April 23, 2012
Apr 23 03:41 Where have all the Blue Dogs gone? Apr 23 04:14 Klobuchar makes North Dakota trip Apr 23 04:56 Walker recall election news Apr 23 05:36 Terrible news for Sherrod Brown Apr 23 22:52 Chuck Berry never sounded this good Apr 23 23:46 Rep. Hackbarth asking the right question
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Where have all the Blue Dogs gone?
During Bill Clinton's time in office, Blue Dog Democrats were integral parts of the Democratic Party. Since the Soros-engineered progressive takeover, they've played a significantly less important role.
Thanks to then-Speaker Pelosi's pushing them into voting for Cap and Trade, the stimulus and Obamacare, Blue Dog numbers are shrinking. According to this article , things might get worse for Blue Dogs:
Two years after the 2010 midterm elections decimated their ranks, the coalition of conservative Democrats is poised to get pummeled again in November, moving the Blue Dogs dangerously close to extinction.
Of the 24 remaining Blue Dogs, five are not seeking re-election. More than a half-dozen others are facing treacherous contests in which their re-election hopes are in jeopardy.
It's a rough time to occupy the right wing of the Democratic Party.
"It's a tough environment out there," said former Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, a longtime member of the House Blue Dog Coalition. "Their numbers are down. Redistricting has not been kind to them."
While there's no doubt that redistricting didn't help Blue Dog Democrats, it's true that their refusal to fight against the stimulus, Obamacare and Cap and Trade hasn't helped either.
When Collin Peterson switched from opposing Cap and Trade to supporting it because he'd received some meaningless tradeoffs, the Blue Dog brand was tarnished.
When Bart Stupak switched his support for Obamacare after holding out against Obamacare because it contained government funding for abortions, the Blue Dog brand took a hit.
After the Obamacare votes, the joke was that the Stupaks and Petersons were Blue Dogs "until Pelosi told them they couldn't be" for a bill. While that might sound logical in DC, people in the real world demand that their representatives be principled people, not politicians with their hands out waiting for the next deal.
Blue Dog Democrats voted for too many far left pieces of legislation to pass themselves off as centrists. Far too often, they've let Ms. Pelosi push them around.
Ironically, GOP majorities in the House and Senate, coupled with a Romney administration, might invigorate the Blue Dog brand. This isn't good news for Blue Dogs:
Boswell, meanwhile, is competing against GOP Rep. Tom Latham in a new southwestern Iowa-based district. While Boswell at first appeared to be the early front-runner, Democrats now worry about his slow fundraising pace compared with Latham's ever-ballooning war chest. Latham has also received air support from American Crossroads, a deep-pocketed third-party group that has crowded the airwaves with TV ads taking aim at Boswell.
If Rep. Latham keeps raising money at a fast clip, that could lead to November difficulties for Boswell. The fact that Boswell's fundraising totals are worrying Democrats says that he isn't getting the voter support he'll need this cycle.
That isn't good news going against a polished incumbent.
Tags: Blue Dog Democrats , Collin Peterson , Bart Stupak , Leonard Boswell , Nancy Pelosi , Bill Clinton , Obamacare , Cap And Trade , Stimulus , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 23, 2012 3:41 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 23-Apr-12 08:52 AM
Where have all the Blue Dogs gone?
Obama ate them all.
Klobuchar makes North Dakota trip
It's impossible to read Amy Klobuchar's mind. Last week, she voted against building the Keystone XL Pipeline . This week, she visited the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota:
"People don't always realize this isn't just good for the country because of the oil production and natural gas," Klobuchar said. "It's also good because we're bringing in jobs."
Klobuchar toured western North Dakota on Friday with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., to get a firsthand look at oil and gas development and the infrastructure challenges facing the rapidly growing communities.
The senators toured a drilling rig near Williston and watched a demonstration of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
If Sen. Klobuchar is interested in increasing oil and natural gas in North America, she should've voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline bill. She didn't.
She's specialized in bringing alternative energy bills to the table, often with South Dakota's Tim Johnson. She's also good at conducting photo ops at gas stations .
What she isn't good at is finding solutions to high gas prices and expensive groceries. After 5+ years of attempted solutions, Sen. Klobuchar still hasn't produced a solution on an issue that's hurting families.
Tags: Bakken Oil Field , Amy Klobuchar , Tim Johnson , Gas Prices , Photo Ops , Democrats , John Hoeven , Fracking , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 23, 2012 4:14 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Apr-12 07:26 AM
Bakken and that pipeline to the Gulf Coast to service Europe with Alberta tar sand product are two different things entirely. Not to say either is wise now, or not, but don't confuse the two. Klobuchar clearly knows they are not the same.
And Bakken is pumping within a single state. I thought your party was the one touting State rights. That pipeline would run through several states, and is more a federal issue.
Walker recall election news
In this article , Scott Walker confirmed what I suspected . Here's what Gov. Walker said:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says President Barack Obama's political machine is pulling out all the stops to defeat him in the pivotal June 5 recall election, a race that could determine the future of many efforts around the country to curb runaway government spending.
'I think you'll see the most radical elements on the left are going to be involved in this recall, because again for them, this is so critically important,' Walker told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.
'I think they understand that when we win, this will send a powerful message not just to other Republican governors, but to even some of the discerning Democrats who hold governorships and even mayoral positions across the country.'
Here's what I wrote about potential ramifications from the recall election:
There's alot riding on this recall election for both sides. If the unions dump tons of money into defeating Gov. Walker, which they will, but Gov. Walker still wins, it'll be another stinging defeat for the unions. If they're defeated, that means President Obama's campaign will be fighting an uphill fight.
With the Wisconsin GOP GOTV operation off to a successful start, Democrats, especially the unions, have alot to worry about.
The fact that President Obama knows that he must spend tons of money in Wisconsin says that he knows he's in trouble if Gov. Walker wins this recall election. First, the unions' bankrolls will be severely depleted after these recall elections.
They'll be scrambling for the cash they'll need to protect pro-union legislators in state legislatures and Congress. They won't have the warchest they'll need to go on the offensive. Additionally, they've got to protect the incumbents they've got. If they don't protect their incumbents, things could get ugly in state legislatures and in DC alike.
President Obama knows that Gov. Walker winning also energizes Republicans. That's something he can't afford in Wisconsin. With Saturday's impressive GOTV operation, morale will be riding high for GOP GOTV volunteers.
In 2008, President Obama raised a ton of cash, which he used to bury Sen. McCain with. This cycle, he's raising tons of cash, too. This time, though, he'll need every penny of it to fend off his GOP opponent.
When the dust settles on June 5, there's a distinct possibility that political historians will mark that as the date President Obama's re-election campaign suffered a mortal blow.
A recent PPP poll showed Walker with a 50 to 45 percent edge over his leading Democratic opponent, Milwaukee County executive Tom Barrett. He also holds a 50 to 43 percent advantage over his other potential rival, Kathleen Falk, the former Dane County executive who is the unions' favorite.
That Gov. Walker is over 50% against both of his opponents can't help the Democrat's morale. They'll still work hard but they're still fighting an uphill fight.
Tags: President Obama , Recall Election , Tom Barrett , Kathleen Falk , Wisconsin , Unions , Democrats , Scott Walker , Reforms , GOTV Operation , GOP
Posted Monday, April 23, 2012 4:56 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Apr-12 07:22 AM
A strong effort by those not liking who Scott Walker is and has been, not liking what has happened recently in Wisconsin and thinking the man dangerous enough to be vigorously opposed? News? There would not have been a recall effort were that level of feelings not strong.
Wait and see Gary, on what that recall vote turns out to be. My crystal ball is hoping different than your crystal ball, neither knowing much but feelings.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-12 08:34 AM
Actually, Walker is leading his Democrat opponents in available polling. Mine is based on numbers, not emotions.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 23-Apr-12 02:02 PM
"There would not have been a recall effort were that level of feelings not strong."
Eric, there also wouldn't have been a recall effort had unions and Fleebaggers not wanted to hold their breaths until they turned even more blue. Walker's reforms have helped with property taxes in every area of the state where they've been tried, and unionists STILL don't pay as much in health insurance premiums as their private-sector brethren. Walker has done an excellent job.
Terrible news for Sherrod Brown
Campaign consultants could write worse news for Sen. Sherrod Brown, (D-OH), though not much worse. According to Rasmussen's latest polling , Sen. Brown is in major trouble:
Ohio's U.S. Senate race continues to be a close one, with incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown now inching slightly ahead of Republican challenger Josh Mandel.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Buckeye State shows Brown with 44% support to Mandel's 41%. Three percent (3%) like another candidate, and a sizable 12% remain undecided.
When an incumbent can't top 50%, pollsters generally say that he's vulnerable. Things change dramatically, though, if that incumbent can't even make it to 45%. At that point, most political consultants would say the incumbent is in trouble.
The Brown campaign will have a difficult time getting to a positive poll rating. If Sen. Brown can't break 47-48% by Labor Day, he'll be fighting an uphill fight.
Things would get worse for Sen. Brown if Gov. Romney picks Rob Portman as his VP and gives him the responsibility of winning Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana.
Things aren't looking good for Senate Democrats. Sen. McCaskill is trailing Sarah Steelman in Missouri:
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Missouri finds former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman ahead of McCaskill by seven points, 49% to 42%.
About the only good news for Democrats comes from Massachusetts. Even then, it isn't great news :
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Massachusetts shows Warren edging Brown by one point, 46% to 45%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate in the race, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.
Scott Brown is the most vulnerable Republican Senate incumbent. If he's trailing by a point, that's certainly a winnable race for either candidate.
Democrats have already written off North Dakota, Wisconsin and Nebraska. They're in trouble in Wisconsin, Virginia and Montana, too.
Tags: Polling , Josh Mandel , Scott Brown , Sarah Steelman , Ohio , Missouri , Massachusetts , GOP , Sherrod Brown , Elizabeth Warren , Claire McCaskill , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 23, 2012 5:36 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Apr-12 07:19 AM
Missouri and Ohio are strong Republican states. Missouri used to be more purple than blue or red, but the Dems elected there were very middle of the road Tom Eagleton types. Now John Danforth would be called RINO by the new breed. As with some here, with Ramstad. Danforth after all is the cause of Clerance Thomas being on the Supreme Court and Scalia thus having two votes. Ohio, Kasich, need we say more?
Chuck Berry never sounded this good
This video brightened my afternoon almost as the 70 degree weather outside:
I wouldn't doubt that Mitch Berg will get upset with the video, though not because he'd disagree with the message or music. I'm betting that he'll be upset that he didn't think of it first.
Seriously, though, the video is a reminder that President Obama's anti-energy policies have hurt the nation. High gas prices are crippling family budgets, both by eating up families' earnings and by adding to grocery bills.
That's before talking about how President Obama's moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico has destabilized gas prices. The truth is that you'd have to try hard to get gas and electricity prices much higher.
Unfortunately, Steven Chu, President Obama's anti-energy secretary, has been working on policies that would make energy prices much higher for years. That's his Holy Grail achievement.
Thankfully, most people disagree with President Obama's and Secretary Chu's anti-energy policies. Thankfully, Republicans have great spokespeople on the subject of drilling. When Sarah Palin talks about "Drill, Baby, Drill", the American people understand that increasing oil production is the fastest way to cheap energy. When Speaker Gingrich talks about "Drill here, drill now, pay less", the American people agree with him.
If President Obama insists that his policies are the right policies, then he'll get thumped because the American people disagree with his anti-energy policies.
Tags: Chuck Berry , Johnny B Goode , President Obama , Steven Chu , Oil , Fossil Fuels , Democrats , Newt Gingrich , Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less , Sarah Palin , Drill, Baby, Drill , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, April 23, 2012 10:52 PM
No comments.
Rep. Hackbarth asking the right question
The House Ways and Means Committee passed the Vikings stadium legislation through their committee Monday night. According to this DNT article, Rep. Tom Hackbarth was the only person who asked the right question:
Tough questions dominated Monday night's committee discussion, which continued at press time, on topics ranging from funding plans to the cost of expanding gambling to who should be in charge of stadium construction.
The funding source was the main concern of some committee members.
'This doesn't work,' Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, said.
Hackbarth especially objected to the plan to pay for the state's portion of stadium construction costs by allowing charities that sponsor gambling use electronic pulltab and bingo devices, as well as sports-themed tip board games. The state Revenue Department says, there will be enough new state taxes on charities' gambling profits to repay stadium costs.
' What proof do you have that they are going to bring in the type of money you say they are going to bring in ?' Hackbarth demanded of stadium backers Reps. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove, and Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead.
The estimates come from 'people smarter than most of the people in this room,' Kriesel said, defending the unique funding plan. 'We have to get creative because no one wants to raise taxes.'
This is the sloppiest stadium legislation ever proposed in the United States. What other stadium plan relies on multiple backup revenue streams ? It's embarrassing to see legislators spin this as a good deal for taxpayers.
Simply put, it's a great deal for the Vikings, a risky deal for taxpayers and the state. I won't say it can't work. I'm saying there's alot of risk for Minnesota taxpayers attached to the legislation as it currently exists.
The thing that people haven't talked about is having the Vikings and/or the NFL contribute more to the stadium cost. If that happened, the tax revenue from e-pulltabs and e-bingo would be all that's needed. At that point, you'd have more legislators expressing support for the stadium.
This might be the best explanation of how this legislation's funding works:
No disrespect to Rep. Kriesel or Rep. Lanning but the funding mechanism has too many unknowns to be worth the risk.
Tags: Minnesota Vikings , Stadium , NFL , Tom Hackbarth , John Kriesel , Morrie Lanning , E-Pulltabs , E-Bingo
Posted Monday, April 23, 2012 11:46 PM
Comment 1 by Phil at 24-Apr-12 08:50 AM
I understand what your saying. At this late day it is the only way to keep the Vikings in Minnesota. The loss of the Vikings would be much more devestating to the amount of tax revenue they generate in the state than any short fall that the stadium financing plan might create. It's funny how all the income taxes that the players and everyone involved with the Vikings pay and also all the sales taxes created and wages generated in the state are never brought up. The loss of those tax revenue streams alone make this legislation a must. I say get it done and fix it later if the need arises.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 24-Apr-12 10:26 AM
Who says the state needs to keep the Vikings? No one has been able to put a number to how much money the Vikings, Twins, Wild, or Timber wolves supposedly bring into the state but there are numerous studies to prove that stadiums and pro sports teams are not the economic force that their supports say they are. If stadiums and pro sports teams were the economic force supporters claim they are, then why is Minneapolis broke and Target Center not paid off? How about St. Paul? The Vikings know the stadium is a money loser and need the state as a partner because the state can raise the money through legalized theft er I mean taxes. The Vikings and NFL walk away with the money and we are left holding the bag.
The Git -R- Done and worry about the funding later philosophy is what has gotten this state and country into the current mess and we can stop that cycle now by telling the Vikings to build it themselves.
