April 8-9, 2015
Apr 08 01:02 DFL promises no more tax increases Apr 08 09:58 DGS revisited Apr 08 10:44 Judge rejects DOJ request Apr 08 12:03 DFL: throwing good money after bad Apr 09 01:14 DFL's bonding bill is slick advertising Apr 09 01:35 The death of a college Apr 09 11:51 Andzenge's SCSU column Apr 09 12:56 Rand Paul's 'skin' problem
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
DFL promises no more tax increases
In a stunning development, the DFL has promised it'll never raise the gas tax again to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges. Let the parsing begin. Actually, the DFL didn't make that promise this session. That's what they promised in 2007-08. Back then, Sen. Steve Murphy, then-chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, promised that passing a nickel-per-gallon gas tax increase would be the only tax increase they'd need to fix "Minnesota's crumbling roads and bridges" for the next 25 years.
Just 7 years later, Gov. Dayton is back, insisting that "Minnesota's crumbling roads and bridges" require a 6.5% wholesale gas tax increase. The DFL and Move MN support Gov. Dayton's plan. This time, they aren't promising this will be the last tax increase they'll ask for to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges. Instead, this is what the DFL is saying to rationalize their latest tax increase:
"I don't relish having to raise the revenues needed to start fixing 25 years of deterioration and deficiencies in Minnesota's transportation system," Dayton said.
It's interesting that Gov. Dayton totally ignored the $6.6 billion tax increase the DFL imposed on Minnesotans in 2008 in the name of fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. It isn't surprising but it's definitely interesting.
What's really happening is that the DFL is settling an old promise with their transportation special interest lobbyists. Their transit activists expected to get paid when Mark Dayton was governor and the DFL had majorities in the House and Senate. It's likely that the DFL's transit activists were told that an income tax increase and extending the sales tax to farm equipment repairs and warehousing services were the DFL's highest priorities.
It's likely that they were told they'd be first up on the tax increase list in this session. Clearly, they didn't expect the House Republican majority to tell the transit activists to get their money from the local communities where the LRT corridors run through.
That's the worst possible news for transit activists because it's tougher for city councilmembers to justify raising taxes for transit projects.
Republicans shouldn't consider raising the gas tax this year. First, it's a proven failure. The DFL will be back in just a few years for another tax increase because this tax increase, they'll say, wasn't enough. (It never is.) The difference the next time they ask for a tax increase, they'll be able to say that Republicans better vote for this one because they voted for the last one.
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:02 AM
No comments.
DGS revisited
Growing the DGS/ACE Program - Again?
by Silence Dogood
The numbers of students admitted to the Division of General Studies (DGS) program, from Fall 2004 to Fall 2010, is shown in the following figure:
Over this period of time the DGS enrollment grew by 286 students corresponding to an amazing growth of 117%! The DGS program was designed to allow admission of students who did not meet the normal admission requirements to St. Cloud State University (SCSU). In essence, for many years the DGS program was a way that SCSU functioned as a "community college," at least until St. Cloud Technical College was renamed St. Cloud Technical and Community College.
In March 2011, after the Enrollment Management Committee had projected a decline in enrollment for the 2011-12 academic year, which included a target of 500-530 DGS students to be admitted. Provost Devinder Malhotra increased the target for the DGS Program's enrollment to 850 students. There was no prior discussion at Meet and Confer and there was no announcement; it was simply done with the stroke of a pen. Presumably, the increase in the size of the DGS program was to help offset the projected enrollment decline. However, this detail was never discussed at Meet and Confer.
In Fall 2011, the number of DGS students increased above its original goal by 102 students to 632 students. Because the decision to 'open the flood gates' to the DGS program was made so late in the recruiting cycle for students, it was not possible to reach the 850 students Provost Malhotra desired. However, a one-year increase of 102 students is still pretty impressive!
The following year, the number of DGS students declined to 485, which was about the average of the three years from 2008-2010. The decline in Fall 2012 of 147 students from the peak year, in Fall 2011, was substantially larger than the increase experienced from Fall 2010 to Fall 2011 (see the following figure):
At the Meet and Confer on September 5, 2013, the administration announced that they were reducing the size of the DGS program for Fall 2013 by 160 students. The DGS program also transitioned to the name "Academic College Excellence" (ACE) program beginning with Fall 2013. As a result, the DGS enrollment for Fall 2013 was 335 students. The enrollment in the DGS/ACE program is shown in the following figure:
Once again, there was no discussion about changing the size of what had been known as the DGS program - there was simply a pronouncement at Meet and Confer. Looking at the rate of decline from Fall 2011 to Fall 2012, and then from Fall 2012 to Fall 2013, it is hard to believe that the enrollment decline in the DGS (now ACE) program was actually planned. Looking at the data, it seems just as likely that it was simply a continuation of the prior year's trend.
However, surprisingly, this time the administration offered an explanation. At Meet and Confer on September 5, 2013, the administration stated that the reduction of 160 students was:
"an intentional reduction as a consequence of changing our policy and practice. It is data based. And it is based on an understanding that had we admitted those students, they would have failed to graduate. We're focusing more on student success, retention, and graduation than on the total number of students that we enroll. The for-profit institutions business plan is to capture the largest number possible, capture their federal financial aid, with no responsibility to their success. So they churn students through who are not successful but they gather the revenues along the way. Some of the way we were operating was like that. We were bringing in larger numbers and spitting them out with no chance of success. So that this is an intentional policy. It is true that we could be a better university, doing a better job for Minnesota and be smaller. We could be graduating more students and be enrolling fewer students because we're not enrolling those students who are just churned and rolled over. That does result in over time a downsizing the institution to appropriate enrollment size."
The Weekly Admit Report as of March 6th for each year came out over spring break and a portion is reproduced below:
Looking at the numbers, you can see some 'good news.' The total number of applications is up, the number of complete applications is up, the number of incomplete applications is down (a good thing), and the number of admission offers is up for both regular and ACE first year students. What stands out is the enormous increase in the ACE admission offers! A one-year increase of 48.4% is astounding!
In Fall 2014, there were 285 ACE students. Now, there are 405 offers of admission, which is 48.4% larger than the prior year on the same date. As a result, it certainly looks like the size of the ACE program is targeted to increase - substantially! It is important to recognize that admission offers do not mean that a student will enroll so the number of students enrolling will be less. However, the numbers in a year-to-date comparison are clearly increasing. Is this the result of an intentional decision to grow the ACE program?
Just 18 months earlier (remember the September 5th Meet and Confer quote), the administration claimed that the ACE program was being reduced because these students were such a high risk to fail that admitting them bordered on the exploitative. It almost seemed as if the university was claiming the moral high ground by not accepting students who were destined to fail. Now it seems that the enrollment of ACE students is ramping up significantly. What has changed?
It would be nice to think that the university has decided to commit additional resources to help these 'at risk' students be successful rather than just taking their money and "spitting them out with no chance of success." However, given the $9,542,000 deficit for FY15 and projected deficit for FY16 of between $12,000,000 to $15,000,000, it is very hard to believe that there is substantial additional money being committed to make ACE students successful. More likely the 5.1% decline in FY14, the 5.0% decline in FY15 and the projected 3.3% decline for FY16 have made the administration a little bit more willing to take money from these students and return to the admitted practice of "bringing in larger numbers and spitting them out with no chance of success."
Whatever the administration's reason(s) for making the change to the ACE program, continued decision making without consultation of the faculty through the Meet and Confer process makes the idea that the SCSU administration is "open and transparent" simply a joke. In fact, it brings to mind the lyrics from a popular Meghan Trainor song:
"I know you're lyin 'cause your lips are moving."
As soon as you hear the statement about the administration wanting to be "open and transparent" you simply know that whatever follows is less than truthful. "Open and transparent", if it is ever going to be more than simply a group of words, needs to become the modus operandi. In this way, the words themselves become superfluous because the actions of being open and transparent have become a well-established characteristic.
Unfortunately, with the Potter administration, it seems that a former quote from Attorney General John N. Mitchell is more appropriate:
"Watch what we do, not what we say."
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2015 9:58 AM
No comments.
Judge rejects DOJ request
Judge Andrew Hanen refused to lift his temporary hold on President Obama's executive action, saying that the DOJ hasn't " shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation ." Here are the arguments both sides are making:
The coalition of states leading the challenge filed its lawsuit to overturn Obama's executive actions, which would prevent as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally from being deported. The states, led by Texas, argue that the action is unconstitutional and would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. The injunction is intended to stall Obama's actions while the lawsuit progresses through the courts.
Justice Department attorneys argue that keeping the temporary hold harms "the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation" of the president's immigration action.
First, it isn't likely that the Obama administration will win this fight. If I were putting out odds, I'd say the administration's odds of winning was less than 15%. That's enough to stop the DOJ's request dead in its tracks. Second, Judge Hanen's statement that the DOJ hasn't "shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation" is a rather chilly statement. ( Ed Morrissey's post explains why the relationship between Judge Hanen and the DOJ is frosty.)
Hanen issued his initial injunction believing that neither of those orders had taken effect. About a month later, the Justice Department confirmed that more than 108,000 people had already received three-year reprieves from deportation and work permits, but DOJ attorneys insisted the moves were made under 2012 guidelines that weren't blocked by the injunction. The DOJ apologized for any confusion, but Hanen seemed unconvinced during a hearing last month and threatened to sanction the attorneys.
He wrote Tuesday that while the federal government had been "misleading" on the subject, he would not immediately apply sanctions against the government, saying to do so would not be "in the interests of justice or in the best interest of this country" because the issue was of national importance and the outcome will affect millions of people.
"The parties' arguments should be decided on their relative merits according to the law, not clouded by outside allegations that may or may not bear on the ultimate issues in this lawsuit," Hanen wrote.
I'm not a lawyer but I can't imagine it's a good thing for a judge to say that "the federal government had been 'misleading'" the judge. I've got to think that the appellate court won't be impressed with the DOJ's actions.
I'd be very surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't a) hear this case and b) rule against the administration.
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2015 10:44 AM
No comments.
DFL: throwing good money after bad
This article is breathtaking in that it talks about how the DFL is scamming students attending public high schools, then scamming them by forcing to pay for remedial classes in junior college that they should've learned in high school. Here's the DFL's latest scam:
College students who take remedial classes at state-run colleges and universities could soon find themselves in regular college-level courses instead under a proposal being considered at the Capitol.
Weaker students would do better if they took classes with the rest of the student body while getting some extra help on the side, some lawmakers say. And they'd save money by avoiding remedial classes, which cost as much as standard courses but don't offer students credit toward a degree. "We're trying to develop a system that is more student-focused," said Sen. Greg Clausen, DFL-Apple Valley, a former high school principal who wrote the bill.
Here's something else that's offensive:
One in six Minnesota students is in remedial education , usually at a two-year college, according to the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. Almost two-thirds of those take one or two classes, data from the state Office of Higher Education shows.
When I wrote this post , I said that Jazmyne McGill was "the face of educational theft in Minnesota." I said that because Education Minnesota ripped her off by not providing Jazmyne with the education she deserved:
Despite meeting all of the requirements for a diploma, I had to take a class in college that covered material I had already passed in high school. Worse, this class wouldn't earn me any credit toward a degree, although I had to pay full tuition for it.
Making matters worse is the fact that Sen. Clausen is attempting to provide a Band-Aid solution to a problem that requires stitches or surgery. Sen. Clausen's legislation treats a symptom. It doesn't eliminate the root cause.
Until Minnesota legislators require public schools to improve educational outcomes, students will continue getting cheated by Education Minnesota and the DFL. If things don't change dramatically, the Jazmyne McGills of the world will continue getting ripped off -- and that's unacceptable.
Part of that change is demanding that legislators like Sen. Clausen start solving problems instead of treating symptoms. That means training great teachers and getting them into classrooms. That means letting only the best candidates into teaching schools. That means telling EdMinn to that they'll be kicked to the sidelines if they aren't part of the solution.
Ripping high school students off by not teaching them what they're required to learn for college costs these students, or their parents, money. That money doesn't grow on trees. It's frequently 'found' by taking out a student loan. Whichever way you look at it from, it's a rip-off.
Posted Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:03 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-Apr-15 12:42 PM
Gary:
I got a great idea. Why don't they pass a law where the student and the university sign a bill that is sent to the former high school district and the school district has to explain for public record why (including the teachers that teached) weren't able to teach the student what they need to know.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gretchen Leisen at 08-Apr-15 03:48 PM
The failure of the public school system is the primary reason that private schools are thriving. Also growing is the home-schooling phenomenon. Parents do not want their children in schools where the children are schooled in useless subjects and indoctrinated into PC politics. Add to that the presence of large numbers of non-English speaking immigrant children, many of whom refuse to assimilate, and the situation becomes disastrous.
DFL's bonding bill is slick advertising
The Duluth News Tribune's Our View editorial highlights Gov. Dayton's attempt at slick advertising:
The governor's bonding bill - er, sorry, Dayton and his staff even came up with a far-more-fetching name: 'jobs bill' - has little to no chance of going anywhere. And that makes all the effort to get it ready and proposed, as well as the ballyhooed rollout, all that more curious. Anyone with even a hint of cynicism may have smelled politics at play.
The proposal has little to no chance of passage because such a bill has to originate in the House, and the House this year is led by Republicans who not only aren't DFLers like Dayton, they've made it quite clear they have no plans for such a proposal right now.
Among other reasons for pause, it's just not the right year. Bonding bills, or jobs bills, if you wish, typically are the products of even-numbered years' sessions. This session has to be all about passing a budget, which the law requires, and passing a transportation bill, which our crumbling, too-long-overlooked highways and bridges demand. Republicans and DFLers, including Dayton, are far apart on those priorities and others and can spend the remaining weeks of the session compromising and working together with the good of all Minnesotans and their pocketbooks first and foremost in their minds.
That's insulting on multiple fronts. When Republicans unveiled their Transportation Bill, one of the first complaints that the DFL made was that the GOP plan borrowed money while running up the credit card bill to pay for future road and bridge projects . I said then that putting a multigenerational bridge repair project on Minnesota's credit card was totally justified because multiple generations will be using the bridge that's getting repaired.
The DFL, led by Rep. Paul Thissen, criticized that approach. That's frightening considering the fact that Thissen's voted for bonding bills that paid for 'important' infrastructure projects like repairing gorilla cages at Como Park Zoo or a sheet music museum in southern Minnesota.
Based on the DFL's actions, it's apparent that the DFL thinks it's fiscally irresponsible to pay for transportation infrastructure projects with the state's credit card but it's prudent to pay for frivolous projects like museum and zoo repair projects with the state's credit card.
Bonding bills aren't "jobs bills." That's just Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's slick advertising name for them. A high percentage of the projects in the average bonding bill pay off special interest constituencies. If you want to give these types of bills an honest name, let's call them "the special interests' appeasement bill." Either that or let's call them the "special interests' pay-off bills".
This year, let's give them this name: dead on arrival.
Posted Thursday, April 9, 2015 1:14 AM
No comments.
The death of a college
The Death of Sweet Briar College
by Silence Dogood
The image from an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on Tuesday, March 31, 2015 says it all:
On February 28, 2015, the Board of Trustees for Sweet Briar College unanimously voted to close its doors after 114 years. Sweet Briar College is a private liberal arts institution for women, founded in 1901, which has an enrollment of 703 students (graduate and undergraduate). Sweet Briar College is located about 100 miles west of Richmond, Virginia on 3,250 acres near the Blue Ridge Mountains, which can only be described as a pastoral setting.
In 1965, according to the Women's College Coalition, there were 230 women's colleges in the United States. Now, fifty years later, after shutdowns, coed conversions and mergers, there are just over 40 left, including well-known Smith, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, and Wellesley.
The major problem for Sweet Briar is that most students get a discount from the $34,000 tuition. Over time, that discount has been growing to the point that with declining enrollment, the university was no longer financially viable in the long term. You can see that from 2013-14 to 2014-15, the endowment value dropped by $9,000,000. The Board of Trustees made the decision to close the doors now rather than twist in the wind and die a slow death. Sweet Briar College will close on August 25, 2015 and the graduating class of 2015 will be its last.
Compare what happened at Sweet Briar with what's happening at St. Cloud State University. In 2010, enrollment at SCSU was 15,095 FYE. In 2015, enrollment is 11,800 FYE for an enrollment drop of 21.8%. A 21.8% enrollment drop makes a drop of 7.9% drop look almost tiny! In FY14, SCSU had a budget deficit $11,555,000 and the FY15 budget presented on October 16, 2014 showed a deficit of $9,542,000. By the end of this fiscal year, the mandatory reserves of $10,500,000 will be gone. However, MnSCU is like having a rich uncle with a $300,000,000 bank account. It's unlikely that SCSU will close its doors - at least not before a lot of other options are tried.
SCSU is undergoing a process that is attempting to cut over $9,000,000 in expenditures from the FY16 budget to more closely balance revenues to expenses. An expenditure reduction of this size will amount to the loss of approximately 75 FTE faculty positions and 50 staff positions. Unfortunately, this will not be the end of the cuts. In FY17, additional cuts will have to be made to start to rebuild the mandatory reserves and pay back MnSCU for the cash provided to cover SCSU's losses.
SCSU has submitted a financial recovery plan to MnSCU, but in the plan, it appears that the only money that would be available to repay the reserves and the money borrowed from MnSCU is from the excess tuition to expenses. A portion of the latest document for budget planning is reproduced below.
With just over $9,000,000 cut from the FY15 budget, the projection for FY16 is for a loss of $679,000, which is due mainly to a capital appropriation of $1,038,000 that cannot be used to pay operating expenses.
For FY17, the projection is for a slight increase in revenue and a slight increase in expenses but without any capital appropriations leads to a surplus of $352,000. This $352,000 would be available to help restore the reserves. Unfortunately, $352,000 would only replenish 3.4% of the required reserves and leave the loan from MnSCU unpaid.
Unfortunately, for FY18, despite a projected increase in revenue of nearly $3,700,000, the projected expenses increase by $5,400,000, leaving a deficit of $1,159,000. Similarly, projected revenue increases in FY19 but the projected expenses increase by almost the same amount leaving a projected deficit of $1,121,000. Clearly, projections this far into the future are about as reliable as reading tea leaves or predicting the winning Powerball numbers.
Vice President for Finance and Administration Tammy L. H. McGee, in her comments at the last MnSCU Board of Trustee's Meeting made it clear that she understood that she was using the system's money to fund the university through this recovery. However, from this plan, it certainly looks like there is no way to rebuild the reserves to the required $10,500,000 and repay MnSCU in the next few years. In looking at the projections, there is a lot of 'red ink' all the way through the projections for FY19. All things being equal, this budget projection does not solve SCSU's financial problem. In fact, according to this budget projection, SCSU's deficit actually grows!
V.P. McGee has repeatedly stated that a reserve of $10,500,000 is simply not adequate for an organization the size of SCSU. However, if SCSU is to rebuild its reserves even to $10,500,000, revenues need to increase greater than expenses increase. How, or in fact, if that can be accomplished is not an easy question to answer. The likely scenario, of course, is to cut expenses but at the same time increase productivity. As usually is the case, cartoons express it the best and the Non Sequitur cartoon on April 1, 2015 fits this case perfectly! (select the date of April 1, 2015)
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur
At the same time, a parallel question comes to mind. What makes anyone think the leadership that watched as enrollment declined 21.8% over the past five years and budget deficits for the past two years that averaged over $10,000,000 per year can restore sustainable fiscal practices at SCSU?
Albert Einstein captures the essence perfectly:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Posted Thursday, April 9, 2015 1:35 AM
Comment 1 by Mystique at 10-Apr-15 12:54 AM
Now that is funny!
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2015/04/01
Andzenge's SCSU column
Dr. Dick Andzenge's monthly column focuses on SCSU's program reviews and the University's enrollment difficulties:
For the second time in about five years, St. Cloud State University is going through a campus-wide program review aimed at addressing a looming budget shortfall and long-term enrollment decline.
When the first reorganization happened in 2010, it wasn't done in a time of crisis in that it happened when FYE enrollment was at its peak and the dorms were close to filled. It's different this time around in that enrollment has dropped 21.8%, several dorms are mothballed, the dorm occupancy rate has dropped significantly and St. Cloud State is running a major deficit, with more deficits heading their way.
Suffice it to say that there's a greater sense of urgency with this reorganization.
The university also hired a consulting firm to assist in evaluating the campus climate to best serve the students and the university community. The initiative was called "Great Place to Work."
Actually, the firm's name is the Great Place to Work Institute. SCSU paid the Great Place to Work Institute $50,000 for the Institute to conduct a survey and to use the GPTWI logo on SCSU's stationery. The GPTWI Trust Index, the survey conducted by the Institute, showed that morale at SCSU was low because people didn't trust the administration.
Dr. Andzenge's observation is right:
I feel a sense of panic is going on at the university, as too many initiatives are being introduced at the same time with the danger that we will never know the benefits or consequences and possible harm of any of them.
There's no question that professors and staff are panicking in light of the impending staffing cuts. These cuts could've been avoided had President Potter hadn't spent money irresponsibly.
It's disgraceful that LFR has been a lone voice in the wilderness highlighting the Potter administration's foolish spending decisions. I'm tired of writing about the money SCSU has lost through its lease with the Wedum Foundation or the money they spent on 3 police officers to patrol off campus. That's cost SCSU $8,500,000 over the last 5 years.
Eliminating the aviation program came as a surprise and was resisted by many at the university and in the community. It is still unclear whether it was really a benefit to the university and to the people of Minnesota.
Actually, if the aviation program had expanded to include drones, it's pretty certain that the program would've grown significantly. Universities that've opened drone programs have seen a significant influx of students in those programs, mostly because hire rates have been close to 100% at a relatively high starting salary.
Dr. Andzenge is right that eliminating aviation "came as a surprise." What he hasn't said is that President Potter's decision to close the program has hurt SCSU's financial position because aviation has the potential to raise revenue while growing SCSU's enrollment.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I'd expect even a MnSCU university president to figure that out.
Posted Thursday, April 9, 2015 11:51 AM
No comments.
Rand Paul's 'skin' problem
Anyone who watched Rand Paul's interview with Megyn Kelly last night saw Sen. Paul's less-than-elegant side:
Simply put, Sen. Paul was combative, argumentative and vague. He was argumentative when Kelly pressed him for a definition of who he meant when he talked about neocons. By comparison, Sen. Paul said that Charles Krauthammer was "just wrong" in his opinion about Sen. Paul. Finally, Sen. Paul refused to even say what the 'neocon' philosophy consisted of. The only thing Sen. Paul said about neocons was that Sen. McCain "is always right and wants to have troops in 15 countries..."
That's just the tip of the iceberg. When Kelly showed clips of Paul criticizing Savannah Guthrie, telling her how to conduct an interview, Sen. Paul looked petulant and thin-skinned. While there's no denying the fact that Sen. Paul is more open-minded than President Obama, there's no denying the fact that he doesn't like getting challenged, either.
Right after Kelly's interview with Sen. Paul, she interviewed Dana Perino, who had some great advice for Sen. Paul. Ms. Perino said he should put the tapes in of his interview with Savannah Guthrie and the CNBC anchor where his thin skin showed the most. Ms. Perino said that his wife could point out things that he isn't seeing and offer him an opinion of what comes across through a woman's eyes. Perino wasn't harshly critical. She simply offered constructive criticism.
Sen. Paul's other 'skin' problem that showed during his interview was his constant insistence that he was the only Republican who fought against bombing Libya. He wasn't. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single Republican who thought invading Libya was a good idea. Sen. Paul insisted that he was right about Syria and ISIS and that only a matter of degrees separated Republicans from President Obama.
That's warped thinking. President Obama didn't want to take any action. That's because he's a pacifist as is Sen. Paul. That's what Sen. Paul meant when he said that he didn't support arming the Free Syrian Army. Sen. Paul didn't think ISIS was that big of a threat until after they beheaded the reporters. Then his attitude changed. That's what happened with President Obama. It sounds like Sen. Paul is more like President Obama than the neocons supposedly are.
Tonight, Charles Krauthammer will be part of the Special Report All-Star Panel, along with Judge Napolitano and Juan Williams. It'll be interesting to see if Bret Baier gives Charles the opportunity to defend himself against Sen. Paul's charges. If it doesn't happen there, it'll happen somewhere. That's something Sen. Paul should fear because he's a novelty item. He can't afford taking a credibility hit from a respected conservative like Krauthammer.
If Sen. Paul doesn't get control of himself, he won't last long enough to be a flavor-of-the-month candidate. He'll be able to stay in the race. It's just that he'll be treated like a pariah if he's stripped of his credibility.
Posted Thursday, April 9, 2015 12:56 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 09-Apr-15 05:33 PM
I'll take Rand Paul's "thin skinned" combativeness while being interview by liberal and gotcha media people over Romney's and McCain's total lack of any kind of emotion any day of the week. I'm not saying Rand is correct or a good candidate, I'm just glad to see someone from the GOP finally standing up to these people. I want our candidates to stand up for themselves and stop being pushed around by these media people.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Apr-15 12:45 AM
I totally disagree. It's ok for a candidate to use his temper at strategic moments. It's just that I don't want our presidential candidates to be condescending, which is what Sen. Paul did.
The goal in these interviews isn't to impress partisans. That's what you do in stump speeches. The goal in these interviews is to win over undecided.
Coming across as a condescending jerk turns people off. I'd further highlight the fact that it's quite possible to put the media on notice without being condescending.
A quick jab to the proverbial ribs will send the message to respect me but throwing a haymaker sends the message to think of me as a hot-head.
