North Star state. Before moving back to her home state of Minnesota in 2006 to be Communications Director for America Votes Minnesota and then start ABM, Denise served for five years as senior press officer for the National Education Association in Washington, D.C. She also spent time in our nations capitol as the Press Secretary for U.S. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). She has worked at newspapers in Nevada, Idaho, and Iowa and earned a degree in journalism from Drake University in 1995. She is the first in her family to attend and graduate from college.
As ProgressNow's Executive Director, Denise Cardinal manages operations and leads the network's online strategy and technology development.
This is the logical next step in building the progressives' network. It started with local organizations with innocent-sounding names. For instance, the League of Rural Voters sounds innocent enough. The key is in looking beneath the organization's title. The LRV's About Us page says alot about them:
We work together to increase participation and demand accountability in all levels of government by:
Creating public service and earned media campaigns : to help raise awareness of the policies that have led to current rural economic challenges.
Providing online advocacy tools: to help turn up the volume on rural issues for the media and our elected officials.
Compare that with ProgressNow's about us page:
ProgressNow is a year-round, never-ending progressive campaign.
Political campaigns are relatively short-lived; they come and they go, leaving little behind of lasting value. ProgressNow's presence in our states never ends. There are hundreds of local and state issues that we can organize and communicate effectively literally year-round. Day in and day out, we're working in our states to counter the right wing and create a perpetual issue advocacy culture.
We've developed a niche by focusing on earned media , online communications and organizing.
Many state-based traditional, single-issue advocacy groups lack the internal capacity to execute communications effectively; ProgressNow State Partners excel in this area. Each ProgressNow State Partner organization has full-time staff who are experts in media communications, online campaigns, earned media and new media. We mobilize citizens through our extensive email lists, media events, and through social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook. We quickly produce and publish hot topic videos on YouTube. We even developed new social networking and organizing tools that have been used successfully not only by our State Partner organizations, but by other progressive organizations, including Barack Obama's Presidential campaign.
ProgressNow is a nationwide umbrella organization. According to their website, there are state chapters in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The Minnesota chapter of ProgressNow is the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, aka Dayton Family Politics Inc. ABM is itself an umbrella organization. A key organization within ABM is TakeAction Minnesota. TakeAction Minnesota is itself an umbrella organization . Public employee unions are well-represented in TakeAction Minnesota, as are environmental organizations and faith-based organizations.
Let's remember who ABM is. ABM is a propaganda machine that got failing grades from FactCheck.org , the gold standard in factchecking:
A False Claim About the Deficit
The ad also claims that the "Emmer-Pawlenty plan created a huge deficit." That's false as well.
The bill was an attempt to close an existing $3 billion deficit without making all of the unilateral budget cuts that Pawlenty had tried to impose, but which were overturned by the courts. To claim that the bill's defeat "created" the deficit it was intended to close is pure nonsense.
The ad complains that the so-called Emmer-Pawlenty plan "cut things that Minnesotans rely on." That much is true. The budget measure Pawlenty eventually signed did make deep spending cuts. But the bill the Democrats proposed, and Emmer voted against, wasn't much better in that regard. The Democrats' proposed income tax increase would have brought in an estimated $430 million in added taxes, but their budget bill still would have made $2.5 billion in spending cuts .
For the record, in a "truth test" of the ad, the Minneapolis-St. Paul station KSTP-TV awarded the spot a failing grade of "F" for accuracy.
ABM wouldn't get paid if they were paid for telling the truth. ProgressNow is the national tip of the progressives' propaganda network. Whether ABM is doing the messaging or ProgressNow or TakeAction Minnesota, the end result is the same: progressive propaganda that's devoid of the truth.
Tags: TakeAction Minnesota , ProgressNow , ABM , Progressives , Propaganda , League of Rural Voters , Denise Cardinal , FactCheck.org , Pants on Fire , DFL , Election 2010 , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 16, 2012 1:40 AM
No comments.
Mismatch: Michele Bachmann vs. Jim Graves?
This morning, Michele Bachmann and Jim Graves, her DFL opponent, appeared on Esme Murphy's program. The first part of Michele's interview focused on high gas prices, which Michele handled well. Here's a partial transcript of that part of the interview:
ESME: Critics have said that even if we expanded production, it would not have an immediate impact at the pump. Realistically, what would it take to get gas prices down to $2 a gallon and when would that happen?
MICHELE: Well, remember that the day Barack Obama became president, gas was $1.84 a gallon so gas prices have gone up 110% since he was in office. And in the last 30 days, gas prices have gone up 30 cents a gallon...So what we can do are a few simple things. We can legalize American energy production.
The good news is that the United States is the number one energy resource-rich nation in the world. We actually have more oil than Saudi Arabia has. We have 25% of the coal in the world here in the United States. We have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in the United States. We can convert cars to run on natural gas.
Later, the subject was Michele's accomplishments, another topic she nailed:
For the most part, Graves tried distancing himself from the DFL as quickly as possible. He talked about how the Obamacare bill was a start, that it wasn't perfect but there's more work to do, etc. On energy, he briefly touched on increasing domestic production before skipping to the DFL's crutch of alternative energy.
ESME: This weekend, businessman Jim Graves won the endorsement to run against you in November. In his announcement, Mr. Graves strongly criticized you for essentially running for president...essentially saying that Congresswoman Bachmann just wasn't there for the Sixth District. How do you respond to that?
MICHELE: Well, during the time that I took the voice of the people of the Sixth District to, not only to the halls of Congress but I amplified their voice, I also kept my eye on the big things in Congress that impact the Sixth District. One of those things was building the St. Croix River Bridge. That's the longest unfinished bridge project. I brought together Democrats and Republicans alike and we got done something no one else was able to do. I actually got that done while I was on the presidential trail.
When Esme Murphy talked about how the Sixth District is more conservative than the old Sixth was, Graves said that we're all people first. He then said that he doesn't "pay much attention to labels like Republican or Democrat."
The thing that was most noticeable was that he tried distancing himself from the DFL label from the start without distancing himself from DFL policies.
The other thing that was impressive about the interviews was how prepared and relaxed Michele was. Her answers were sharp, especially on whether she'd been there for the Sixth District.
With Mr. Graves being a relative unknown, it's impossible to predict if he'll put together a great campaign or if he's just the next sacrificial lamb for Michele.
It's understatement to say that he's got an uphill climb against Michele.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , Gas Prices , Obamacare , St. Croix River Bridge , Bipartisanship , Republicans , Jim Graves , Alternative Energy , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 16, 2012 2:47 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 16-Apr-12 10:48 AM
Only thing I have heard about Graves (besides this) is that he wants everyone to earn a livable wage. What the heck is that? I'd like to live like a king but can't on what I earn. Does he pay his employees a livable wage or is he just giving lip service to the DFL base?
Comment 2 by Mr. D at 16-Apr-12 12:20 PM
Gary, I think the only reason Graves got the nod is that he can self-finance if needed. The money that went after Bachmann in the last cycle is going to be directed at Chip Cravaack, as you've already ably documented.
Comment 3 by eric z at 16-Apr-12 12:49 PM
A bozo vs a job creator.
And you favor the bozo?
Gary, Gary, Gary.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 16-Apr-12 01:08 PM
Eric, Shame on you for calling Michele a bozo. She's anything but that. Your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing that. She's schooled plenty of people on tax- & banking-related issues.
As for Graves, it isn't as much about whether he's a job creator as it is about whether a) he'll genuflect in front of Pelosi or b) he'll worship at the altar of the militant environmentalists.
Jim Graves won't rein in the EPA, the FCC or the NLRB.
No Thanks.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 16-Apr-12 04:11 PM
Eric:
Um the bozo is either Obama or Graves so thank you for saying that Michelle Bachmann is a job creator.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by Tony at 12-Jun-12 12:24 AM
Hi - excuse me, but your ideological blinders keep you obsessively focused on Bachmann, who is rude, crude and has created no jobs. She's just a little attack dog who doesn't know how to have a normal conversation because just talks and talks and talks but says nothing.
Michelle Bachmann is also so fantastically negative. She can't open her mouth without hurling something negative at someone. She actually great at her job, which is to continually throw red beat at her rabid base. She keeps them energized. She's symbolism over substance and her extreme followers want that. Sad, indeed, but true.
You need to vote in Jim Graves who is a proven job creator and intends to work with everyone, not just a segment of congress. Plus, Bachmann is a national embarrassment, Jim would raise the bar there and again attract respect and jobs.
Thank you.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Jun-12 06:55 AM
I knew Jim Graves in high school. He isn't a hater like you but he's progressive as the day is long. More importantly, he'd be a reliable vote for Nancy Pelosi.
Your bull$hit about Michele being "symbolism over substance" exposes your blinders. Michele is one of the foremost experts on banking regulations and taxes in the nation. Your hating blinded you to that. Then again, that's what I'd expect.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 12-Jun-12 09:35 AM
Tony:
I think the reason why you don't like Bachmann is because she takes it to the person who is trying to destroy jobs Obama.
Obama wants killer tax hikes.
Obama is spending the country like it's Greece.
Obama is trying to regulate coal out of business.
Obama doesn't want us to drill for oil and despite his regulatory barriers takes credit for the increased production they have done.
Obama created Obamacare.
Obama thinks government creates jobs.
Obama thinks the private sector is doing just fine.
Jim Graves will support the job killing agenda that Obama wants.
I guess you're lying when you said you want to create jobs.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 8 by Jack Doe at 18-Jul-12 03:34 AM
Gary Gross says:
April 16, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Eric, Shame on you for calling Michele a bozo. She's anything but that. Your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing that. She's schooled plenty of people on tax- & banking-related issues.
As for Graves, it isn't as much about whether he's a job creator as it is about whether a) he'll genuflect in front of Pelosi or b) he'll worship at the altar of the militant environmentalists.
First, he says ideological blinders prevent the subject from seeing how Michelle Bachmann is anything but a "bozo". Following this statement he turns on high gear ideological views in assuming Jim Graves will either bow to Pelosi or support "militant environmentalist", and to support his statement he brings in the fact Jim Graves would not harm the EPA (the same agency that protects "Gary Gross's" drinking water from intoxicants and alerts his family when hazardous pollution is nearby the same loved ones).
So by automatically turning on your ideology to target him, you've essentially collapsed your initial argument in accusing him of being "ideologically blind".
1. Obama wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than 250,000 a year by about 7%. This is on their income, meaning the stuff they bring in AFTER business expenses. Meaning their actual business taxes remain the same.
2. Obama has suggested reasonable plans backed by the Pentagon itself to cut over 2 trillion dollars from the deficit over 10 years (effectively projecting a surplus budget and bringing down the debt).
3. Obama supports clean coal, look to 2008. He still supports coal. The problem is, he doesn't support coal polluting things like Virginia's water supply and destroying mountains that would harm people's property. Don't conservative values emphasize individuals rights? Well, Obama is protecting the rights of individual's property by allowing the EPA to regulate "dirty" coal tactics.
4. Obama's Obamacare is projected to reduce the deficit by the same Congressional Budget Office that is under a House which opposes his every move. Even his opponents can't deny the truth, well legally they really can't when it comes to the CBO.
5. Government is proven to create jobs. If you're speaking of the effect of government on private business jobs, well why are you politically active? To get candidates who will take the leash off business so they can create jobs, government de-regulating business. Thus, by the simple transitive property using your assumed logic government deregulation=business freedom to make more jobs= more jobs thus government deregulation=more jobs.
6. Considering the disparity between rich and poor in the country has actually increased in the past 3 years, I agree. Now you may be upset about class warfare, but I'm just upset the people who already have money have even more money while there are so many people suffering even more.
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 18-Jul-12 04:11 PM
Jack:
Your response kind of shows the lack of reality of the world you life in.
On point one, a husband and wife making just $125,000 each qualifies. Are you saying that somebody who makes $125,000 a year should have a tax hike just because they have a spouse making $125,000.
Not to mention Obama is for taxing to death investment income. John I make less then $50,000 a year. I have regular investments that total about 9,000. If dividends are tax so companies don't have the incentives to pay them (part of the bush tax cuts those dividends go away). Stock prices for me won't go up if they don't go up for the rich.
On point four, it only reduced the deficit besides the gimmick benefits didn't begin for four years which you won't have in future budget projections because the CBO was given a bunch of false assumptions. Now that CBO has to start accurately showing the costs it is increasing the deficit.
On point five, so government creates jobs. Wow the US government created Mcdonalds, Microsoft, Yahoo. No government doesn't create jobs it only can slow job creation. Look at the mine situation.
On point six, the best way to reduce that gap you complain about is to rise everybody like Reagan did. Obama wants to reverse Reagan and wants to add to that gap.
I can go, but I don't have time now.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Is Team Obama running on fumes?
It's been apparent for quite awhile that the DFL won't have anything to tout as accomplishments or highlights. U.S. Senate Democrats are in similar shape. Jay Cost's article highlights the fact that President Obama's only chance of getting re-elected, other than the biggest voter fraud campaign in history, is to hope people stop wanting to talk about the things they want to talk about most:
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the average swing voter does not want to talk about the 'war on women,' the Buffett rule, or whatever else Team Obama is going to throw out there in the weeks and months to come. That voter wants to talk about jobs, the economy, the deficit, gas prices, the health care bill--in other words, all the issues where the president is vulnerable. And the competition of the campaign means that swing voter will get what he wants - Team Romney is more than happy to discuss all those issues, and so Obama will have no choice but to respond.
President Obama's accomplishments aren't popular except with his out-of-step base. The polling we've seen thus far is worthless because Mitt Romney hasn't fired up the ad blitz yet. When Mitt hits President Obama on the economy, high gas prices and the unprecedented regulatory overreach of President Obama's administration, the polling numbers we've seen thus far will flip. In fact, they'll flip fairly quickly.
In short, whether we're talking about the DFL legislature, Harry Reid's Senate or President Obama, we're staring at the same thing: the potential for a GOP blowout exists. It's anything but guaranteed. But it's possible.
Because President Obama sought to be the most ideological president in generations, he put his presidency in peril. Because he put his ideological goals ahead of the nation's priorities, he did everything except pound the final nail in his political coffin.
What ideas can President Obama run on? What accomplishment can he point to that he enjoys majority support? Claiming that Republicans are waging wars on women, working families, the environment and who knows what else they'll think of over the next 6 months won't cut it.
Elections are about the future. President Obama can repeat the 'Yes, we can' mantra all he wants. It won't make a difference. President Reagan summed it up perfectly at the end of his debate with Jimmy Carter:
Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls; you'll stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was 4 years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was 4 years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were 4 years ago?
And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last 4 years is what you would like to see us follow for the next 4, then I could suggest another choice that you have.
Going into that debate, then-President Carter held a significant lead. Here's how that race turned out :
Reagan-Bush: 50.75%
Carter-Mondale: 41.01%
The electoral college paints an equally stark picture:
Reagan-Bush: 489 EVs
Carter-Mondale: 49 EVs
Let's be clear about something. This election won't be that type of blowout. Few are, with Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 72 and Reagan in 84 being the only other comparable blowouts. That said, it's quite possible that President Obama will get fewer EVs in 2012 than Sen. McCain got in 2008.
Tags: President Obama , Obamacare , Stimulus , Fundraising , War On Working Families , War on Women , Harry Reid , Do-Nothing Senate , EPA , DFL , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Ad Campaign , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 16, 2012 5:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Apr-12 08:34 AM
One of the things that might go wrong is that Mitt may be unwilling to 'hit' The One with all of those vulnerabilities. And he may not have the money to do it unless conservatives believe that is what he will do. We don't trust him like we would like to do.
Comment 2 by Patrick at 16-Apr-12 08:50 AM
Mitt can win but he needs to come out swinging at every opportunity he gets (Reagan-like). If he runs a McCain-like campaign then the battle is tougher. Now watch the really big money (read Soros) make another run at a crisis (like in late 2008) and the MSM prop up their guy. Those I fear more than Romney not hitting hard enough.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 16-Apr-12 09:01 AM
Mitt will likely raise close to $500,000,000 so he'll be able to compete. He's shown that he's willing to hit propaganda organizations like Politifact.
I'll never like him but he's off to a good start campaign-wise.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 16-Apr-12 10:07 AM
"President Obama's accomplishments aren't popular except with his out-of-step base."
Odd. Mutt Romney's accomplishments aren't popular either, except with his out-of-step non-base.
Too bad we're stuck with such a weak candidate. This is an election where the Republican Party needs coattails and Romney will have none.
Comment 5 by eric z at 16-Apr-12 12:47 PM
Mitt can do what he did against Gingrich and the others. He can posture as above the fray and let corporate super-PAC money and purchased mouths do the dirty work.
Excuse me, "people" super-PAC money ...
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 16-Apr-12 04:07 PM
Eric:
You mean that super pac which Bill Maher gives money to even though he makes horrible comments about women all the time!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
ABM's spin machine fully operational
If ever there was an organization that's built to spin political yarns, it's the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, aka Dayton Family Politics, Inc.
Recently, ABM posted this drivel :
"Today Cravaack voted to put trillions of dollars in the pockets of big corporations by ripping it out of the hands of Minnesota families," Carrie Lucking, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, said. "This is a question of priorities. Cravaack repeatedly puts the interests of big corporations with their lobbyists and limousines over the needs of middle class families in Northeast Minnesota. Instead of toeing the extreme, special interest party line, Cravaack should be representing the interests of Northeastern Minnesotans."
Carrie Lucking is full of it. It's time to tell her and her herd of professional propagandists that enough's enough. Does Ms. Lucking think that Chip put the interests of big corporations ahead of miners when he fought to make PolyMet a reality?
As for the special interests, when didn't Jim Oberstar put militant environmentalists' interests ahead of the miners?
Here's another gem from ABM's post:
The House Republican budget plan will cut roughly 4.1 million jobs. [ The Economic Policy Institute , 3/21/12]
The model used to reach this job creation fiction is the same model used by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein in estimating the effect of the stimulus bill. We all know that those estimates were way off, don't we?
When miners were crying for jobs, it was Chip Cravaack, not Amy Klobuchar, who put a high priority on making PolyMet a reality. There's no more group of people more representatiive of working families than miners.
It's interesting that ABM sings Sen. Klobuchar's praises for ignoring the miners but criticizes Chip for putting "working families" first.
Chip didn't vote to end Medicare. Chip's voted for reforming Medicare. He voted to improve it.
Just because Ms. Lucking and ABM's spinmeisters say that the Ryan budget cuts Medicare doesn't make it so. In fact, if Ms. Lucking says that the Ryan budget cuts Medicare, there's a good possibility that it finds ways to lower costs while improving quality.
Expect to hear ABM trot that set of chanting points out frequently this campaign season.
Here's another 'crime' that Chip's supposedly guilty of:
While American families pay more money at the pump, the House Republican budget pads Big Oil's pockets. The Ryan budget retains a decade's worth of $40 billion in tax breaks to Big Oil, while cutting billions of dollars in investments to develop alternate fuels and clean energy technologies.
If a person isn't paying attention, they'd miss the fact that this is a non sequitur arguement. High gas prices weren't caused by current tax policy. They're caused by this administration's anti-fossil fuel policies. They're especially caused by this administration's EPA waging war on fossil fuels.
They're caused by a weak dollar, too. There's a weak dollar because President Obama's deficits are the biggest in U.S. history.
This is typical DFL/progressive class warfare tactics at their worst, which is ABM's specialty.
Tags: Chip Cravaack , Ryan Budget , Medicare Reform , Taxes , Capitalism , PolyMet , Miners , Unions , Jobs , MNGOP , Carrie Lucking , ABM , Propaganda , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 16, 2012 10:41 PM
No comments.
DFL legislators kill Vikings stadium in committee
In the end, the funding mechanism was too complicated, too volatile to work. Tonight, 5 DFL legislators serving on the House Government Operations Committee essentially killed the Vikings stadium bill for this session:
After clearing two House committees with relative ease this month, a bill to use public money to help build a Minnesota Vikings stadium in Minneapolis was defeated Monday night, April 16, in a third, dealing a potentially fatal blow to the project's chances this legislative session.
In a 9-6 vote that was bipartisan in its opposition, the House Government Operations and Elections Committee declined to go along with even a watered-down motion to pass the bill "without recommendation" to the House Taxes Committee.
Bill sponsor Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead, called the vote "very disappointing" and said that for the bill to have any chance now to pass this session, which is expected to conclude by the end of the month, "Somebody's going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat."
Vikings vice president Lester Bagley called the outcome "extremely disappointing" and said "it's a mistake" for people to assume the Vikings and the NFL will continue operating under the status quo. He said that isn't a threat that the team will leave, but "Minnesota's in control of their destiny.
"We've done everything we've been asked," Bagley said. The question for the state is: "What else would you expect us to do?"
It's interesting that the DFL voted to kill Gov. Dayton's key initiative this session:
Voting against the bill were Democrats Marion Greene, Frank Hornstein, Bev Scalze, Steve Simon and Ryan Winkler and Republicans Joyce Peppin, Rich Murray, David Hancock and Duane Quam.
Voting in favor was Democrat Michael Nelson and Republicans Michael Beard, Carol McFarlane, Tim O'Driscoll, Tim Sanders and Dean Urdahl.
The only DFL legislator to vote for the stadium bill was Michael Nelson. It would've been shocking if he hadn't voted for the bill because he's a union carpenter. Otherwise, the DFL abandoned Gov. Dayton on his signature issue, his crowning achievement.
The DFL is attempting to spin this vote as the GOP defeating the Vikings bill. Apparently, the DFL thinks Minnesotans are too stupid to count.
What's stunning is that both DFL legislators representing Minneapolis on this committee, Marion Greene and Frank Hornstein, voted against the bill. So did Steve Simon and Ryan Winkler of Golden Valley.
If Gov. Dayton can't get more than one vote in committee for his signature achievement, then he's looking rather powerless.
There's no mistaking this. This is a major defeat for Gov. Dayton and the DFL.
Tags: Minnesota Vikings , Mark Dayton , Ryan Winkler , Bev Scalze , Frank Hornstein , Marion Greene , Steve Simon , DFL , Lester Bagley , NFL , Stadium , Referendum
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 17-Apr-12 06:58 AM
Just when I thought the DFL had become totally useless in this state, they come through in a big way in opposition to the Vikings boondoggle.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 17-Apr-12 07:01 AM
May as well tell you the spin now, I guess. This is the DFL doing the work of the Indian Tribes and opposing any competition for gambling dollars. Republicans were trying to "break the monopoly" of the Tribes by expanding gambling. Seems to me that if we just need more revenue for the Vikings and don't care how we (Republicans)get it, we ought to start up the state-run brothels-- an untapped market :-/
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-12 09:11 AM
Republicans were trying to 'break the monopoly' of the Tribes by expanding gambling.That's true but it's irrelevant to this legislation. There's nothing in this legislation that expands gambling.
Comment 4 by Eric Larson at 17-Apr-12 10:35 AM
Voting No
4 Hennepin County Reps
2 Minneapolis Rep
1 Minneapolis Rep who has Mark Dayton as a constituent.
1 Freshman Rep DFL Rep who rep's Mark Dayton can defy this guy.
Comment 5 by paul at 17-Apr-12 11:49 AM
How can you blame the DFL when only five Republicans
voted for the bill, and four against?
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-12 11:56 AM
Simple. When only 1 Democrat votes for his governor's signature bill & 5 DFL legislators vote against Gov. Dayton's bill, then the blame goes to the DFL.
It's telling that the DFL didn't take Gov. Dayton's plan seriously.
Comment 6 by April at 17-Apr-12 12:12 PM
It just seems out of bizarro world for the Republicans to want to let DFlers take credit for this. While I can believe a majority of Minnesotans want a new stadium if built with private money, especially if the alternative is losing the Vikings, the polls I've seen say "no public money" loud and clear. Public money for a Vikings stadium should be opposed by the GOP, and they should take credit when a proposal that includes public funding is defeated.
@ Gary Gross--aren't electronic pulltabs gambling? Is your point that it's gambling that's already outside the tribes' monopoly?
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-12 12:24 PM
E-pulltabls are gambling but they'd replace paper pulltabs. Therefore, they don't constitute an expansion of gambling.
Comment 7 by paul at 17-Apr-12 12:24 PM
Has it ever crossed your mind that these are Hennepin
county Reps. We already pay for the Twins stadium alone.
Is it their fault if the only backstop money on the table
would come from hennepin county as well.You claim that the DFL has always voted pro union. This was an anti union and pro Hennepin county vote.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-12 12:27 PM
Is it their fault if the only backstop money on the table would come from hennepin county as well?Actually, the chief backstops are sales taxes imposed only on luxury suites & ticket sales.
Comment 9 by paul at 17-Apr-12 12:38 PM
The stadium bill before the House includes four funding backstops, including Hennepin County, that might be used if electronic pull tabs and bingo failed to generate an estimated $42 million needed each year to pay the state's $398 million share of a Vikings stadium.
Comment 10 by Dan at 17-Apr-12 02:47 PM
The stadium rejection was a bi-partisanship effort. An almost equal number of Republicans and Democrats rejected it. Is this all Republicans and their controlled legislatures can do...say no?
Comment 11 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-12 03:35 PM
Is this all Republicans and their controlled legislatures can do: say no?You mean like saying no to permitting reform? Oh wait. The GOP legislature led the way on permitting reform.
You mean like saying no to education reforms? Oh wait. The GOP legislature dragged the DFL kicking & screaming until education reform was passed.
You mean like saying no to getting rid of this antiquated form of government? That's right. The GOP told the DFL that a government that's the same as it was in the 1990's had to go. Thanks to Keith Downey's leadership, that's now law.
Dan, is that what you were thinking about when you said the GOP is always saying no?
Comment 12 by Chad Q at 17-Apr-12 07:34 PM
I'll take a GOP No and do nothing legislature over a DFL tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend legislature any day of the week. Now if the GOP would cut, cut, cut I would be really happy.
Comment 13 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-12 09:19 PM
Chad, Why buy the premise? It's BS. It should be rejected ASAP. That's the only proper response.
Let's get into the habit of demolishing the premise, then making a brilliant point after that. Trust me. That's so much fun.
Comment 14 by eric z at 18-Apr-12 08:31 AM
Shouldn't everybody, independent of party, favor a referendum on this one? Those trying to circumvent a referendum should be voted out. Rybak is a disappointment on the referendum issue. After the election there will be no chance at a referendum. Then the deal will be done, Wilfare will prevail.
And the stadium and gambling expansion should be decoupled. They are independent issues. Or should be treated that way.
Who really cares if the racetrack folds because they do not get racino? Who really thinks the racetrack will fold if they do not get racino?
Each party should address gambling in its platform.
Each party should address Wilfare in its platform.
Response 14.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-12 09:07 AM
Eric, The MNGOP already addresses gambling expansion & public funding in their platforms.
Sen. Klobuchar strikes a blow against...centrists
This afternoon, Sen. Klobuchar voted to invoke cloture on the Buffett Rule . This evening, MNGOP Chairman Pat Shortridge issued this press release:
St. Paul -Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Pat Shortridge issuedthe following statement regarding Senator Amy Klobuchar's support for PresidentObama's Buffet Tax this evening.
"Senator Amy Klobuchar has once again shown her true colors as she rubbers tamps President Obama's Buffett Tax this evening. The Buffett Tax won't help a single Minnesotan find a job, and it won't make any progress in paying down our national debt. If you add up every dollar of revenue that wouldbe brought in from the Buffett Tax over the course of one year, it would only pay for 11 hours of the federal government. Even former DNC Chair and Virginia Governor, Tim Kaine said the Buffett Tax was 'tripping over dollar bills to pick up pennies.'"
"It's time for Amy Klobuchar to be more than a rubber stamp. It's time for the Senate to propose a budget that includes serious tax reform three years overdue."
Sen. Klobuchar has perfected the art of acting like a centrist without actually being a centrist. Time and again, she's voted with radicals like Sen. Franken and Sen. Sanders. Sen. Sanders caucuses with the Democrats but he's unapologetic about being a socialist.
There's no question that Sen. Klobuchar's a likeable lady. That's irrelevant, though. What's important in these trying times is being a solutions-oriented politician. Sen. Klobuchar is anything but a solutions-oriented person, at least on issues that aren't nanny state issues.
If it's a nanny state issue, then Sen. Klobuchar is the go to person in the Senate.
Voting for this tax increase is the opposite of voting for a solution. Voting for all of President Obama's reckless spending is the opposite of voting for a solution.
Raising taxes, whether it's on millionaires or any other income cohort, just gives Washington, DC more money to spend. That's foolish. Democrats promising spending cuts should be totally ignored. If the spending cuts are front-loaded in actual legislation, then I might believe that they're legitimate.
These Democrats wouldn't agree to front-loading the debt-ceiling bill with real cuts. They certainly shouldn't be trusted to cut spending now, especially with the
Tags: Buffett Rule , Taxes , Amy Klobuchar , Al Franken , Bernie Sanders , Socialist , Debt Ceiling , Spending Cuts , Pandering , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:43 AM
No comments.
Media (and campaign communications) malpractice
This article on the CBS website is another bit of proof that reporters either don't get it or they're part of an obfuscation team. Here's the title to the article:
The bubble wars: Obama and Romney battle over who is "out of touch"
It goes downhill after that:
One way to think about the 2012 presidential campaign is as a battle between two houses: Barack Obama's White House and Mitt Romney's San Diego house. The Romney campaign would like to make Obama a prisoner to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., turning every perk and privilege of the presidency into a sign that he is far removed from the people he is supposed to lead, especially anyone struggling in this economy. "Years of flying around on Air Force One, surrounded by an adoring staff of true believers telling you what a great job you are doing, well, that might be enough to make you a little out of touch," said Mitt Romney after his Wisconsin primary victory.
The Obama campaign has a similar idea. They would like you to think of Mitt Romney as a man so encased in wealth that he can afford esoteric luxuries like the new car elevator planned for his San Diego home. (At Obama headquarters, they've named the elevators Romney 1 and 2 for each of his wife's Cadillacs.) "Gov. Romney calls the president out of touch," Joe Biden said last week in his dual role as attack dog and envoy to The Everyman. "Hey, how many of y'all have a Swiss bank account? How many of you have somewhere between $20 and $100 million in your [retirement account]?"
Let's settle this ASAP. Neither man is a man of the people. They both have their vulnerabilities with 'out-of-touch' voters. Then again, I don't care about the images war.
This is an open-and-shut case. President Obama's economic policies have been a total disaster. If I was paid $50 for each time President Obama or his on-staff spinmeisters or the media talked about the economy "turning the corner," I'd be a multimillionaire.
The thing is that if you're constantly "turning the corner", you're going in circles.
Job growth has been, putting it politely, inconsistent at best. Economic growth has been anemic well after the recession ended. Without consistent, strong GDP growth, the economy will never truly recover.
You're in trouble if your campaign slogan is 'Stick with me; the economy might recover."
President Obama has proven that he's wedded to the failed economic policies of socialism. He's an anti-capitalist. What's worse is that he's shown a propensity for making ideology-driven decisions rather than doing what's right for the nation.
Here's a partial list of the stupid policies he's responsible for:
-
This administration's EPA is attempting to kill the coal industry, thereby crippling the economies of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia.
- This administration's Interior Department has kept huge oil and natural gas reserves offlimits.
- This administration's State Department opposed the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
- President Obama signed the 2 biggest regulatory boondoggles in American history when he signed Dodd-Frank and Obamacare into law.
- President Obama's stimulus bill was a total failure.
- President Obama's string of bailouts paid off his union allies. They didn't fix any problems.
If I were advising Team Romney, I'd tell them to keep the tit-for-tat messaging to a minimum. The back-and-forths between the campaigns turn voters off. While it's impossible to stay disciplined enough to eliminate tit-for-tat messaging, minimizing it is quite possible if they follow these simple guidelines:
- Turn every exchange into a debate about whose plans offer America the brightest future.
- Highlight solutions to crises like the debt, job creation, overregulation, economic growth and gas prices.
- Highlight, matter-of-factly, how President Obama's policies have failed.
Mitt can reassure undecided voters that he's the right man for the job by using his stump speeches to explain why President Obama's policies have failed or when his policies have succeeded in the past. Presidential elections are about, at least partially, who does the best job of assuring voters that they're the right man for the job. The sooner Mitt's campaign focuses on that rather than on tit-for-tat communications, the quicker this race will be decided. Tags: President Obama , Recession , Stimulus , Dodd-Frank , Obamacare , Regulations , EPA , NLRB , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Economy , Energy , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:22 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 18-Apr-12 08:25 AM
Ron Paul took a bunch of delegates in recent Minnesota Republican conventions, and the statewide and more local media are wholly silent. Isn't that dereliction of duty?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-12 09:08 AM
Eric, there's no shortage of the media not doing its job. This instance, though, was particularly egregious.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 18-Apr-12 09:37 AM
Romney is the dirtiest candidate the Republicans have ever fielded. He swamped genuine conservatives with negative ads until they folded. He will do or say anything to get elected.
So even though your advice is wise, Gary, I wouldn't expect Mutt to follow it.
He's not the right man for the job. Never was, never will be. He's a liberal.
But he's the one the effete Republican elites decided would be Obama's stooge in November.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 18-Apr-12 10:07 AM
I wouldn't be quite so hard on Romney as a replacement for Obama-- infinitely better, in fact-- but I also have to take issue with the idea that somehow there is this powerful "elite" in the GOP that somehow managed for Romney to win 90% of the votes in the caucuses and primaries so far. I don't recall, for example, any midnight phone calls telling me to vote for Romney "or else."
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-12 10:38 AM
Jerry, that isn't how this race was decided. The elites didn't have to call you & give you your marching orders. They simply dried up the fundraising abilities of Mitt's opponents. Once that was accomplished, the rest of the fight was pretty much uphill.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 18-Apr-12 02:55 PM
Further, I would take issue that Romney won 90 percent of the votes. He's had a hard time breaking 40 percent in most of the primaries and caucii held to this point.
And, given the way he governed Massachusetts and wrote Obamacare, I don't believe he's 'infinitely better' than anybody. Choosing between "Obamney" is simply a choice of whether you like your statism red or blue.
Comment 5 by eric z at 19-Apr-12 07:17 AM
Given who Romney is, as best as he allows us to see while possibly being the most closed candidate that ever ran for the office, as lovable as Nixon, the ideal one for second spot on his ticket would be an independent, Joe Lieberman. Would you guys take him, please?
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 20-Apr-12 04:24 PM
Eric:
Sprry it's going to be somebody exciting and more qualified then Biden like Marco Rubio!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
President Obama treats symptoms, doesn't fix problems
President Obama's ideological rigidity is preventing him from solving the problem of high gas prices. Instead of increasing domestic oil production, President Obama is going after commodity markets :
Fighting to contain voter anger over sky-high gas prices, President Barack Obama urged Congress to toughen penalties for improper manipulation of oil markets and called for stricter government oversight of energy markets.
"None of these steps by themselves will bring gas prices down overnight," the president said in the White House Rose Garden. "But it will prevent market manipulation and make sure we're looking out for American consumers."
Mr. President, if you were "looking out for the American people," you'd instruct the Interior Department and Energy Department to increase domestic oil permitting by 25-50% within a month. That would quickly drive prices down. If you won't get serious about increasing oil production, then no amount of government oversight into commodities trading will have a significant impact on oil prices.
President Obama's hostility towards fossil fuels apparently prevents him from admitting that increasing oil production lowers prices. President Obama's insistence on not shifting from his failed energy policies are keeping gas prices high and the economy sputtering.
What's worst is that President Obama is acting like the Leader of the Free World can't affect oil prices. Perhaps the problem isn't that presidents can't affect oil prices. Perhaps, it's that this president refuses to do the things that would affect oil prices.
"Listen, the president has all the tools available to him if he believes that the oil market is being manipulated," Republican House Speaker John Boehner told reporters. "Where's his Federal Trade Commission? Where's the SEC? He's got agencies there," said Boehner, Obama's chief critic on energy issues. "So, instead of just another political gimmick, why doesn't he put his Administration to work to get to the bottom of it?"
President Obama can't change his energy policies. That's why he was painted into a corner on the Keystone XL Pipeline. There must be private polling showing that he can ignore the unions but he must listen to the militant environmentalists' demands.
Speaker Boehner is right. This administration has a lengthy list of tools to deal with commodity market manipulators. These people either haven't found commodity market manipulation or they're corrupt and they won't investigate existing manipulation.
Investigating market manipulation, though, won't fix the problem. It'll only treat the symptom. We need solutions. We don't need photo op fixes. Photo op fixes are things that aim at looking like you're doing something without actually fixing the thing that needs fixing.
Tags: President Obama , Commodities , Markets , Manipulation , Gas Prices , FTC , Energy Department , SEC , Photo Ops , Militant Environmentalists , Keystone XL Pipeline , Interior Department , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:28 PM
No comments.
