April 6-9, 2014
Apr 06 12:06 President Potter's blame-everyone-but-himself campaign Apr 06 11:53 Will Democrats repay taxpayers? Apr 06 14:12 Another MNsure failure Apr 07 14:57 Karma Chamele-Ortman Apr 07 17:35 TEA Party Nation losing credibility Apr 08 08:10 Dayton's, DFL's ostrich strategy Apr 09 05:57 Silence questions GPTWI methodology Apr 09 13:02 What is Gov. Dayton hiding? Apr 09 17:30 Sivarajah, Krinkie announce primary runs
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
President Potter's blame-everyone-but-himself campaign
This LTE is stunning from the standpoint that President Potter apparently is trying to blame everyone but himself for the trust deficit that's prevalent on the SCSU campus:
After reading articles in the Times, watching the Editorial Board's interview with St. Cloud State University President Earl H. Potter III, and reading the findings of two surveys, one wonders what efforts the president has made to address trust within the university.President Potter apparently can't admit that he's the problem. When the GPTWI asked SCSU employees if "management is competent", they asked if President Potter's administration is competent. They didn't ask if previous administrations were competent. When the GPTWI asked people if "management's actions matched its words", they asked if President Potter's administration's actions matched President Potter's words. They didn't ask whether previous administrations' actions matched their words. When the GPTWI asked SCSU employees if "management made sound financial decisions", they asked if President Potter's administration made the right financial decisions. They didn't ask if previous administrations had made the right financial decisions.
In the interview, the president spoke of the culture and character of the university, which, he said, "has developed over the decades. And there are elements of the culture which are not helpful in achieving our mission." He continued, "The level of trust that exists between faculty, staff and administration is not what it needs to be."
If Holly Schoenherr recommended that SCSU spend $49,900 on a survey to determine whether previous administrations were competent, the outcry would be deafening. That didn't happen, though, because a significant percentage of respondents have worked at SCSU for less than 7 years. That's how long President Potter has been SCSU's president.
Here are some bullet points on the LTE:
- Lack of trust will continue until campus can trust Potter.
- Morale problem didn't exist to this extent under previous leaders.
- Editorial Board needs to meet with faculty, staff groups.
Otherwise, I totally agree with the first 2 bullet points. Faculty don't trust President Potter because, in their words, his words haven't matched his actions. According to the GPTWI Trust Index Survey, 76% of faculty said President Potter's words didn't match his actions.
There's no question that this is the lowest morale has been in years at SCSU. The only question is whether President Potter will change.
Posted Sunday, April 6, 2014 12:06 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 06-Apr-14 02:58 PM
"The only question is whether President Potter will change."
This is about as likely as a zebra changing it's stripes. Trust is close to non-existent on the campus. President Potter should be sent to "University Budget Responsibility 101" to learn how to spend money wisely. Attending ""Presidential Civility 101" and "Presidential Ethics 101" would also be a might fine idea. "Presidential Personal Responsibility 101" is also highly recommended. Wonder what the chancellor and trustees think about all this.
Will Democrats repay taxpayers?
After I wrote this post about how the IRRRB, which is essentially run by the DFL, granted 2 loans to Meyer Teleservices, I started thinking things through about the corporation. First, let's review what this company did:
At this point, taxpayers are footing the bill for a company that received taxpayer-subsidized loans to run a fundraising operation for Democrats. It's more than that, though. Here's more:
The company was founded in St. Cloud in 1977; opened its Little Falls office in 1999; and then launched on the Range in Eveleth in 2007.
It was a company with direct ties and allegiance to the Democratic Party. After Republican President Richard Nixon's resignation over the Watergate scandal the business created an ' innovative small donor fundraising program called the Dollars for Democrats program,' according to the Meyer Teleservices website.
The St. Cloud-based company also leaves behind a debt of about $250,000 to the Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation Board, which had issued two loans totaling $650,000 to the business for its Eveleth facility.I'd ask which idiots were stupid enough to make a second loan to the company but we know which idiots made the second loan. I even think we know why they made that second loan. The IRRRB, aka DFL North, made that second loan to keep the fundraising operation going through the last election.
Wasn't it clear that the company was failing? The taxpayers are on the hook for $250,000 in debt that Meyer Teleservices hasn't repaid. Surely, somebody should've noticed that when Meyer applied for the second loan. Certainly, this information should've sent red flags into the air into the air if the IRRRB was paying attention:
Fundraising through telemarketing was its major service and revenue source. But the business model proved too outdated in recent years for today's mobile phone society.Notice that Owens' and Meyer's money went to prop up a business destined for failure. It didn't go to pay off the debt. That's because fundraising for Democrats was more important to Meyer, Owens and the IRRRB. Taxpayers shouldn't get shafted because the IRRRB, which is the DFL's office on the Range, didn't care about taxpayers. These 2 sentences should've been the brightest red flags imaginable to the IRRRB:
'Land lines are decreasing eight to twelve percent per year. And because of court rulings we can't, we can't consciously dial cell phone numbers. And a lot of politicians are now using the Internet to raise funds,' Owen said.
The owner said, 'We did everything we could to stay open. I went all in. I basically lost all my retirement and took out mortgages on two houses. And the former owner put in $380,000 last year to try to keep us afloat. He's out that now, too.'
But the business model proved too outdated in recent years for today's mobile phone society. Land lines are decreasing eight to twelve percent per year.The first question that I have is simple. It's impossible to think that the IRRRB cared about taxpayers if they knew this information. And it's impossible to think they didn't know this information. They aren't that ignorant.
Legally, the DFL doesn't owe Minnesota's taxpayers a penny for this. Morally, they're guilty of shafting Minnesota's taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Additionally, Mssrs. Meyer and Owens should've paid back the loan rather than keeping the fundraising operation afloat.
Posted Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:53 AM
No comments.
Another MNsure failure
Saying that MNsure is an expensive failure is understatement. Here's another example of how MNsure continues to be an expensive failure:
St. Paul- The Minnesota House of Representatives passed an ObamaCare bailout bill (HF 3172) Thursday by a vote of 70 to 59. In 2013, Governor Mark Dayton and Democrat lawmakers passed a budget that increases all-funds spending by $1,500 for every man, woman and child in Minnesota. This bill spends an additional $323 million in Fiscal Year 2014-15 and increases spending in Fiscal Year 2016-17 by nearly $1 billion. One of the largest expenditures in HF 3172 shifts money from the General Fund to fill a gap in the Health Care Access Fund that has been drained by ObamaCare in Minnesota.
That's only part of the problem with Obamacare, aka the ACA. MNsure dramatically underperformed, despite the DFL's attempts to characterize it as a great success. Here's some statistical proof that it's a failure:
Projected Enrollment in March 2013: 164,000 to 270,000
Revised Enrollment Goal in October: 69,904
Actual Enrollment: 47,046
Percentage Below March, 2013 Projection: 71% to 83% below projection
Percentage Below October, 2013 Projection: 33 percent below projection
Spending over $1,000,000,000 over the next 3 years on this bailout is immoral. That didn't matter to the DFL, though. The DFL didn't hesitate in foolishly spending the taxpayers' money on this underperforming program. All that mattered to the DFL was that President Obama said that Obamacare is a rousing success. That's all the DFL needed to hear to squander $1,000,000,000 of the taxpayers' money.
Kurt Daudt summarized things perfectly:
'After historic increases in wasteful spending last year, Democrats proved once again they can't stop themselves from wasting more tax dollars. This bill irresponsibly spends more than a billion dollars over the next four years and puts Minnesota at risk for future budget deficits to bailout the failed ObamaCare health law. ObamaCare has hurt Minnesotans with higher cost and fewer choices for health care, and now is hurting Minnesota's budget,' said House Republican Leader Kurt Daudt (Crown).
Thanks to this foolish spending, Minnesota's general fund budget spending will reach almost $39,000,000,000 for this biennium. Spending from the previous biennium was an already-too-high $34,000,000,000, an increase of almost $5,000,000,000. That's a 12.5% increase in spending over the previous budget. Let's remember that that budget was the biggest budget at the time.
Let's be realistic. When the DFL was pushing HF5 down our throats, they said that 270,000 people would purchase qualified health plans through the exchange. They missed that figure by 223,000. That 47,000 figure is only 17.5% of 270,000.
Scott Leitz, Gov. Dayton and the DFL's spinmeisters gleefully told Minnesotans that they'd exceeded their goal of 135,000 enrollments. What the DFL spinmeisters didn't tell Minnesotans is that the vast majority of those enrollments were in the MinnesotaCare and Medicaid programs.
MNsure, aka Obamacare in Minnesota, is a failure. That's why the DFL legislature just approved a $1,000,000,000 MNsure bailout for the next 4 years.
Successful programs don't require $1,000,000,000 bailouts. Tell that to the DFL the next time you hear them brag about how successful MNsure is.
Posted Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:12 PM
No comments.
Karma Chamele-Ortman
There's an old saying that what goes around comes around. That's especially true for career politicians who adapt to different political climates by changing their positions on important issues. Grassroots activists and the media notice when you go from a moderate Republican who won't repeal ObamaCare to a candidate who wraps herself in the Gadsden Flag while calling for the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Julianne Ortman, I'm looking at you.
Specifically, MinnPost noticed the difference between Sen. Ortman and Julianne Ortman, TEA Party activist wannabe:
' I'm not a full repeal person ,' she told the Star Tribune in a September 2013 interview. In Tuesday's debate, she joined her fellow candidates in calling for an end to Obamacare, with no exceptions.
It isn't difficult to see the fact that Ms. Ortman isn't a principled politician. Last summer, Ortman was proud to tell Tom Hauser that she wasn't a full repeal person. She told him that the bill had been passed, that President Obama had signed the bill and that the Supreme Court had upheld the bill. Then she said the bill needed to be changed without saying what changes needed to be made.
The difference between Ms. Ortman and Mike McFadden is that she's attempting to sound like she has a solution, whereas Mike McFadden stands proudly behind his solution :
Before we can make the kind of changes Americans deserve, we need to repeal the 'Unaffordable Care Act' and replace it with a patient-centered, market-based solution that will lower costs and increase accessibility for all Americans. Minnesota has some of the best health care minds in the entire world. Instead of looking to bureaucrats in Washington, we can take charge and develop homegrown solutions for health care. By restoring power to the states, we can free Minnesota to become a laboratory for innovation and a standard-bearer for health care solutions that work.
Ms. Ortman didn't change positions until after I'd exposed her as sounding like Al Franken. Quicker than you can say chameleon, Ms. Ortman changed her position. When blogger John Gilmore insisted that Ms. Ortman was a champion of full repeal of Obamacare , I reminded people that she'd consistently opposed full repeal with this quote:
"I'm not a full repeal person. I think the House of Representatives has voted 40 times to repeal it. The Senate is not going to repeal it. So if plan A is 'Let's do a repeal,' we better start talking about Plan B. Because plan A got nowhere,' she said. Ortman said she would like to see Congress go 'piece-by-piece through that new law and figure out what works and what doesn't.'
Actually, Plan A got somewhere. As a result of the pressure that House Republicans put on the Senate and the White House, President Obama has unilaterally and unconstitutionally changed the Affordable Care Act almost 40 times. Now Robert Gibbs, President Obama's former press secretary, is telling the world that the Employer Mandate likely will never be implemented:
Julianne Ortman doesn't take principled stands on the most important issues of the day. She's shown that while being a state senator. Why think she won't be more unprincipled if we send her to Washington, DC?
Posted Monday, April 7, 2014 2:57 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Apr-14 05:25 PM
Isn't it possible that all we really have here is a difference in tactics? Senator Ortmann notices quite correctly that although the House has voted to repeal some 40 times it hasn't been repealed yet. Perhaps voting to repeal it one more time will succeed - Plan A - but what if it doesn't? Does it make sense at that point in time to go through the legislation and make Democrats take the heat for, or support relief from, every single failure in that massive miscegenation known as Obamacare? That sounds like a pragmatist legislator, while Mister McFadden sounds like the political novice that he is - not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not a virtue either.
I'm still on the fence between these two, and I intend making my decision based on who I think will be best able to combine money, energy, message and general appeal to beat Al Franken; that's all that matters.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-14 05:41 PM
Jerry, I don't see Ortman's position as tactical. It changed abruptly when the political heat increased. I can't support that type of politician.
I would've respected her had she just admitted that she'd made a mistake. Now she's pretending that she didn't vote for the things she vote for & that she didn't propose the things she proposed.
That isn't tactics. That's a substantive difference.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 07-Apr-14 09:00 PM
Jerry - I have to go back to the Tim Pawlenty days when she was pushing through his cap and trade bill. If it weren't for guys like Mike Beard......
LL
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 08-Apr-14 11:03 AM
Those are three valid concerns, and I share them. I would hope (and have strongly suggested to her) that she address them in some fashion. But I am reminded that Mitt Romney never did admit that Romneycare was a mistake or even tried to draw distinctions between that program and Obamacare, and I strongly supported him. What was my alternative?
I'm sorry, but I just got past an endorsement battle in which the Challenger had strongly criticized something like a dozen specific votes demonstrating, supposedly, that the incumbent was just way too liberal to carry the Republican banner. That is why we lose elections, because too many of us are willing to NOT vote for an 80% or 90% conservative, thus saddling ourselves with a 0% conservative Democrat. And we base that assessment on two or three or 12 votes out of the thousands that an incumbent makes. There is absolutely zero question in my mind that Julianne Ortman will be vastly preferable to Al Franken, but to do that she has to win by getting the most votes. Despite my misgivings about Mr. McFadden, he would also be vastly preferable. In other words, I'm keeping my options open.
I would like to make another observation, too. Have you ever noticed that Democrats have no such compunctions about their candidates? Sure, they squabble like crazy, sometimes even up to the primary, but none of them ever say they will "sit on their hands" and not vote for every Democrat on the ballot. It's like the slate is wiped clean every November and all the old promises are new again. We prefer to insist on an impossible standard of purity to principle before the election, and an impossible level of achievement afterwards. Maybe I'm just a pragmatist like Vince Lombardi, who said, "winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing."
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 08-Apr-14 12:39 PM
Jerry, the Reagan 80%-20% comparison isn't valid in this instance. Ortman is more like 50%-50%.
Further, Franken & the Alliance for a Better Minnesota already have ads in the can with a) Ortman saying she isn't for full repeal of Obamacare, b) Ortman proposing tax increases & c) Ortman's vote for Cap & Trade.
Couple that with her inability to raise money & she's a can't win candidate.
The simple matter is that you can't defeat an incumbent if you can't raise the money. Money isn't the only thing that matters. Still, it matters a bunch.
Comment 6 by Mary L. Monfils at 09-Apr-14 03:11 AM
"Jerry, I don't see Ortman's position as tactical. It changed abruptly when the political heat increased. I can't support that type of politician."
So, what do you say than to Mike McFadden's flip-flopping on background checks for gun owners?
http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/02/when-it-comes-policy-mike-mcfadden-s-senate-campaign-blank-slate
McFadden can't win without the gun lobby and it's clear that he isn't getting it.
Comment 7 by J. Ewing at 09-Apr-14 09:51 AM
And that is precisely (the "ads in the can" thing) why we Republicans are our own worst enemy. Those ads aren't designed to keep Democrats away from Ortman, it's to keep REPUBLICANS away from Ortman, and we're suckers for that sort of thing. We've got to understand, at some point, that in November there is no third choice on the ballot. You're going to get somebody that agrees with you 90, 80, 50, or 30 percent of the time, or somebody that agrees with you zero, 5 or maybe 10% of the time. (With Franken, it's zero, BTW.) By not voting for Ortman, you're voting for Franken, just that simple. "[O]nly a fool fights in a burning house." --Commander Kang
Now the inability to raise money is a valid concern. That's why Amy Klobuchar is our other Senator, and not Kurt Bills. But that cuts both ways, too. Already I hear complaints that the big money Mike McFadden has raised is a) still not enough and b) makes him the "establishment" candidate, "chosen for us."
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Apr-14 10:10 AM
With all due respect, Jerry, that's BS. Highlighting the fact that someone is a weak candidate is exactly the right thing to do. When a Republican candidate repeatedly sounds like Al Franken, it's my affirmative responsibility to highlight that.
Yes, I highlighted Ms. Ortman's statements. That doesn't mean ABM, the DFL & the Franken campaigns didn't have those same clips ready without my help. Let's be blunt, too, that now is the time to get rid of weak candidates like Ms. Ortman. I don't want to get stuck with a weak candidate in the general election. If you're ok with a weak candidate like that, that's your business. I want the strongest candidate possible.
That isn't Ms. Ortman.
Comment 8 by Lisa Nystrom at 09-Apr-14 10:52 PM
Why is Ortman a "weak" candidate? The latest poll has her down by three points (McFadden down by six). KSTP/SurveyUSA had her down by single digits; McFadden by double-digits. Ortman doesn't nearly have the name recognition that Franken has at this point neither. Thus, if Mrs. Ortman is a "weak" candidate, what does that say about Franken? (There is a reason, after all, why Franken's approval ratings lag so far behind Klobuchar's - because he's a weak incumbent.)
I don't understand at all how anyone can conclude that Mike McFaddden is a "strong candidate" or stronger candidate than Mrs. Ortman? Just as J. Ewing stated, we might not like every vote she has taken, but because of her experience we at least know where she stands on issues; and, more often than not, she's going to tote conservative principles. On the other hand, Mr. McFadden doesn't show up for debates, doesn't talk to the media, doesn't take the time to answer people's questions, and hasn't run for office before. How does that make him a "strong" candidate? If likeability and where someone stands on the issues determines how strong a candidate is then how is it even possible to gauge how strong a candidate Mike McFadden is when no one has seen him enough to know whether they like him and he has been reluctant to apprise voters of where he stands on the issues? I don't get it? Will someone please explain this?
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Apr-14 11:21 PM
That 3-point deficit is a snapshot of where things are now. They aren't a predictor of where they'll be when the DFL starts unloading on Ms. Ortman. With all the ammmunition that she's given them & considering the fact that her fundraising operation has been lackluster at best, Ms. Ortman will be in lots of trouble at best.
It isn't that I don't like some of Ms. Ortman's votes. It's that she said that lending companies made enough money. When she said that, she stepped into being the arbiter of what's enough profit & what's too much. That isn't the thoughts of a capitalist. That's the statement of a nanny statist. We're trying to replace a nanny stater. We don't need another nanny stater taking Franken's place.
Mike McFadden is unashamedly a capitalist. Period. If elected, he'd start working on tax simplification, most likely with Ron Johnson & Pat Toomey. He's also said that he'd like to work on regulatory reform, which is killing the economy even more than high taxes. That's a positive agenda I can enthusiastically support.
Supporting a nanny stater isn't something I want to do. That's why I'm not supporting Ms. Ortman.
Comment 9 by Lisa Nystrom at 10-Apr-14 12:08 PM
ALL polls are a snapshot of where things currently are; after all, there's no way to predict where they'll be. But Franken will "unload" with ads against McFadden, also, or whoever he faces. It's the message of the ads that will be determinative of how effective they'll be. Of course, Franken's money advantage is subject to the law of diminishing returns just as it was for Coleman when he faced Franken in '08: "Spending 10 percent more than the other side doesn't necessarily buy a commensurate political advantage... The law of diminishing returns also applies to television. Once someone has seen 300 TV ads for a candidate, how much more effective will 350 or 400 ads be? The truth is... voters (and nonvoters) see so many ads, they eventually tune them out. Or, they never see them at all... That's why campaigns have no choice but to find new ways to communicate with voters, particularly younger ones. The bombardment of TV ads will no longer suffice. Political campaigns already require - and will increasingly require - a bit of sophistication and finesse. Simply outspending your opponent won't be enough."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/the-cook-report/why-money-is-the-wrong-measure-in-political-races-20140220
McFadden will be the target of wealthy class vs. middle class commentary, "shipped jobs overseas", and, of course, the "War on Women".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/09/why-democrats-really-really-need-women-to-turn-out-this-november/
The DFL's feminist caucus already does not like Franken. He'll have to toe a line facing a woman candidate or risk alienating women further. And, of course, the "war on women" tactic is already defused with Mrs. O as the candidate.
Money wise, simply running against Franken is a fundraiser in and of itself as outside groups are more than willing to dump money into the race just in hopes of ridding the country of Al Franken. McFadden can have all the money in the world. But if he doesn't know how to spend it, what difference does it make? Carpet-bombing the airwaves with corny ads the last month before an election doesn't work in this day and age. By then people have already made up their minds who they're going to vote for and tune out annoying political ads. A candidate needs the grass rooters to burn shoe leather for him/her, and McFadden has made no connection to the activists willing to do the work. The NRA and its network of supporters are normally the most impassioned of advocates for candidates they endorse --but they obviously aren't endorsing Mike McFadden. So then, who's going to go pound on doors for him? Who's going to volunteer for the phone banks? Who exactly is going to vote for McFadden? The anti-Franken crowd and who else? Mrs. Ortman is at least +2 on Mr. McFadden in demographics because she appeals to both gun owners as well as younger/college voters because of her position against the NSA-surveilance program. The fact that she's a female candidate more coalesced with the middle-class than McFadden certainly doesn't hurt neither.
McFadden would probably make for a good candidate in, say, Texas. But Minnesota is a different animal; he doesn't project as well here.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-14 12:18 PM
First, there's no proof that DFL women have given up on Franken. Second, the fact that ABM has already nicknamed McFadden "Millionaire Mike" isn't frightening. The proper response to ABM's class warfare campaign is to turn that into a weakness, which won't be difficult. Third, it's a mistake to think the McFadden campaign hasn't built a strong organization. That's because people prefer someone who isn't ashamed of his accomplishments over a GOP nanny stater.
Comment 10 by A, Jr. at 10-Apr-14 04:13 PM
1) Franken is considerably less popular in the state than Amy Klobuchar...
http://www.minnpost.com/party-politics/2013/12/scsu-poll-shows-declining-approval-numbers-democratic-leaders-no-political-ga
...Who do you think factors for the fall-off?
2) If McFadden has built a strong organization than why, considering his money advantage, is he running behind in the GOP primary? If his "strong organization" hasn't carried him so far, what evidence is there that it ever will?
Response 10.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-14 04:21 PM
Answer to Q1: Independents.
Answer to Q2: He hasn't started using that cash advantage yet. When that happens, I suspect it will make a significant difference.
Comment 11 by walter hanson at 10-Apr-14 04:22 PM
Gary:
Here's an example of the difference of their organizations. I've heard about the Obamacare dispute and had a dispute with somebody else on another blog. On McFFaden's website you can bring up quite easily what is a statement of his position on Obamacare, immigration and other issues. Ortman's sorry nothing there.
I sent their organization an email asking about Obamacare and in effect saying I will have to support McFFadden. Heard nothing, though since I apperently have gotten on to their computer system they are sending me fundraising emails.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 12 by walter hanson at 10-Apr-14 04:27 PM
J:
For Ortmann to take your position as described she will have to say since President Obama won't sign a repeal bill we should pass laws which we might get signed and implemented before Obama leaves office in 2017. To the best of my knowledge since her website doesn't do it and the one interview I heard her give on Mitch Berg's radio show she didn't do that she isn't taking that position.
and unfortunately if you look at the recent clip that Gary has posted about her interview she in effect was given a perfect opprotunity to say it and didn't do that. On top of it she looked like she didn't want to have to talk about Obamacare being repealed.
Sorry that cost her my vote and any donations I might have given her.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 13 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-14 04:37 PM
Walter, Thanks for that detailed explanation of why you reached your decision.
I'm just a) putting the information out there and b) insisting that political operatives and endorsers make accurate statements.
Comment 14 by J. Ewing at 10-Apr-14 06:28 PM
OK, so Ms. Ortman may have made some unfortunate comments (though I claim she was just being a pragmatist) about Obamacare, and her web site tells me NOTHING. McFadden's is a little better but frankly, it's platitudes and no more. No indication whatsoever about HOW this repeal of Obamacare is supposed to happen until at least 2017 and by then the damage may be irreparable. I guess my point is that I want to endorse the candidate most likely to take out Al Franken. I don't know who that is (Chris Dahlberg, maybe?) but I'm not going to be concerned with a couple of votes or statements here and there. Fair game prior to endorsement (or primary), sure. After that, we all need to forget about who we liked best and work for the R. I did it last time (and the time before), but not enough of us did.
Comment 15 by walter hanson at 11-Apr-14 10:53 AM
J:
A couple of points on who might be the best candidate.
One, what candidate has raised the most money? If you look at the FEC reports through 12-31-2013 McFfaden has raised about $1.7 million and has over $1.4 million of cash on hand. Ortman has raised less than $300,000. Now one of my selling points by a big Ortmann supporter is that Ortmann has Michelle Bachmann's chief of staff. You think they will be able to tap into Bachmann supporters better?
Two, in 2012 we lost the race for President in part because our candidate ignored healthcare. Even claimed he created a better version of government run healthcare. Ortmann looks like she has already surrendered that issue over to Franken who was the 60th vote for Obamacare. Our candidate can't afford to be letting Franken off the hook at all! yet Ortmann looks like she will do that!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
TEA Party Nation losing credibility
The TEA Party Nation's endorsement of Julianne Ortman just shrinks TPN's credibility. Here's why:
She is running and has racked up an impressive series of endorsements. She has been endorsed by our friends at Tea Party Express, the Conservative Campaign Committee, Citizens United and most recently she was endorsed by Sarah Palin.
She is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-low taxes and perhaps most importantly in favor of a complete repeal of Obamacare.
Julianne "I'm in my comfort zone" Ortman isn't pro-low taxes :
)
The TPN is entitled to their opinion. They aren't entitled to their own facts. Saying that Ms. Ortman is pro-low tax is making up their own facts. Here's the transcript to the video:
Sen. Tom Bakk: 'Senator Ortman.'
Sen. Ortman: 'Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for hearing this bill. This bill proposes a new tax. It's the first time I've ever proposed a new tax, and so-'
Sen. Bakk: 'How's it feel?'
[LAUGHTER]
Sen. Ortman: 'I definitely feel like I'm in the hot seat, but that's alright. I've been a lightening rod before and I probably will be again. I'm back in a zone of comfort."
What's more important is that Ms. Ortman doesn't believe in the free market :
But let's be honest, 15% should be more than enough interest in an economy when banks can borrow at the federal funds rate (0.25%), and the prime lending rate hovers at 3%.
Who made Ms. Ortman the arbiter of free markets? The TEA Party activists I know and agree with would recoil if they heard Ms. Ortman's statement.
Andy Parrish can brag about the endorsements but what he can't do is honestly say that his candidate is a principled conservative. That's because she isn't a conservative. She's a career politician with a moderate bent.
UPDATE: Just minutes ago, TEA Party Nation attacked me because I correctly stated that they aren't intellectually honest. Here's the text of their tweet :
If I had $1,000,000 for each time someone called me a liberal, I'd be worth $1,000,000.
@LFRGary If I had a nickel for every time a liberal told us we were losing credibility, we'd be rich.
Apparently, TPN isn't interested in doing their homework. Calling me a liberal, which is what they just did, just isn't credible. If TEA Party Nation had done their homework, they'd know I'm a rock solid conservative. Then again, if they'd done their homework and if they were intellectually honest, they'd know that Julianne Ortman selectively believes in free markets and low taxes.
TEA Party Nation is a high profile organization. In this instance, however, they aren't intellectually honest.
Posted Monday, April 7, 2014 7:11 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 09-Apr-14 12:40 PM
Gary:
I think I know what is going on. When Sarah Palin made her endorsement for Ortman I was on a different blog and got into two heated debates with two people.
One person who was happy to show Ortman speeches in 2010 on Obamacare and refused to acknowledge the March 2014 interview was quite happy to say many times that Mitch M. had endorsed McFadden and couldn't be trusted.
A second person thought McFadden was for amnesty even though I pointed out that McFadden on his website had said he was for border security and Ortman had no position.
The sense I get is that there are people who instantly want to run away from McFadden because he has been endorsed by Republican Senators people don't trust, Mitch M, John C, and former Senator Coleman.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dayton's, DFL's ostrich strategy
From now through Election Day, Gov. Dayton and the DFL will employ an ostrich strategy. They'll pretend they didn't know MNsure would be a disaster ahead of time. This article proves that they knew but chose to pretend everything was fine:
Twelve days before Minnesota unveiled its $100 million health insurance exchange known as MNsure, a grim meeting was held at Gov. Mark Dayton's residence in St. Paul.
April Todd-Malmlov, who had led the project, delivered a warning to the governor and his top advisers: No one was certain the new website built to help thousands of uninsured Minnesotans get health coverage would actually work.
The number of computer bugs in the system had recently surged from 237 to 270. And one-third of them were so severe that no stopgap fixes were possible.
After HealthCare.gov started with a crash, Gov. Dayton and the DFL trumpeted MNsure's success compared with HealthCare.gov's failures. At the time, the Twin Cities media just took their word for it. The Twin Cities media ignored complaints of systemic mismanagement at MNsure from Sen. Michelle Benson:
SEN. MICHELLE BENSON: I think we have a systemic management problem. Not prioritizing, not focusing on the things that are essential to have done on October 1. Data privacy is essential. Having good processes in place is essential. Now they made sure to roll out the Paul Bunyan ads and they made sure they had money for that and they kept that secret until they were ready to launch. But when it comes to the agents' information, that wasn't sequestered. It wasn't treated with delicacy. The training -- we found out today that navigator training isn't moving at speed. Counties aren't trained. Brokers aren't trained. Those all should've been much higher priorities than the softer skill sets.
Sen. Benson made this statement during an interview given on Sept. 24, 2013. The list of things that weren't ready is lengthy. These things were brought up that day at the MNsure Legislative Oversight Committee hearing earlier in the day. Despite this lengthy list of substantive problems, Sen. Lourey and Rep. Atkins, the co-chairs of the Committee, didn't hold another meeting of the Committee until January, 2014.
By that time, data security had failed repeatedly. MNsure's executive director, April Todd-Malmlov had resigned. That's after she took a 2-week vacation in Costa Rica with her lover. By the time the next hearing was held, thousands of dollars in bonuses had been paid to people who'd totally screwed up the system.
Then there's this:
'I lament that I didn't ask the simple question: Do we really have to do all of this by Oct. 1?' said MNsure Board Member Thompson Aderinkomi. 'I should have asked.'
That's stunning. This confirms my suspicion that MNsure Board members weren't serious about administering the program. They were there because they were told to be there. Gov. Dayton didn't pick serious people to administer the program. The DFL legislature wasn't interested in conducting serious oversight hearings.
That's how disasters happen.
'It was a very complex project and there was never enough time,' Dayton said. 'I don't know of anybody who wasn't operating with good intentions and trying their utmost to make this as good as possible.'
That's insulting. I don't care if people were "operating with good intentions." I'm just interested in fixing things. Gov. Dayton apparently thinks that it's ok to screw up as long as people operate "with good intentions." The thousands of people who received cancellation notices because their policies didn't meet Obamacare's standards don't care if these people operated "with good intentions." They just wanted a system that worked so they weren't without health insurance.
Five state agencies were involved in the project, and they weren't always working together. The contractors also were having trouble coordinating efforts, 'putting the project at risk,' according to a December 2012 e-mail from MN-IT Chief Information Officer Tom Baden, who was overseeing the vendors' work.
'Those items need to be addressed within a week or [Houston], we have a problem,' Baden said in his e-mail, sent to Todd-Malmlov and another state official.
E-mails and internal reports show a lack of coordination among various groups throughout 2013. Program managers openly fretted about not catching major problems quickly enough.
Gov. Dayton should be criticized for not getting the right people working urgently on fixing this crisis. Sen. Lourey and Rep. Atkins should be criticized for not being interested in making sure the building of the website was on schedule. Apparently, they thought their chief responsibility was to be MNsure's cheerleaders, praising the work being done whether the project was a disaster or not.
In May 2013, the first outside audit was delivered, revealing MNsure was below standard on most of the 135 tasks under review. Only one category earned a passing grade - project cost. At the same time, federal officials found dozens of problems, concluding the state had 'underestimated' the scope of the work.
This election season, the DFL will undoubtedly attempt to paint the picture that things couldn't be better. They should be called out each time they try lying like that. Things aren't rosy. The website has improved. The product is still terrible.
Posted Tuesday, April 8, 2014 8:10 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 08-Apr-14 10:15 AM
The take-home message for Governor Dayton should be that agencies chock-full of activist ideologue appointees are not competent. There is no evidence that the other state agencies that were not involved in MNsure are any less incompetent.
The governor sets the tone of governance. The governor appoints Department heads. The governor sets the standard for competence, productivity and accountability. The governor's ideology-driven management style has returned to bite him right where you would expect.
Silence questions GPTWI methodology
Who is Responsible for Creating a Great Place to Work?
Interpreting Survey Data
by Silence Dogood
If you look at the information from the Great Place to Work Institute (GPTWI) explaining the Survey Methodology for their Trust Index Survey it states:
"Employees are instructed to respond to each statement by selecting one of the following five choices, most accurately reflecting his or her experience in the workplace.
1 = Almost always untrueYour organization's results are calculated and reflect the percentage of respondents indicating a statement to be "often true" or "almost always true." For example, a result of 65 on a particular statement means that 65% of respondents that statement with either 4 or 5, and the remaining 35% rated it 1, 2, or 3. If a respondent did not rate a particular statement, it is excluded in the computation of the overall results for that statement. A rating of 4 or 5 reflects a consistently positive experience in the area the statement measures. The overall tally of 4s and 5s measures the consistency in employees experiencing the organization as a great workplace. Employees were asked to respond to each statement twice, once for their own work group and once for the organization as a whole. The following definitions of work group, organization and management are included in the instructions:
2 = Often untrue
3 = Sometimes untrue/sometimes true
4 = Often true
5 = Almost always true
Work Group refers to all people in your immediate unit or department. Management of your workgroup refers to immediate supervisor.All fifteen questions in the survey from the PowerPoint slides released on March 5th, 2014, which begin "Management: " are presented in what follows. Specifically, the results are presented for the response under the category of "Organization." As a result, the cumulative effect of these fifteen survey items serves as a surrogate for a simple vote of confidence or no confidence in the management of the organization. These fifteen questions are a direct evaluation of the President and his management team. The data presented have not been edited except in the format used in presentation.
Organization refers to your company as a whole. Management of the organization refers to the President and Executive management Group (or equivalent)"
For all of the data, the red bar represents the average value for the "100 Best Companies." All of blue bars represent the derived values from those who completed the survey at SCSU. Where there are no red bars, the question was generated locally so the number must be interpreted without a comparison.
From the methodology used by the GPTWI to create its index, a comparison of the blue bars with the red bars clearly indicates that the employees at SCSU have little confidence in the Potter management team. For some of the faculty, these results just put a number to the growing dissatisfaction in President Potter and the team of managers he has assembled.
For people who are interested in the reporting and analysis of data, the methodology used by the GPTWI is outside the norm for surveys using scaled responses. In fact, it is hard to believe that this type of methodology would be acceptable for any peer-reviewed scholarly publication except as an example of a poor methodology.
Essentially, the GPTWI is a public relations firm which is designed to make institutions look better than they really are - think advertising.
Consider the following example: "Management is competent." The result for SCSU is 32 (as compared to the average of the top 100 great places to work value of 90). So the management at SCSU is not viewed as competent by 68% of respondents and if competent management is associated with great places to work SCSU doesn't look much like a 'Great Place to Work'. Remember a result of 32 means 32% of the respondents answered 4 or 5 and 68% responded 1, 2 or 3. However, without the raw data (the numbers of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s), it is not possible to calculate a true arithrimetric average response (mean), the response with the greatest number of responses (mode), the mid-point of the distribution of responses (median), and all of the normal statistics used in describing the results of surveys using scaled items.
The reason why this might be important is illustrated in these three possibilities. For a result of 32, consider the following three hypothetical distributions that all have 32% of responses being either a 4 or 5.
For distribution I, each of the responses 1, 2, and 3 have the same value and represent a total of 68% of the scores. Similarly the scores 4 and 5 have the same value and represent 32% of the scores. Calculating the arithmetic mean gives a value of 2.80.
For distribution II, 68% of the scores are 3s and 32% are 5s, which yields a mean of 3.64.
For distribution III, 68% of the scores are 1s and 32% are 4s, which yields a mean of 1.96.
According to the GPTWI, all three of these distributions have the same "result." However, the same "result" gives three widely differing means and three very different findings, three different interpretations, and three different conclusions.
It's a shame that the raw data is not available. If it were, it would be possible to perform a more thorough analysis. However, even with all of its shortcomings, the data as presented by GPTWI demonstrates that the employees feel there are significant problems of trust resulting from the competence and truthfulness of President Potter's management team. Even after only a cursory look at the GPTWI findings, an obvious conclusion is that St. Cloud State University is a very long way a way from being a great place to work!
It is strange that President Potter has stated that the numbers from the survey are not where "we" would like them to be and "we" have some work to do (St. Cloud Times Editorial Board interview February 21, 2014). Who is the 'we' President Potter refers to and is we the same each time he uses it? Perhaps it is simply a 'royal we.' It is hard to believe the employees at SCSU are responsible for these ten items that were surveyed.
- Management is approachable.
- Management shares information openly and transparently.
- Management keeps me informed.
- Management delivers on its promises.
- Management's actions match its words.
- Management makes sound financial decisions.
- Management has a clear view.Management is competent.
- Management seeks suggestions.Management involves people in decisions
Truly keep everyone informed and share information "openly and transparently" rather than just saying that management is being open and transparent. Saying something doesn't make it true and actions speak louder than words.
The results from GPTWI show that management's actions at SCSU do not match its words or that management delivers on its promises. How are the faculty and staff going to be able to "work" to make SCSU a better place when what is needed is a change in management's behavior? All of the ten items from the GPTW survey that start with the word 'Management' are items that must start with the managers. It is time for these managers to lead and lead by example.
The Potter management team has not involved people in decisions and certainly does not seek suggestions from the faculty and staff or involve people in making decisions. Case in point. The administration simply announced at a Meet and Confer that they had signed a contract with the GPTWI to conduct a "Trust Survey." Had President Potter asked for input from the faculty and staff BEFORE making the decision, a better survey might have been performed. But finding out once again after the decision has been made shows President Potter's seemingly utter contempt for the faculty and staff and their opinions and views.
President Potter has not shared his vision (see results for Management has a clear vision) for the future other than saying he's "right sizing" the university. To date, no information has been shared as to the "right size." A cynic might say that perhaps when we get there, he'll tell us. However, an unexplained full-year enrollment drop from FY10 of 15,096 to FY14 of 12,401 represents a loss of 2,695 FYE or a drop of 17.9%. (The enrollment numbers come from the MnSCU website and are current as of April 7, 2014).
Without a doubt, it is not within the power of the SCSU faculty and staff to make the administration competent - there is simply nothing they can do to fix a belief that the administration is not competent. The only way the result for the competence question can improve is for President Potter to demonstrate competence. That might begin with his actually participating with the faculty and staff in shared governance.
"What you do is what matters, not what you think, say or plan."
Jason Fried (from the book Rework)
Posted Wednesday, April 9, 2014 12:22 PM
No comments.
What is Gov. Dayton hiding?
After watching this video, it's apparent that Gov. Dayton is attempting to hide something from Minnesotans:
This article has more than a whiff of desparation to it.
Gov. Mark Dayton vowed Tuesday not to cooperate with a legislative panel that wants to question top officials in his administration about technical problems that marred the Oct. 1 launch of MNsure, the state's health insurance exchange.
If Gov. Dayton doesn't change his attitude ASAP, this will hurt him. Here's why:
Legislative Auditor James Nobles, who is conducting a review of MNsure, said Todd-Malmlov has so far declined to discuss her stewardship of the agency. Nobles said he will take the unusual step of issuing a subpoena and using the courts to compel her testimony if she does not come in voluntarily for an interview.
'
'We think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered in a thorough and objective way,' Nobles said. 'We want to hear her perspective. : She was at center stage, so to speak, and knows more than probably anybody.'
Mr. Nobles has subpoena power, meaning his questions will get answered. If that means compelling Tina Smith's and Lucinda Jesson's testimony, then that's what he'll do. Gov. Dayton's contrived diatribe sounded exceptionally desparate:
During a news conference Tuesday, Dayton said Republicans are 'making a mockery of the word oversight' and engaging in a 'propaganda campaign' aimed at destroying MNsure.
'It is really irresponsible,' Dayton said. 'The fact that they can pretend this is part of the oversight process is just ludicrous. They want to trash MNsure. : They want MNsure to fail.'
Gov. Dayton's faux outrage isn't convincing. Gov. Dayton insists that Republicans are "making a mockery" of the oversight process. That won't last long:
State Sen. Tony Lourey, the DFL co-chair of the oversight panel, said Republicans have 'legitimate questions' that deserve to be answered.
'We do need to answer for how the rollout occurred, and we certainly will,' Lourey said. 'I am totally open to that.'
This is political trouble for Gov. Dayton. Jim Nobles, the much-respected Legislative Auditor, launched an investigation into MNsure's disastrous rollout. Sen. Tony Lourey, the DFL co-chair of the MNsure Legislative Oversight Committee, just said the Republicans' questions are "legitimate" and that they deserve to be answered.
Most importantly, Gov. Dayton is acting like a monarch, telling the uppity peasants what he will and won't do. If Gov. Dayton continues acting like royalty who can ignore legitimate questions, he'll be in for a difficult re-election campaign.
It's difficult to picture this turning out well for him if he continues acting like this.
Posted Wednesday, April 9, 2014 1:02 PM
No comments.
Sivarajah, Krinkie announce primary runs
According to Mark Sommerhauser's article , Phil Krinkie and Rhonda Sivarajah are taking the gluttons-for-punishment path:
Anoka County Board chair Rhonda Sivarajah will take her campaign to a GOP primary election, she confirmed Wednesday in an interview with the Times.
The 6th District seat is being vacated by Rep. Michele Bachmann, who isn't seeking a fifth term. Republicans are set to endorse a successor at a convention Saturday in Monticello.
The other 6th District GOP candidate, former state Rep. Phil Krinkie, said Wednesday that he won't attend Saturday's convention or seek the party's endorsement. Krinkie also said for the first time that he's mulling a third-party run for Congress, but said he still sees a Republican primary run as his most likely path forward.
Both Sivarajah and Krinkie have left open the possibility of running in a primary. Only Emmer has said he'll abide by the GOP endorsement.
Sivarajah finished a distant second in the CD-6 Straw Poll, with Krinkie finishing far behind Sivarajah:
6th District Congress (97% Reporting):
Tom Emmer with 67.7%, Rhonda Sivarajah with 17.7%, Phil Krinkie with 10.1%
If Commissioner Sivarajah and Rep. Krinkie want to run in the primary, that's their option. I just question their judgment. They don't have a chance of winning. With an August primary, most of the turnout for the primary will be the dedicated activists that showed up for the precinct caucuses on a snowy Tuesday night this past February. These activists will show up en masse for the primary, too, possibly in record numbers to send the message to Sivarajah and Krinkie that their political careers are history.
That's before factoring in Tom Emmer's 100% name recognition, the fact that he handily carried CD-6 in 2010 when he ran for governor and the fact that he's got an overwhelming cash-on-hand advantage.
If Krinkie runs as the Independence Party's endorsed candidate, the backlash against him will be overwhelming. If he runs as a third party candidate, they'll run him off the board at the TaxPayers League. I'd totally support TPL if they did that.
This statement is telling:
Sivarajah still intends to seek the Republican endorsement Saturday, but said she expects Emmer to garner delegates' support on the first ballot .
Does Commissioner Sivarajah want to get thumped another time? She lost the straw poll by 50 points. She's going to lose the endorsement on the first ballot. She'll get thumped in the primary. That's a helluva trifecta, though it isn't one that'll endear her to the activists.
Somewhere near Monticello, a fat lady is getting ready to sing. If I were a betting man, I'd bet she'll sing a dirge sometime Saturday morning.
Posted Wednesday, April 9, 2014 5:30 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 09-Apr-14 06:07 PM
This race is already over although there is a glimmer of hope. Perhaps Phil Krinkie can campaign on his record of accomplishment as the taxpayers' champion of higher education reform on the MnSCU board of trustees.
http://www.mnscu.edu/board/trustee/krinkie.html
Comment 2 by Lisa Nystrom at 09-Apr-14 11:11 PM
I don't get this:
"These activists will show up... to send the message to Sivarajah and Krinkie that their political careers are history."
Why would activists want their political careers "history" just for seeking the 6D nomination? I don't know any activists that vindictive. Is it being suggested that the MNGOP will blackball Sivarajah and Krinkie unless they clear the field for Emmer? Will Sivarajah get booted out of Anoka just for inconveniencing Tom Emmer? Being how Sivarajah actually has a political career at this point and Krinkie does not, that statement came off as a bit chauvinistic.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 10-Apr-14 09:14 AM
I think Krinkie OUGHT to have a bright political future, somewhere. He was the bright guy who wanted zero-based budgeting in the State, and I would like to see him take another shot at it, with a majority behind him this time.
Comment 4 by A, Jr. at 10-Apr-14 04:19 PM
Hmm. Will Gary also have a problem with Mike McFadden proceeding to the convention if he doesn't receive the party's nomination?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-14 05:07 PM
A Jr., what part of this sentence don't you understand?
If Commissioner Sivarajah and Rep. Krinkie want to run in the primary, that's their option.
Comment 5 by Denise Rene at 10-Apr-14 04:33 PM
These activists are a small number of the party. Look at engagement trends for generations x,y and z. They are not baby boomers. If you want a strong party in MN you need primaries. It takes less than 1/10 of one percent of the voters in a party to endorse. In the sixth district that is less than 300 people. really, 300 people get to decide you are next representative is; Why is Emmer and the party so afraid of a primary?
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-14 05:04 PM
I can't imagine Tom Emmer being afraid of a primary. Therefore, the premise is faulty. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
