April 17-19, 2015
Apr 17 10:55 McConnell still playing hardball Apr 17 14:34 What matters in 2016 Apr 17 18:57 Go big or go home Apr 18 01:49 Brian McDaniel's capitulation Apr 18 08:57 Sharansky, the Soviets and Iran Apr 18 23:52 Jeb's surrogates criticize Rubio Apr 19 06:00 Walker in New Hampshire Apr 19 12:01 2016: gimmicks vs. substance Apr 19 22:24 Chris Christie is history
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
McConnell still playing hardball
With Democrats and the Washington Post criticizing him for not bringing Loretta Lynch up for a confirmation vote, Mitch McConnell is still playing hardball :
The hardball tactics, coming in McConnell's first 100 days as majority leader, pose some risks for a GOP majority determined to show it can govern. Democrats can win back the Senate in 2016 by winning four or five seats, depending on the outcome of the presidential race.
McConnell is facing rising pressure to allow a vote on Lynch, who Democrats this week noted has waited 160 days since her nomination for a confirmation vote.
Supporters launched a hunger strike this week, and The Washington Post editorial board on Thursday slammed the GOP leader for the 'shabby treatment' of Lynch, who would be the first black woman to serve as attorney general. The Post wrote there is 'no principled reason to link Ms. Lynch's nomination to the passage of the trafficking bill,' and that she should get 'immediate floor consideration.'
However, McConnell's strategy also has benefits for the GOP leader and his conference, which has unified around him.
Republicans are irked that Democrats blocked the trafficking bill over language that would prevent money for a victims fund set up by the bill to be used for abortions, even after some Democrats voted for the bill in committee. Democrats later said they did not realize the abortion language had been included in the legislation.
The Washington Post Editorial Board said that there is "no principled reason" for denying a vote on Lynch. They're wrong.
Actions have consequences. Democrats unanimously voted for the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act in committee. Then the Democrats' pro-abortion special interest groups descended on the Judiciary Committee Democrats like locusts descended on Egypt in the time of Moses. Immediately, Democrats started lying, saying that they didn't know the 68-page bill contained Hyde Amendment language. That's BS.
If Democrats want to continue pandering to Planned Parenthood, NOW and other abortion extremists, there's a price to be paid. Breaking promises has consequences. Democrats broke their promise on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Until they stop pandering to these extremists, Mitch McConnell should let them know that lying isn't acceptable.
There's a simple solution to this. Democrats will get what they want the minute Republicans get what they want. If Democrats insist on getting everything, they'll get nothing.
Finally, it's disgusting that these Democrats are these abortion extremists' puppets.
Posted Friday, April 17, 2015 10:55 AM
No comments.
What matters in 2016
You'll want to read Scott Rasmussen's article if you want to what's driving the 2016 election. I'll highlight here a couple things that Mr. Rasmussen things are important:
It's all about personal finances - Some believe it's about the economy, which is a close substitute. But what really matters is how people feel about their own personal finances. If people are feeling much better about their own finances in a year, that would be good news for the Democratic nominee. If things stay the same or get worse, it's bad news for the president's party.
The White House has regurgitated their chanting points on the economy whenever there's a monthly jobs report or a quarterly GDP report. Their economic team could probably recited it in their sleep. That means nothing to voters.
Because the Obama administration's policies help big corporations, people working for big corporations have done well, especially with their stock market investments. They weren't hurt by excessive regulations like small businesses have been hurt.
Small businesses have gotten hit with tons of additional costs through regulations. Because much of their would-be profits have gotten eaten by compliance costs, they haven't been able to expand their businesses or give employees raises.
The Big Blue Wall is a Myth - Democrats argue that all they have to do is win states that consistently voted for their party since 1992 and they just about have the Electoral College locked up. The problem with this theory is that it's the result of the Republicans winning a majority of the popular vote only once in the past six elections. If a Republican does better in the popular vote, he or she will win some of those states Democrats think they have locked up.
I recently sat down with the red state-blue state map for 2012. Democrats, we're told, have 242 electoral votes in their column. Republicans have 199 electoral votes in their column. It's likely that Florida will flip back into the red column. That's 29 EVs. I can't picture Hillary doing well in blue collar Ohio. If that's flipped into the red column, that's another 18 EVs. Those states' results suddenly put the race 246 Republicans, 242 Democrats. Colorado will likely flip for the Republicans, too. That's another 9 EVs, putting the GOP ticket at 255 EVs. Winning Iowa's 6 EVs and Wisconsin's 12 EVs puts Republicans at 273. That's before talking about Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and New Hampshire.
It's likely that Hillary will run a 'War on Women' campaign. The question isn't whether that will be Hillary's strategy. The question is whether she's a terrible candidate who'll be seen as manipulative and contrived. Thus far, Hillary hasn't shown that she's got the political talent required to pull that off. I think that the thing that other pundits have called rust is really Hillary's lack of talent. If her last name was Miller, I don't think the DC punditry would call her a top tier talent.
Posted Friday, April 17, 2015 2:34 PM
No comments.
Go big or go home
With the NFL offseason in full swing, gossip columnists like Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk and 'journalists' like Adam Shefter of ESPN have run a nauseating amount of articles about Vikings running back Adrian Peterson. Florio has been particularly annoying on that front.
His near-daily posts about what that day's news means in terms of whether Peterson will be a Viking next opening day is a display of how the NFL encourages media coverage whether there's anything to report on or not. (There usually isn't.)
Yesterday, there genuinely was news on the Peterson front. The NFL finally reinstated him after putting him on the Commissioner's naughty boy list. The Vikings issued this brief statement on Peterson's reinstatement:
"The Minnesota Vikings have been informed by the NFL that Adrian Peterson has been reinstated. We look forward to Adrian re-joining the Vikings."
Immediately, the 'Will Adrian be freed and traded to the Cowboys?' stories littered the internet again. The answer to that question is simple. Adrian will be traded if another NFL team blows them away with an offer.
Rick Spielman, the Vikings GM, has repeatedly and steadfastly said that they're looking forward to seeing Adrian lining up behind future superstar QB Teddy Bridgewater. Why wouldn't he want that? Adrian Peterson is the best running back in the NFL. The last 4 years, he's been the only offensive weapon the Vikings had. That's why it's astonishing he's been incredibly productive. He's been the only threat the other team's defense has had to identify and stop.
That's meant having 8 or 9 men within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage on, at minimum, 80% of rushing plays. This offseason, the Vikings added Mike Wallace, once the premium deep threat pass catcher in the NFL. Imagine how thrilled he'd be consistently getting man coverage while the defense focuses on Adrian. Imagine the explosiveness of the Vikings offense with Teddy Bridgewater emerging as a Pro Bowl QB with a full set of weapons.
Spielman's message to other NFL teams has been simple. Adrian's under contract to us for the next 3 years. If you want him on your team, you'll have to blow us away with a great offer. If we don't get that type offer, we'll just have to figure out a way to use Mr. Peterson.
If Cowboys owner Jerry Jones wants Adrian Peterson playing his home games in Dallas, he'd better put together a great offer. If he doesn't, Adrian Peterson will remain a Viking.
Posted Friday, April 17, 2015 6:57 PM
Comment 1 by Nick at 17-Apr-15 10:51 PM
I currently live in the Detroit metro area and some of these Lions fans think that they're going to get Adrian Peterson. I tell them that's not going to happen.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 17-Apr-15 11:35 PM
Pfft. If Spielman is saying they aren't going to trade, that means they are looking high and low for a good offer to dump AP.
Hopefully Peterson is smart enough (that's suspect) to know there is no where else he can go that will pay him $13 - $15 mil, especially when the best back in the league only got a little over $8 from Philly.
The Queens will be mediocre with or without him because.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-15 12:52 AM
Chad, Spielman would prefer AP on the Vikings. That's why he's setting the price this high. They shouldn't (and won't) accept a late first round or early second round pick for AP.
Picture AP behind QB Teddy Bridgewater & Mike Wallace at WR in Norv Turner's offense. That's a potentially lethal offense.
Combine that with the Vikings dramatically improved defense & you've got the foundation for a strong playoff team for years to come.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 18-Apr-15 02:41 PM
If Spielman can get a good draft pick and some money for Peterson, he'll dump him in a heartbeat. Spielman isn't the genius that everyone thinks he is.
I can picture AP behind unproven and slightly suspect Teddy and Wallace (who is past his prime) running down the field and all I see is Teddy on his back unless the Queens get an offensive line to pass block. Norv isn't the genius everyone thinks either.
Until the Queens get a good QB (which they may have, the jury is still out), they will go no where for years to come.
The Queens will figure out a way to screw up the AP situation and be back at square one again.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-15 04:07 PM
Spielman is definitely a cut above most of the GMs in the NFL. That's indisputable. Look at the talent he's brought in. As for Teddy Bridgewater, he's already light years ahead of Tony Romo at this stage in their careers. Teddy's work ethic, his arm talent & his decision-making are great. He's still got more to learn to get to the elite level but there's no doubt that he'll get there. He's already doing things that many Pro Bowl QBs still aren't doing. (Pre-snap reads and checking out of plays and into right plays are just 2 examples.)
Finally, why are you constantly such a bitter person. It must suck being you.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 20-Apr-15 11:05 PM
Chad:
Keep in mind if the defense plays 8 man lines to try to stop AP that will mean single coverage for the WR's. And Teddy has already shown that he can make defenses pay far more than CP ever did.
Not to mention all of those problems you mention on the offensive are actually one lineman MK and if he gets his act together that line won't be a problem.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Brian McDaniel's capitulation
Friday night on Almanac's Roundtable, Republican lobbyist Brian McDaniel suggested that Republicans should give into the DFL's transportation tax increases in exchange for other tax relief. First, that's defeatist thinking. Next, it's betraying the trust between the people of Minnesota and the Republican Party. Third, it's terrible policy.
Caving on the DFL's plethora of transportation tax increases means caving on a fight Minnesotans want Republicans to win. The latest KSTP-SurveyUSA poll showed 75% of Minnesotans supporting the GOP plan of not raising transportation taxes. That poll showed only 18% of Minnesotans supporting the DFL's transportation tax increases. That's because Minnesotans of all political stripes oppose transportation tax increases. I'm certain that people that vehemently oppose a transportation tax increase wouldn't support a $13,000,000,000 transportation tax increase.
Minnesotans spoke clearly in that poll on what they don't want in this year's transportation plan. They didn't speak with timidity. They spoke with clarity and conviction. It's impossible to mistake the message they sent. To their credit, Republicans put together a plan that Minnesotans called for. They said no to the DFL's transportation tax increases. Republicans said no to tax increases that increase funding for transit projects that serve hundreds of people a day.
Republicans said yes to a new plan that will work. Republicans said yes to stable transportation funding. They said yes to the Transportation Stability Fund. Unlike the DFL's failed Transportation Bill of 2008, the Transportation Stability Fund will fund Minnesota's priorities.
Let's remember that the DFL promised that the DFL's Transportation Bill of 2008 would fix Minnesota's roads and bridges for the next quarter century. Instead, the DFL Transportation Bill of 2008 failed within 5 years. Why would anyone trust the DFL with a history of failure like that?
Minnesotans want their roads widened and their potholes filled. They aren't imploring politicians to fund more light rail projects. It's time that Republicans totally reject the DFL's plan. Compromise is the right response when multiple plans have something positive to contribute to the problem. There's nothing in the DFL plan that fixes Minnesota's potholed roads . The chief feature in the DFL's plan is the DFL's latest attempt to lift Minnesotans' wallets.
Voting for a plan that doesn't fix Minnesota's roads or fill Minnesota's potholes isn't compromise. It's total capitulation.
It's time Republicans highlighted the fact that the DFL's transportation policies have failed before. Republicans should remind people of that fact dozens of times a day. In fact, what House and Senate Republicans should do is tell vulnerable DFL members that they'll target vulnerable DFL legislators in swing districts if they vote for a transportation plan that includes a transportation tax increase.
It's time Republicans kept their promises. Further, it's time Republicans went on the offensive. It's time the DFL paid a high political price for their failed policies. That time is right now.
Posted Saturday, April 18, 2015 1:49 AM
No comments.
Sharansky, the Soviets and Iran
Natan Sharansky's op-ed provides a stunning contrast between the Obama administration's Iran capitulation and President Eisenhower's negotiations with the then-Soviet Union. Check this out:
For starters, consider that the Soviet regime felt obliged to make its first ideological concession simply to enter into negotiations with the United States about economic cooperation. At the end of the 1950s, Moscow abandoned its doctrine of fomenting a worldwide communist revolution and adopted in its place a credo of peaceful coexistence between communism and capitalism. The Soviet leadership paid a high price for this concession, both internally, in the form of millions of citizens, like me, who had been obliged to study Marxism and Leninism as the truth and now found their partial abandonment confusing, and internationally, in their relations with the Chinese and other dogmatic communists who viewed the change as a betrayal. Nevertheless, the Soviet government understood that it had no other way to get what it needed from the United States.
The Soviets capitulated because they didn't have any options. Soviet negotiators thought that President Eisenhower was a serious, hard-nosed negotiator. They didn't fear him like they feared President Reagan but they knew they couldn't take liberties with Eisenhower.
As a result of their capitulation, the Soviets experienced a shaming that they never recovered from. It took several more decades before the gulags closed and the dissidents were freed but the Soviets had been dealt a stunning defeat.
Imagine what would have happened if instead, after completing a round of negotiations over disarmament, the Soviet Union had declared that its right to expand communism across the continent was not up for discussion. This would have spelled the end of the talks. Yet today, Iran feels no need to tone down its rhetoric calling for the death of America and wiping Israel off the map.
The Iranians sized up President Obama and figured it out that he wasn't a serious negotiator. To the Iranians, President Obama looked like a mark in a con man's sights. They figured that President Obama could be flipped. That's because they knew he was a desperate man in search of a legacy. As a result, the Iranians played hardball with him.
The sanctions were working. Iran's mullahs would've been toppled if President Obama was interested in that. Unfortunately for Israel and the US, President Obama wasn't interested in dealing the Iranian regime a death blow. Because President Obama zigged when other administrations would've zagged, Iran is poised to become a Middle East hegemon with a nuclear weapon.
While negotiating with the Soviet Union, U.S. administrations of all stripes felt certain of the moral superiority of their political system over the Soviet one. They felt they were speaking in the name of their people and the free world as a whole, while the leaders of the Soviet regime could speak for no one but themselves and the declining number of true believers still loyal to their ideology.
President Obama's legacy will be his administration-long apology tour. He's felt that the United States wasn't a force for good. This will be his fitting epitaph:
It'll take a generation to clean up all the history-changing messes he's created. President Clinton said that the 1990s represented a "vacation from history." On 9/11, history came to collect on that debt.
It might well be that 2009-2016 will be called the United States' vacation from being the United States.
Posted Saturday, April 18, 2015 8:57 AM
No comments.
Jeb's surrogates criticize Rubio
This article includes one of the strangest quotes I've seen. Check this out:
Former state Rep. Juan-Carlos Planas, who also worked with both men and now backs Bush, made a similar point. "There were always projects that were important to Marco's constituents," he said. "And they always ended up in the budget."
Rep. Planas just accused Sen. Rubio of -- gasp! -- representing his constituents. Apparently, that's a mortal sin with Rep. Planas. That's weird thinking for normal people because most people think a politician actually representing them is a positive.
Jeb's unleashed his supporters to criticize Sen. Rubio:
Rubio's team declined to respond to those statements and hasn't cast Bush or other rivals in a negative light.
Yet a prominent Rubio supporter, billionaire businessman Norman Braman, has been less diplomatic. "We have to look for the future," Braman told CNN this past week in a round of interviews. "We have to go beyond the Bushes. We have to go beyond the Clintons." He added: "We're not a country that believes in dynasties."
Repeating a campaign theme isn't going negative. It's a substantive point. Jeb's supporters didn't take that path. Jeb's surrogates attacked Sen. Rubio in a personal, semi-substantive way.
This shouldn't be taken as me saying I'm supporting Sen. Rubio. I'm personally supporting Scott Walker. It's just me saying I wish Jeb's surrogates would be more substantive. Still, it's helpful since it's a safe bet that Hillary's campaign will be rude to whomever the Republicans pick as their nominee.
Posted Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:52 PM
No comments.
Walker in New Hampshire
This weekend, Gov. Scott Walker, (R-WI), visited New Hampshire again. Thus far, Gov. Walker's message is resonating :
Attendees at a New Hampshire Republican Leadership Summit on Friday offered plenty of reasons why Gov. Scott Walker sits atop a burgeoning field of potential 2016 GOP nominees in the latest Granite State polls.
But some cautioned that while Walker may check many of the right boxes, he is still a largely unknown quantity, and as voters get to know him better they may have concerns about his shifting positions on various issues, his lack of foreign policy experience or the divisive nature of his politics.
When you're the frontrunner, it's inevitable that people will criticize you. That's already happening:
"There's a lot of goodwill,' said Vernon Robinson, the director of a super PAC supporting retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson for president and a featured speaker at the event Friday. 'Folks don't know a lot about Scott Walker other than he beat the unions. As the vetting process goes forward, the good governor may have peaked too soon.'
That's certainly mild criticism, far milder than Hillary and the DNC will throw at him if he's the nominee. This mild criticism, though, tells me more about Dr. Carson's team than anything else.
Criticizing a candidate in a crowded field often isn't effective. Even if the criticism hurts the target, what often happens is that it hurts the candidate that did the criticizing. In the early stages of a presidential campaign, it's best to just build your team while building enthusiasm and momentum.
Compare the Carson campaign's criticism with this response:
Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for Walker's political nonprofit group Our American Revival, declined to comment on polls. She said Walker would continue to talk to Americans about the principles he has promoted in Wisconsin and how he was able to win three times in four years.
That's pitch perfect. It says that they won't get drawn into silly tit-for-tat spats. Further, it emphatically states that Gov. Walker will take the high road by talking about his successes in Wisconsin.
That's a smart approach. Gov. Walker has a lengthy list of accomplishments as the conservative governor of a blue state. Reminding people that your message and your conservative policies have won people over in Wisconsin is a great reminder to people that conservatism is a winning message.
No post is complete without Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's feeble attempt to criticize a Republican:
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz called Walker 'one of the most divisive leaders in recent memory.' 'The more voters get a close look at what Scott Walker's actual policies are, the more they will be repelled,' she said.
That's hilarious, especially coming from the woman that told Megyn Kelly that late term abortions are a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Rep. Wasserman-Schultz's position isn't just held by a minority of people. It's a position that great liberals like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said was "too close to infanticide."
If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz wants to promote a procedure that's "too close to infanticide," that's her right. It's just a foolish decision that a vast majority of women disagree with.
There are at least a dozen lifetimes between now and the first-in-the-nation primary, which means there isn't a true frontrunner at this point. Still, if you're Gov. Walker, you'd have to be pleased with the rollout thus far.
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2015 6:00 AM
No comments.
2016: gimmicks vs. substance
I appreciate Salena Zito's latest column because, once again, it's about what's important to Beltway pundits and what's important to real people living in America's heartland. This week, Ms. Zito's column focuses on the fight between getting distracted by gimmickry or focusing on fundamentals:
Though he never was called up to serve in Vietnam, Garfein, out of Fort Lewis, Wash., led an armored reconnaissance unit and a field artillery battery. 'I've always felt a connection to the men who fought in the Civil War.'
His conversation turned to leadership, honoring the past, the government scandals of the last five years and the country's future: 'I was taught at a young age to value your community and to serve it. We need more emphasis on that from those who want to lead our country. 'And we need to hold those in power in check; stop chasing the unicorns and start chasing and revealing the truth and demanding competency.'
A week later, more than two dozen reporters chased the next presidential cycle's first unicorn, Hillary Clinton, around an Iowa community college on her first official campaign stop. The optics of that was as comical as a tiny car releasing scores of clowns into a circus ring. But it doesn't amuse people like Garfein, who wish the media would chase down government corruption and incompetency with the same gusto.
The 'reporters' covering Hillary on the campaign trail are making asses of themselves. They breathlessly told us that Queen Hillary had ordered the burrito bowl from a Chipotle in Ohio. They informed us that she'd ordered the "guac", though Jon Stewart noticed that they didn't tell us how many napkins she took:
The media are, for all intents and purposes, Hillary's puppets. For all the talk about how Hillary won't get the same kid glove treatment from the media like then-candidate Obama did, it's looking like the media isn't exactly fired up to investigate Hillary. While she won't get the slobbering coverage that President Obama got, she'll get kid glove treatment.
This week, we saw the Hillary 'correspondents' do some embarrassing things. First, they acted like puppets chasing her vehicle around a community college building. This morning, veteran NPR political reporter Mara Liasson told media critic Howard Kurtz "For some reason that I've never understood, the public wants to know everything that the Clintons do." That's what Beltway reporters think about the people's appetite for the Clintons? Seriously?
There's no finer example of the difference between real reporters from America's heartland and 'reporters' from inside the DC Beltway.
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2015 12:01 PM
No comments.
Chris Christie is history
This article illustrates 2 things. First, it's proof that progressives don't understand conservatism. Next, it's proof that progressives are still fighting hard to prop Chris Christie up. Let's look at that last point first in this paragraph:
The New Jersey governor is down, but not out. He's putting all his chips on winning the Granite State, and the positive reception he received here showed that it's probably the best bet he can make with his limited options.
Chris Christie is history. This weekend, Jazz Shaw wrote this post about Gov. Christie. Here's the key point:
The Second Amendment was always going to be a tricky question for Christie as he attempts to navigate his way from being a successful executive in the very blue state of New Jersey to a prospective leader on the national level. After all, he is governor of the state with the second most horrible gun laws in the nation. Christie has, in the past, made a similar argument on this point as he has with other conservative issues. There is little he can do about it, or so the argument goes, because the Democrats run the legislature with an iron grip and he can't summon new laws out of thin air on his own. To a certain extent that may be true, and it's a defense which has been used by Republicans in traditionally liberal states to good effect in the past. But when you're running for president it doesn't really change the fact that you're still the governor of the state with the second most horrible gun laws in the nation.
Jazz is right that Gov. Christie can't create laws just by wishing them into existence. After all, he isn't President Obama. What Christie could've done, though, is pushed for more NRA-friendly gun laws. There isn't much in the way of proof that Gov. Christie fought for more Second Amendment-friendly legislation.
Next, let's look at whether progressives understand conservatives. First, I'll note that Gov. Christie isn't a conservative. He's a Republican, not a conservative. Next, let's admit that any Republican with national aspirations can't flinch on Second Amendment issues. That Republican can't even hesitate in their support of the Second Amendment. A flinch is that politician's death knell. Period.
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2015 10:24 PM
No comments.
