April 26-29, 2012
Apr 26 00:56 Crucify the EPA Apr 26 02:21 Did Senate kill Vikings' stadium bill? Apr 26 04:52 Mocking the Vikings (We're thinking NFL Draft) Apr 26 11:14 SB1070 is constitutional Apr 26 14:45 Are Democrats rejecting President Obama? Apr 27 02:36 Spielman's first draft a winner, other draft observations Apr 29 09:12 Arne Carlson ignores Minnesota's Constitution Apr 29 17:56 3 years and a ton of excuses Apr 29 21:25 Chip Cravaack by the numbers
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Crucify the EPA
In a shocking development, CNSNews is reporting that the EPA had set its sights on oil and natural gas companies :
In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:
'I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I'll go ahead and tell you what I said:
'It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them.
'Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.'
'It's a deterrent factor,' Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans' philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.
This is stunning, though it fits with this administration's anti-energy policies. The thought that a top official within the EPA would have this mindset isn't just provocative. It explains the administration's approach, which has led to gas prices doubling since President Obama's inauguration.
This isn't just an indictment against this administration. It's an indictment of the militant environmentalist movement's mindset. They hate people who deal with fossil fuels. They'll do anything to limit the use of fossil fuels.
Remember, these are the activists that President Obama caved to with his Keystone XL Pipeline decision.
'Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
'In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best - and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.'
Administrator Armendariz should be terminated immediately, as should all of the upper management of the EPA. Furthermore, voters should remember that President Obama picked Administrator Armendariz to this highly placed position. This isn't a career employee at the EPA. He's a political appointee .
This administration's war on fossil fuels has dramatically driven gas prices up. That, in turn, has cost consumers in the form of higher prices for groceries, home heating bills, city and school board budgets and many more things.
This administration's war on fossil fuels has affected grocery prices because it costs more to deliver groceries from the farm to the supermarket. It's driven up home heating bills because they've waged war on coal producers, which is the least expensive way of producing electricity. It's costing cities and schools more to heat and light their buildings.
What's worst is that higher energy prices hurt low- and middle-income people the most. It eats up a greater percentage of their takehome pay than it does for families with upper middle class incomes.
Here's the video:
What's interesting is that, like Sen. Inhofe said, the EPA manufactured charges against companies for using hydraulic fracturing to harvest natural gas. What's interesting is that the EPA's charges can't be substantiated scientifically. In other words, this administration's EPA is making this stuff up in their attempt to cripple fossil fuel-producing companies.
The EPA's mindset won't change until it's under new management from a different administration. The Obama administration's statements and policies match their bullying tactics and regulatory overreaches.
This isn't a rogue Obama adminsitration official making an inopportune statement. It's a statement that exposes this administration's hostility towards fossil fuels.
Tags: Al Armendariz , EPA , Crucify , Gas Prices , Heating Bills , Groceries , Middle Class Squeeze , Overregulation , President Obama , Roman Empire , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2012 12:56 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Apr-12 06:33 AM
Renewable.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 09:17 AM
Renewable can play a minor role in energy policy. It'll never be more than that. People who think it's the environment's & the energy policy's savior are kidding themselves. They should never be near the levers of power again.
Did Senate kill Vikings' stadium bill?
The Senate Finance Committee unexpectedly voted to include Racino in the Vikings stadium bill . Julie Rosen's expression says it all:
But adding racino gambling would cost needed political support, said Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, sponsor of the stadium bill in the Senate. She called its addition "a serious blow to the bill." "It will have to be taken out," Rosen said.
A spokeswoman for Dayton said she couldn't say whether the DFL governor would sign a stadium bill that included racino gambling. Earlier Wednesday, Dayton said he didn't think racino should be in the stadium plan. If it's challenged in court, he said, the sale of construction bonds would have to be postponed until the legal process had concluded.
Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead, sponsor of the bill in the House, said including racino gambling was "problematic."
There's sure to be a powerful lobbying effort from MIGA and CAGE on behalf of getting rid of the Racino provision. That's as predictable as the sun rising in the east. It's rare that CAGE and MIGA will fight together, albeit with different motives.
More anti-Racino lobbyists will certainly descend on the Capitol Thursday than locusts descended on Egypt just prior to the Exodus. It's difficult seeing how that provision stays in the Vikings' legislation through the next committee hearing.
Once the Vikings Stadium is built, if that is the outcome, then Racino will be dead in its tracks once and for all. After that, MIGA and the DFL will kill it whenever it's resurrected.
That's as predictable as betting that the sun will rise in the east.
Tags: Minnesota Vikings , Vikings Stadium , Lester Bagley , Mark Dayton , Lobbyists , Racino , MIGA , Cage , DFL , Julie Rosen , Morrie Lanning , MNGOP
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:21 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 26-Apr-12 06:52 AM
Everyone of these so called republicans who vote in favor of any stadium bill should be thrown out of office! There really is no difference between a democrat and republican in this state anymore. The GOP was elected in 2010 to cut the size of government and to cut spending and they have done neither and now they are going to spend even more money building a stadium for a billionaire! The GOP is a joke with a bad punchline. Sen. Thompson had it right the other night on FOX 9.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 09:08 AM
Oh please. Get over yourself. Yes, on this issue, there isn't a difference. There's a huge difference in terms of spending & taxing. Billions of dollars worth of spending & taxing differences. Then there's the reforms that this GOP legislature has passed. That doesn't count because you demand perfection.
I don't like spending money on stadiums, either. I've been quite outspoken about that. That said, the thing I hate worse than GOP legislators voting for pro sports stadiums is DFL legislatures passing Gov. Dayton's wish list & ruining Minnesota's economy for a generation.
It's time Republicans grew up. It's time that you understood that voting for a Vikings stadium pisses you off but it won't ruin the state's economy for a generation. DFL legislatures working with DFL governors will.
Comment 2 by b at 26-Apr-12 07:06 PM
grow up zellers
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 26-Apr-12 08:37 PM
This Racino play brought the first smile to my face on this issue to date. I love the back door politics of it all. But it also shows that the right bill is just not on the table. It's what Rybak wants, both for Mpls and a future run for Gov, not what fans want, like tailgating - real tailgating which only sites like Arden Hills can provide.
But instead we'll get the wrong city, dishonest financing, no parking, no tailgating, even a transit nightmare.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 27-Apr-12 12:19 AM
B:
King B an economist and state rep on a radio interview described what circumstances could cause a vote for the stadium. While King didn't say he wouldn't vote for it he suggested an Arden Hills proposal because it could cause development where there wouldn't be and it would create more.
There is a major difference between Republicans and Democrats. Part of it on the stadium is they don't want to be seen as allowing the Vikings to leave (a possibilty we have to acknowledge) and part of it is the voters recognize the Twins, the Wild, the Timberwolves, and the Gophers all got their stadiums. If the deal isn't bad (that's still in doubt right now) they could support it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Mocking the Vikings (We're thinking NFL Draft)
As a football junkie, the NFL draft is like Christmas in April for me. Aa a reward for the Vikings' awful season, the Vikings have the third overall pick. At least for the time being.
I don't have special insider knowledge. I haven't talked to any executives or scouting directors. i just have a hunch that makes tons of sense.
I'm betting that Tampa gets enamored with Trent Richardson, Alabama's supertalented running back. If that's the case, they'll need to jump past the Cleveland Browns to get TRich. The Vikings are their only option at that point.
To move up, it'll cost them their third round pick, the 68th pick overall, as well as their fifth rounder.
The Viking would likely have their choice of either Morris Claiborne or Matt Kalil with the fifth pick. My preference is Claiborne because the Vikings' secondary is utterly depleted. That's terrible news in a division with 3 top gunslinging QBs and receivers like Detroit's Megatron, Chicago's Brandon Marshall, Green Bay's Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson.
The Vikings don't need a corner. They need 2.
With that extra third rounder, they could combine that with the 35th pick to trade back into the 20-24th pick. I don't know if they're interested in this but if they were, they could target Dre Kirkpatrick, Alabama's ubertalented corner.
This would clearly be a draft day deal because they'd be targetting a specific player like Kirkpatrick.
Taking Kirkpatrick and Claiborne in the first round would be a major coup for the Vikings. By drafting 2 of the top 3 corners in this draft, they'd turn a weakness into a strength for the rest of this decade. That would be a huge step towards competitiveness in this the NFL North.
I'd recommend they sign Marcus McNeill to a one year contract to play left tackle.
After that, they could pick a wideout with their other third rounder.
This isn't as much a mock draft as a Vikings fan's wish list. It isn't that realistic from the mock drafts I've read tonight but that doesn't mean teams don't throw the other teams a curveball every now and then.
For a more professional, well-researched mock draft, check out Scott Wright's Draft Countdown later this morning for his final mock draft.
Tags: Minnesota Vikings , NFL Draft , Tampa Bay , Trent Richardson , Morris Claiborne , Dre Kirkpatrick , Draft Day Trade , Secondary , Aaron Rodgers , Jay Cutler , Matthew Stafford , NFL
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Apr-12 12:30 AM
Gary:
I realize that it's not the draft you pictured, but the Vikings did fill in two needs by basically adopting your plan. Their corners should be coming in the second and third round (maybe the fourth)
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Apr-12 01:48 AM
I noticed that, Walter. I thought they'd do something like this to expedite the rebuilding process. I prefered Claiborne over Kalil but I'm anything but disappointed.
The thing that the experts are saying is that Kalil needs to improve is his strength. Then I heard how young he is & how "he'll grow into his body."
His work ethic, attitude, agility & his feet are outright impressive.
Harrison Smith looks like a solid player, though not an instant Pro Bowl type. He'll be the leader of the secondary from the start of training camp.
Overall, I'd give Spielman's draft an A- or A.
SB1070 is constitutional
Based on yesterday's oral arguments, it sounds like Solicitor General Donald Verilli got a beating in his SCOTUS arguments yesterday. SCOTUS appears on the verge of ruling SB1070 is constitutional :
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government's role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
'It seems to me the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally,' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
This administration is about to get embarrassed by the Supremes again. That's because this administration thinks it can rewrite the Constitution whenever it wants. This administration got rolled by a 9-0 ruling when it tried telling private property owners they didn't have the right to contest the EPA's administrative rulings.
I don't expect a unanimous ruling this time (Justice Kagan recused herself) but I'd be surprised if SB1070 isn't ruled constitutional with votes to spare.
The Holder Justice Department is getting the reputation for being corrupt and inept. Verilli is getting a reputation of ineptly arguing questionable cases before the Supreme Court. That's what happens when the administration makes foolish decisions, then has the solicitor general defend its foolish decisions in the Supreme court.
It's particularly embarrassing for the solicitor general to be told by Justice Sotomayor that his arguments weren't playing well with the justices.
That's what happens when an incompetent solicitor general argues for a corrupt administration's bankrupt policies in front of the Supreme Court.
While there's some doubt about whether the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare, there's little doubt that SCOTUS will rule in Arizona's favor.
Tags: SB1070 , President Obama , Donald Verilli , Solicitor General , Immigration , Sotomayor , SCOTUS , Corruption , Democrats
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2012 11:14 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 26-Apr-12 11:41 AM
So mote it be. And hopefully Scalia will write the majority opinion :)
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 26-Apr-12 04:43 PM
Gary:
I think the biggest thing that came out of yesterday's oral arguments I heard was that Roberts asked the government do you think this is racial profiling and the government lawyer said no!
If we had a real media that would be the big news for the last 24 hours. The so called racial profiling and the fear that if you bought an ice cream could cause you to be arrested is what Obama and the Democrats have been using to make hay on this law.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 05:09 PM
Walter, That's a great point. You're 100% right.
Are Democrats rejecting President Obama?
This video from American Crossroads goes after President Obama for being celebrity cool but a failure:
The first half of the video shows President Obama acting hip and cool on stage. The last half of the video chronicles President Obama's economic failures. That ties perfectly into this article with the Washington Examiner :
Blue collar Democratic voters, stuck taking depressing 'staycations' because they can't afford gas and hotels, are resentful of the first family's 17 lavish vacations around the world and don't want their tax dollars paying for the Obamas' holidays, according to a new analysis of swing voters.
'They view everything through their own personal situation and if they can't afford to do it, they can't enjoy it, they don't like Obama using their tax dollars to benefit himself,' said pollster John McLaughlin. 'In this case, they see him as out of touch. While they are struggling he's not sharing in that struggle and he's basically doing what they can't do on their tax dollars,' added the GOP pollster.
A significant portion of these voters have experienced buyers remorse. In 2008, a high percentage of people had high expectations for President Obama. During the only term he'll get, he's managed to steal hope from them, often leaving them struggling from paycheck to paycheck.
The only thing worse than having no hope is being optimistic, then having that optimism destroyed. That's where alot of people are thank to Obamanomics.
During the focus group discussions about debt and spending cuts, many in his group volunteered criticism of the presidential vacations as something that should be cut. Among the lines McLaughlin wrote down was one from a Democratic woman who said, 'Michelle Obama spends $1 million to take the kids to Hawaii,' and another who said, 'President Obama was the only president to take so many trips.'
Michelle Obama shouldn't be titled the First Lady as much as she should be titled the First Vacationer. She's lived a lavish lifestyle while others struggled.
Ditto with President Obama. If I had a $5 bill each time I heard Democrat spinmeisters defend President Obama after a round of golf, I'd be able to buy a modest golf course. If I had another $5 bill for each time a Democrat spinmeister said something like 'We should want our president well-rested so he can do his job', I'd be able to buy several golf courses.
I might be the exception but I'm betting I'm not in thinking that presidents should be dogged in their pursuit of solutions. If that means they leave office frazzled at the end of their second term, so be it. This isn't just any job.
POTUS is the leader of the free world, the commander-in-chief and the nation's chief cheerleader. If someone isn't willing to do the work that's expected of him, then he should get fired this November.
Based on this information, I'd argue that there's a better than 50-50 chance that's what voters are gearing up to do this November.
Tags: President Obama , Buyers Remorse , Hope and Change , Obamacare , Stimulus , Unemployment , Democrats , Focus Groups , Polling , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:45 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Apr-12 06:55 PM
How many dressage horses and Cadillacs does Ms. Obama own?
Just wondering.
And you know, Ms. Obama's worked days of her life in the real world. For a boss. Not a stay at home where her role is being the boss. There's a difference.
And you know, she's educated. A lawyer. Having worked in a first rate Chicago firm. Not dressaging around out of boredom.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Apr-12 09:54 PM
How many dressage horses and Cadillacs does Ms. Obama own? Just wondering.Nobody cares. They're pissed that the Obamas are living high off the public dime.
Comment 3 by Jethro at 26-Apr-12 11:12 PM
Ms. Obama doesn't need dressage horses and cadillacs when the public dime to pay for her extravagant travel on gas guzzling air force jets will do quite nicely. Isn't it nice to see President Obama using Air Force One to fly to various campaign stops, I mean, various presidential functions like saving the environment?
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 27-Apr-12 12:26 AM
Eric:
Are you sure you want to bring up Mrs Obama's work experience. I mean this was the woman who got her salary not because of how she worked, but her husband was an important politician and her biggest achievement was she worked on a plan for her hospital to give poor patients to another hospital.
And when did she do that work to learn to be proud of her country (lets remember she wasn't always proud to be an American)
Finally Eric with Mother's Day approaching what a horrible sexist thing to say that one mother let alone any mother (God bless my mother Mary Jean Hanson in heaven by the way) who didn't work giving love, cooking meals, cleaning house, helping her kids learn, etc. HOW DARE YOU SAY BEING A MOTHER ISN'T HARD WORK AND ON TOP OF IT THE PAY SUCKS!!!!!!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Jethro at 27-Apr-12 07:57 AM
Amen, Walter! Well said.
Spielman's first draft a winner, other draft observations
The 2012 NFL draft is only a day old so I'm only able to give the Vikings a grade based on their picks today. But, oh, what a grade it is.
An hour prior to the official start of the draft, ESPN's Chris Mortenson and Adam Shefter announced that the Vikings had traded the third overall pick to the Browns for the 4th overall pick, plus Cleveland's 118th, 139th & 211th picks.
In short, Spielman convinced the Browns to give him the additional ammunition that hey'll need to expedite the Vikings' rebuilding job. It didn't take long to lear that that was a major thing.
With the fourth pick he'd aquired from Cleveland, Spielman got the player he'd wanted all along in USC LT Matt Kalil. After a flurry of trades, the Vikings combined the 35th pick (the third pick in the 2nd round) with the 98th pick (third pick in the 4th round) to trade back into the first round to take Notre Dame safety Harrison Smith with the 29th pick they'd acquired from Baltimore.
Friday night, the Vikings will start the night with the 66th pick, which is the third pick in the third round. Saturday, the Vikings will have a fistful of fourth-rounders, 2 fifth-rounders, a sixth-rounder and 2 seventh-rounders.
It's possible the Vikings can package the 66th pick with some third day picks and get back into the 2nd round. That might not be necessary, though, because the talent that dropped into the 2nd round was pretty substantial.
It isn't that the players that dropped fit the Vikings priorities. It's that some teams made surprising picks that pushed other talented players into the 2nd day of the draft.
It's likely that the Vikings will focus on getting a cornerback & a wideout before adding depth with the rest of the draft.
Elsewhere in the NFC North, Chicago drafted OLB Shea McClellin of Boise State, Detroit picking Iowa OT Riley Rieff and Green Bay picking USC DE Nick Perry.
It isn't difficult to make a legitimate case that each of the NFC North teams improved themselves with their picks.
Elsewhere in the draft, the Rams got a solid DT in Michael Brockers after trading out of the sixth pick. Though he'll help their defense, Jeff Fischer has to be disappointed. They'd hoped that they'd draft Oklahoma State wideout Justin Blackmon with sixth pick.
When Jacksonville swapped picks with Tampa, they picked Blackmon. That led to the Rams trading back to the 14th pick in a trade with the Cowboys. The Rams hoped they'd still get Michael Floyd with the 14th pick. Instead, the Cardinals used their 13th overall pick to take Floyd to pair him with Larry Fitzgerald.
St. Louis should've just picked Floyd with the sixth pick, which analysts would've said was a little bit of a reach. Still, they would've gotten a prime weapon for QB Sam Bradford. Instead, they got a defensive tackle and extra picks that they'll use to take lesser talents.
Right now, I'd give the Vikings, the Patriots and Cincinnati the highest grades from the first day. The Patriots significantly upgraded their defense with passrushing DE Chandler Jones and ILB Dont'a Hightower. Cincinnati upgraded their secondary by picking Alabama CB Dre Kirkpatrick with the 17th pick. Then they upgraded their offensive line by picking OG Kevin Zeitler from Wisconsin.
Of the teams with just 1 pick in the first round, Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Buffalo really helped themselves alot.
Green Bay got the passrusher they need to take pressure off Clay Matthews when they drafted Nick Perry of USC. Pittsburgh helped themselves immensely in picking Stanford OG David DeCastro. DeCastro is a mauler in the Steelers' tradition. Buffalo has had a fantastic offseason, first getting DEs Mario Williams and Mark Anderson in free angency, then adding CB Stephon Gilmore of South Carolina with the 10th pick.
Buffalo's defense took a giant step forward, both in terms of upgrading their defensive line and their secondary.
Originally posted Friday, April 27, 2012, revised 28-Apr 10:46 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 27-Apr-12 08:46 AM
Very pleased with the two picks. Kalil was a no-brainer and the team's situation at safety was worse than their situation at corner -- which was dire.
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Apr-12 12:29 PM
An entire new post with the word "Claiborn" wholly missing after what was said previously.
Post-first-day Etch-a-sketch?
The word "Smith" mentioned only once, w/o any good vs bad analysis.
So, who will be the Viking's next pick - in your ideal world where a player you like could slip to them?
Who will be the most likely pick, given your view of what other teams might do before the Vikings get a pick?
Last question, would you build Zygi a new stadium now, based on the draft so far, or would you want a wait-and-see draft wrap-up and another season to judge?
Comment 3 by eric z at 27-Apr-12 12:54 PM
I say they go for a guard if there's a strong choice when they get to pick. Who? No idea.
What do you think of T.Y. Hilton out of Florida International, as a stretch the field wideout and as a kick returner to keep Harvin healthier?
Also, do you think they will have a shot at Janoris Jenkins, the CB dropped from the team at Florida by Urban Meyer's successor? If they took on for a year the highlight reel doper Cincy let go, why not somebody Harvin knows, if available?
Also, any thoughts, CB, Josh Robinson, Central Florida or Josh Norman, also a CB at Coastal Carolina? Both from obscure schools, but draft a Josh? A two-for?
Last, Zygi's coming to town with the character spiel, and the lengthy conduct memorandum; then the one year contract, next, Fred Smoot or one of the other Love Boat players signed back from the Secret Service?
What?
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 27-Apr-12 04:14 PM
Eric:
Lets remember you're a sexist pig so your comments aren't worth the time you wasted on them.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by eric z at 27-Apr-12 05:40 PM
Walter - Who's their next pick?
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Apr-12 07:19 PM
Their next pick will either be a CB or WR. Rams having a crappy draft thus far for the picks they started with. Brockers instead of Floyd or Blackman, Quick instead of Stephen Hill? I'm giving them a C- thus far.
Comment 6 by eric z at 27-Apr-12 10:20 PM
They got the one Josh. Robinson. Speedy.
I see Hilton was picked.
Jenkins, was he picked?
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Apr-12 10:40 PM
Jenkins went early in the 2nd to the Rams. Another questionable pick by the Rams. Polian especially didn't like it.
Comment 7 by eric z at 27-Apr-12 10:45 PM
Hilton, 92, Colts. Jenkins, 39, Rams.
So, Round 4?
The other Josh, Josh Norman, is still undrafted.
What about a guard? Guards unless outstanding are Round 5 to 7. It seems an awfully large number of offensive tackles were taken.
A big run stuffer like Pat Williams is a need. A linebacker if they do not resign Henderson.
Remember, John Randle and Pat Williams were undrafted.
Gary, any idea about someone out there a talent, overlooked. I want the Vikings to get the other Josh.
Comment 8 by eric z at 28-Apr-12 12:28 AM
Brandon Washington, G, Miami. Greg Childs, WR, Arkansas. Childs had knee surgery.
Comment 9 by eric z at 28-Apr-12 12:40 AM
Alameda Ta'amu, slow defensive tackle. Big and mean. From Washington. He could be a Pat Williams run stopper. Not a pass rusher.
Arne Carlson ignores Minnesota's Constitution
For the past 5 years plus, Republicans have refered to erstwhile Gov. Arne Carlson as a RINO. Today, I'm setting the record straight. He isn't a RINO. He's a Democrat. PERIOD. This video attack on Mary Kiffmeyer, his buying into the DFL's lies about Photo ID as voter suppression, suggest that he isn't in touch with reality.
Here's a transcript of the interview:
CARLSON: Be that as it may, I grew up in the Bronx of New York City. We never owned a car. Where would I get a Photo ID. This is the party of Abraham Lincoln. This is the party of Theodore Roosevelt. This is the party of Dwight Eisenhower, the party of Ronald Reagan. They welcomed people in.
When did we suddenly turn over the keys to voting to Kiffmeyer to decide who can and who cannot participate?
Gov. Carlson's argument is flimsy It isn't Rep. Kiffmeyer that's deciding "who can and who cannot participate." It's the Minnesota Constitution that's determining who can or can't particate.
It's important that the Minnesota Constitution isn't seen as a cold document, either. It's been ratified by the people through their elected representatives. It's the voice of the people. Marty Seifert liked to highlight the saying inside the House floor, which read "The voice of the people is the voice of God."
That's essentially who Gov. Carlson is arguing against when he's arguing against the requirements in Minnesota's Constitution. Specifically, it's who he's arguing against when he's arguing against Section VII of the Minnesota Constitution , titled Elective Franchise. Here's the relevant portion:
ARTICLE VII
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE
Section 1. ELIGIBILITY ; PLACE OF VOTING; INELIGIBLE PERSONS. Every person 18 years of age or more who has been a citizen of the United States for three months and who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next preceding an election shall be entitled to vote in that precinct. The place of voting by one otherwise qualified who has changed his residence within 30 days preceding the election shall be prescribed by law. The following persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state: A person not meeting the above requirements; a person who has been convicted of treason or felony, unless restored to civil rights; a person under guardianship, or a person who is insane or not mentally competent.
Sec. 2. RESIDENCE . For the purpose of voting no person loses residence solely by reason of his absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged upon the waters of this state or of the United States; nor while a student in any institution of learning; nor while kept at any almshouse or asylum; nor while confined in any public prison. No soldier, seaman or marine in the army or navy of the United States is a resident of this state solely in consequence of being stationed within the state.
It's fairly straightforward. Only those people who meet these constitutionally mandated requirements should be allowed to vote. In fact, letting people that don't meet these requirements isn't allowed.
This isn't a matter of welcoming people into the state. That's the phoniest argument I've ever heard. It's about following the requirements established by Minnesota's Constitution. It's about following the laws of a sovereign government.
What Gov. Carlson is arguing for is a system without uniformity, a system where each county, city or township uses their own rules. That isn't the rule of law.
There's a reason why these requirements were put into Minnesota's Constituion, not into each city's charter. The purpose was to create uniformity so that the people of Minnesota played by the same rules, whether they lived in Duluth, Caledonia, St. Cloud, Alexandria, St. Paul or Moorhead.
Without knowing who's voting, it's impossible to know if the people who get ballots meet the constitutional requirements for voting. At a time when voter fraud is running rampant, it's imperative that we know without doubt that the people getting ballots are who they say they are.
And yes, there's tons of proof of voter fraud. That's beyond dispute. The sad truth is that Common Cause MN and the League of Women Voters-MN have denied the existence of voter fraud despite the abundance of proof. It's sad that these organizations enthusiastically participate in echoing the DFL's spin.
Passing the Photo ID constitutional amendment ballot won't end their spin but it will help clean up Minnesota's election system.
Tags: Minnesota Constitution , Arne Carlson , League of Women Voters-MN , Common Cause MN , Arne Carlson , Photo ID , DFL , Mary Kiffmeyer , Minnesota Constitution , Voter Fraud , Elections
Posted Sunday, April 29, 2012 9:12 AM
Comment 1 by Liz Adams at 29-Apr-12 09:41 AM
Find me some of those people eligible to vote that Do Not have voter i.d.. Seems most do for other reasons, they have to produce i.d.. This is 2012, gone are the days when we could leave our doors unlocked, when we did not need so many lawyers, and we could be sure only eligible votes were cast!
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Apr-12 10:21 AM
Bravo for Arne. Kiffmeyer is a piece of work.
May the voters of Elk River, Sherberne County retire her from the legislature this November. Do it, as a civic service owed the remainder of the State.
Comment 3 by Shoebox at 29-Apr-12 11:25 AM
Arne has become addled.
Yeah, change is bad Arne, Social Security didn't exist when you were growing up...should we end that? Jim Crow laws were still the rule of the day when you grew up, should we reinstate those?
Progressives think change is great...as long as it's happening to someone else!
Comment 4 by Bill C at 29-Apr-12 11:40 AM
It is nice when people so clearly articulate that they are in favor of voter fraud, as "eric z" did in the post above this.
There is only one intellectually honest reason that someone could be against Voter ID: Democrats need voter fraud to win. All the other arguments against voter ID have been laid to rest by the good hard work of MN Majority.
Comment 5 by Jethro at 29-Apr-12 12:58 PM
Arnie Carlson, Earl Potter, and now Eric z are hereby nominated for the 2012 profoundly stupid award. Congratulations.
Comment 6 by Patrick at 29-Apr-12 03:04 PM
Jethro well spoken. I would put some of the other University Liberal administrators in that group also.
Comment 7 by Wharf Rat at 29-Apr-12 05:30 PM
Listen folks, honorable people who've had their time in the spotlight, leave it when they're done serving.
Arne keeps coming back and back and back, and should do the honorable thing and truly identify himself as who he is - a Democrat. At least, Mr. Governor, please, please leave the Republican Party. When have you once, just once, critized the tax and spend lefties since you've left office??
You're a useful idiot for the lefties, just like the 'moderate' Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, who was suprised that Democrats called her an extremist when she was up for a cabinet position in Bush 43's administration.
Arne, it's time to resign and join another party. You also caused us to lose to the goofiest governor in state history by your endorsement of the indpendence candidate. I've met Gov. Dayton - it's scary, there's nothing there. I could go one, but please go away.
Comment 8 by eric z at 29-Apr-12 06:30 PM
Bill C. - Get real.
Comment 9 by SMH at 30-Apr-12 10:16 AM
This state has existed -- prospered, actually -- for over 150 years without voter ID as proposed by Kiffmeyer et. al. And, the Republicans who argue we need this amendment play out scare tactics with scant factual data.
This screed's author claims that "voter fraud is running rampant" and that it's ""beyond dispute there's tons of proof of voter fraud ... (an) abundance of proof." Unfortunately the author's enthusiasm for an ill-conceived amendment results in hyperbole rather than facts. While there have been a handful of examples of voter fraud, most have been forms that no photo ID system would forestall. (The largest cohort of fraudulent votes are from felons whose voting franchise have been removed. But felons can still have and display drivers license.)
Just saying something is rampant doesn't prove it. And there's a paucity of examples for something that "runs rampant" and for which there's "tons" -- nay, an "abundance!" -- of proof. Put up, already .
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Apr-12 11:01 AM
First, the commenter hiding behind the initials SMH is Rick Mons. Mons is a prominent DFL activist who won't hesitate to spew the DFL's dishonest spin.
Yes, voter fraud exists in Minnesota, just like it exists in other states. I wrote about how corrupt Minnesota's election system is in this article. Here's a telling exchange between an undercover investigator & a Scott County government worker:
COUNTY WORKER: So you were saying that this gentleman...
INVESTIGATOR: Yes, Thomas Brady...
COUNTY WORKER: doesn't want to come in and vote. So if you filled...if he filled this form out, then he would get on the list where he would automatically, every election, get one of these forms in the mail, which he would then fill out and mail to us, and then we would send him the ballot.There's no verification of Thomas Brady's identity. Considering the fact that the person getting this ballot isn't the Super Bowl MVP Thomas Brady, that's proof right there of voter impersonation. Photo ID will definitely prevent that type of voter fraud.
Mons said that "The largest cohort of fraudulent votes are from felons whose voting franchise have been removed." Let's rewrite that so that it's accurate. It should say "The largest cohort of fraudulent votes that we've detected are from felons whose voting franchise have been removed." Mons can't know what the corrupt election judges won't look for, namely that people who receive ballots are who they say they are.
As for the "paucity of examples" that Mons refers to, let it be noted that he's ignored this proof of voter fraud:
VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has flagged the addresses recorded for nearly 100,000 voters as being either "vacant" or "undeliverable". We visited approximately two-dozen of these undeliverable addresses to verify the USPS results and discovered approximately 50% of the addresses in our sample to be correctly flagged, in that the addresses did not exist. We have taken photographs of empty lots and non-existent addresses where our investigation revealed invalid addresses.
RETURNED POSTAL VERIFICATION CARDS: In addition, the state's primary registration verification tool is the Postal Verification Card (PVC). These post cards are mailed to newly registered voters. If the PVC is successfully delivered to the stated address, the voter is assumed to be legitimate. If the card is returned as undeliverable mail, the voter's identity is in question and they are supposed to be challenged for proof of identity and residence at the polls in the next election. Over 46,000 of these postal verification cards have been returned to the county auditors as non-deliverable since 2004. About 38,000 of them were from 2008 and 23,000 stemmed from Election Day Registrations (EDRs). After accounting for legitimate reasons for undeliverable PVCs, over 6,000 unexplained, undeliverable PVCs resulting in challenged voter status remain outstanding from the 2008 election, and over 1,200 from 2010.Just because Mons won't accept this proof as proof that voter fraud exists doesn't mean it isn't proof. It just means that Mons is willing to ignore verifiable proof.
Now that I've put up a tiny fraction of the proof Mons demanded, it'll be interesting to see whether Mr. Mons will now shut up. I'm not holding my breath on that.
Comment 10 by IndyJones at 30-Apr-12 01:11 PM
Arne,Arne,Arne....Have you ever been on a commercial airplane? Bought an airline ticket, have a credit card, library card, bank account, ebt card, have a DOT job, rent or buy a car, buy cigs or liquor, R rated movie or strip club, buy sudafed, rent PO box, fill a prescription, have you never driven a vehicle, had a security clearence, take out a loan, buy or rent a house.....you have to be dead not to need a picture ID. And thats the point, we don't want the dead, illegals, felons, or multijurisdiction voters "voting". I mean...really..WTF.
Comment 11 by IndyJones at 30-Apr-12 01:20 PM
And one more thing Arne...even that idiot Richard Lugar of Indiana has figured out you can't vote in a state election when you no longer live there. Now why the hell he can run as senator, that is mind bogling, but none the less at least he can't dilute the vote.
Comment 12 by walter hanson at 30-Apr-12 04:47 PM
Eric:
Since you don't know that Mom's work hard you have no right to say that other people should get real. Mary is doing a great job and I bet will get reelect by a bigger margin than 2010.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 13 by Prominent DFL Activist -- or Rick Mons to my friends at 01-May-12 01:34 AM
Sorry about using a nom de plume in my earlier post but apparently Gary finds it unacceptable. And here I thought those other handles used by those who agree with Gary were made-up names. I'm honored to meet Indy, Wharf, Shoebox and the other gents with no apparent last name and will make sure I don't offend our host and use a handle. And if those aren't their real names, I'm sure Gary will inform us. After all, Gary is even-handed and hates it when rules aren't applied evenly.
As to the "data" Gary has provided. Blimey it's still unpersuasive. For example a review of 24 cases from a cohort of 100,000 isn't exactly rock solid, take-it-to-the-bank reasoning to amend the Constitution. But that's my opinion and a minority opinion on ths esteemed blog.
Now, a few other observations. I shall be quick as the hour is short:
Bill C (last name is apparently optional for Gary in Bill's case or Bill has the shortest last name in history) writes: "There is only one intellectually honest reason that someone could be against Voter ID: Democrats need voter fraud to win". I guess one could also conclude that there is only one intellectually honest reason that someone could be for Voter ID: Republicans need to disenfranchise elderly and poor voters to win.
And for those who cheer drumming Carlson out of the GOP: isn't it ironic how so many of your party now complain about the takeover by the Ron Paul folks? You folks must write loyalty pledges on Magic Slates or those infamous Etch-a-Sketch toys.
Response 13.1 by Gary Gross at 01-May-12 02:27 AM
Rick, I'd be surprised if you found my proof persuasive. Astonished might be more appropriate but that's another story. I noticed that you didn't address the PVCs not getting delivered because the addresses didn't exist. It's apparent that you think 24 cases "from a cohort of 100,000" isn't persuasive. First, saying that it was from a cohort of 100,000 is exceptionally misleading. This is from Minnesota Majority's report:
We visited approximately two-dozen of these undeliverable addresses to verify the USPS results and discovered approximately 50% of the addresses in our sample to be correctly flagged, in that the addresses did not exist.In other words, the addressses of 12 of the 24 returned PVCs didn't exist. I further noticed that you didn't respond to correcting you when you said "The largest cohort of fraudulent votes are from felons whose voting franchise have been removed." Remember how I corrected that to say "The largest cohort of fraudulent votes that have been detected are from felons whose voting franchise have been removed"?
You still didn't bother responding to the central question of this debate because it's the one that blows your arguments out of the water. You still didn't explain how you'd know that the person getting a ballot is an eligible Minnesota voter. That's ok, though, since I've seen other DFL activists avoid that question like vampires attempt to avoid wooden stakes.
Comment 14 by walter hanson at 01-May-12 12:46 PM
DFL Activist:
Just curious. Our union along with a bunch of others recently had a vote on the contract. We asked for the people to show some type of ID to verify the name that we were marking on the ballots. If that standard is needed for unions shouldn't Minnesota have the same standard or are you saying unions don't know how to handle an election?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 15 by IndyJones at 01-May-12 04:07 PM
Prominent DFL activist...Jones is my name and I'm from Indy. I am also a retired elderly voter...with ID. In order to work I needed an ID, background check, fingerprints, and a drug test all along with an ID to get my occupation license. And every day I had to pass through metal detectors and was subject to random drug tests. If I had to do this just to provide for family surely a simple ID isn't a problem. If I can do it so can all the rest of the old farts besides myself. Do it and do it now. I don't want fraudsters diluting my vote.
Comment 16 by Lady Logician at 01-May-12 10:34 PM
Let's talk about the testimony of the election judge who had 13 people register using the local laundromat as their "home address". How is that not fraud Mr. DFL Activist?
LL
3 years and a ton of excuses
Back in the 1970's, a coach who had to face Woody Hayes' Ohio State football team was asked to describe the Ohio State offense. The coach simply said "3 yards and a cloud of dust." The description was apt. It also fit most Big 10 teams at the time.
Today marks 3 years since the Democratic Senate passed a budget. It isn't something for the history books like Watergate. Still, it's a major stain against the Democrats.
The DSCC is doing their best to avoid total annihilation this November with what might best be described as 3 years and a ton of excuses. Unfortunately, the American people thirst for serious solutions, not tons of excuses. Fortunately, Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI), is listening. Here's what he said in his op-ed :
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appears to believe it is not necessary for the Senate to fulfill its legal responsibility by debating and passing a budget to account for $3.8 trillion in federal spending next fiscal year, $15.6 trillion of debt and, according to figures produced by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, more than $65 trillion in additional unfunded liabilities.
To provide some perspective to these incomprehensible numbers, the total net private asset base, that is, the net value of all household assets, small business assets, and large business assets, of the United States is $82 trillion, according to figures from the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Account from March 8, 2012.
Even worse, President Barack Obama and his administration seem to view budgeting as just one more political maneuver. His efforts have been so completely unserious that the President's 2012 budget was rejected by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate. And three weeks ago, when Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-South Carolina, sponsored a budget proposal based on Obama's 2013 budget plan, it lost in the House by a vote of 414-0.
While it's true that Democrats voted against President Obama's budget, it's important to note that they didn't put their own budget together, which is required by U.S. law.
The reality is that the vast majority of Democrats agree with President Obama's budget. It's just that they didn't want to admit it in a vote. This is an admission that their policies play well with #OWS fringers but don't play well with thoughtful adults. Democrats can't win without the fringers but voting with them in high profile situations will get them defeated, too.
At the heart of this is the fact that the Democratic Party is ruled by their special interest allies. This November, rest assured that voters across the United States will render a verdict on Harry Reid's Do-Nothing Senate.
Tags: Budget , Harry Reid , U.S. Senate , Do-Nothing Senate , Occupy Wall Street , Deficits , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, April 29, 2012 5:56 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Apr-12 06:28 PM
Tax and fiscal bills are to be originated in the House, that is the Constitutional imperative, and that Wisconsin idiot in training, Ryan, refuses to seriously do a budget, instead shamelessly politicking. Fiddling while Rome burns. So of course, Gary, blame the Senate Democrats for Ryan's dilatory bent.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 29-Apr-12 07:20 PM
First, saying that Paul Ryan's budget represents fiddling while Rome burns is foolish. It represents the thoughts of everyone from Social Security & Medicare actuaries to small businesses to pro-capitalism economists to free traders.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid's Democrats haven't even seen fit to debate a budget in committee, much less vote on a budget.
Yes, Eric, that means that the GOP is serious about the budget, the Democrats aren't. The truth isn't in your favor. Deal with it.
Comment 3 by eric z at 30-Apr-12 07:41 AM
The Republicans are posturing. They cannot be serious. They are not serious and lie when they say they are.
Look at that tuition hoax they are pushing. They are playing a very cynical version of divide and conquer, and deserve to be punished big time for it at the polls this November. Just as the success of the Walker recall will prove to be a rejection of such cynical ALEC falseness when it comes to sidestepping the responsibility to govern.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Apr-12 09:37 AM
The Republicans are posturing. They cannot be serious. They are not serious and lie when they say they are.Queeen Pelosi thought the CNS reporter wasn't serious when he asked if Obamacare was constitutional. Remember how she replied? I do. Queen Pelosi replied, saying "You can't be serious." Based on how badly Mr. Verilli performed & the questions he stumbled over, I guess the CNS reporter might've been onto something.
Don't take Republicans seriously. Just don't be surprised if voters take them seriously.
Chip Cravaack by the numbers
The DFL approach to defeating Chip Cravaack is apparent. The DFL will apparently attempt to paint Chip as someone who doesn't care about the district and as a capetbagger. The Duluth News Tribune's op-ed in Sunday's paper won't end the DFL's spin. The DFL's spin machine is truth resistant. Nonetheless, it's worth noting their statistics:
No matter what anyone may have predicted, Cravaack has been spending far more than a day a week back home in Minnesota, working with constituents and staying in touch with their needs and challenges. In 2011, he spent 164 days in Minnesota's 8th District, or more than three days a week, according to the pages of the congressman's official calendar and schedule, access to which was granted exclusively to the News Tribune Opinion page. Cravaack spent another 139 'voting days' in Washington, D.C., and 19 other days working at various spots around the world.
He spent only 11 days in 2011 in New Hampshire, including Dec. 23 and Christmas Eve. His family regularly spends time with him in Minnesota, too, he said in an interview.
This won't stop the DFL's mantra. They're too invested in it. They've repeatedly proven that statistics and proof are irrelevant to them, especially during election years.
There's good reason why the DFL doesn't want to deal with reality. Reality makes them look tiny in terms of accomplishments. During the last 5 years of Rep. Oberstar's legislative career, he didn't lift a finger to make PolyMet a reality. During his first month in office, Rep. Chip Cravaack made a point of getting PolyMet together with the EPA and the MPCA on a quarterly basis to create a path to make PolyMet a reality.
Rep. Cravaack did this because the Iron Range was hurting economically. He knew that pork projects weren't the long-term fix that the Range needed. Chip knew that something substantive was needed. That's why he made PolyMet a priority.
The last thing the DFL wants to do is admit the truth about Rep. Cravaack's accomplisments. If the DFL talked about Chip's a) votes for reforming Medicare, b) public safety initiatives like insisting on cargo pilot rest rules and c) vote to restrain the growth of the federal budget, they wouldn't have a chance this November.
Follow this link to read more on the DFL's spin operation.
Tags: Chip Cravaack , Iron Range , Jobs , EPA , MPCA , PolyMet , Economy , MNGOP , ABM , Spin , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, April 29, 2012 9:25 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 30-Apr-12 07:36 AM
CC -- He IS someone who no longer lives in the district.
He is a one-term mistake because Oberstar got complacent.
The DFL will not be complacent this time. Divided, they may lose, but at least they are not asleep now.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Apr-12 09:31 AM
CC - He IS someone who no longer lives in the district.Eric, If you continue making such dishonest statements, I'll delete them. Chip Cravaack owns a home in the Eighth District. He got elected because Rep. Oberstar got stupid. It wasn't just that he got complacent. He made the mistake that most lefties make, which is he cowtowed to the militant environmentalists & shafted the miners.
Nolan will win the primary by a healthy amount. He'll then lose because he's cowtowing to the militant environmentalists.
Comment 2 by Jethro at 30-Apr-12 08:40 PM
Still waiting to see if "photo op" Amy plans on taking a leadership role in the US Senate.
