August 11-13, 2012
Aug 11 03:15 BREAKING NEWS: Mitt picks Ryan Aug 11 14:41 Team Obama's negativity vs. Team Romney's positive vision Aug 12 11:09 Is Minnesota in play? Aug 12 13:35 Investing in America? Aug 12 21:52 Tarryl's tired schtick Aug 12 23:37 One man's unsubstantiated allegations... Aug 13 12:05 Choosing time-tested excellence vs. proven failure Aug 13 17:27 Discredited liar Stephanie Cutter at it again
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
BREAKING NEWS: Mitt picks Ryan
Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol reported that Mitt Romney will introduce Paul Ryan as his running mate this morning :
Elm Grove, Wisc. & Washington, D.C.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that the Romney campaign has begun to prepare a vigorous effort in support of Paul Ryan if he is selected as Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick - something now likely to happen soon. For example, GOP officials tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is among a group of Republicans who has been asked to be ready, in terms of his schedule and other practical preparations, to make the case publicly for a Romney-Ryan ticket as early as Saturday.
This dramatically changes the dynamics of this race. It puts Wisconsin in the red state column. It likely puts Michigan and Ohio into the red state column, too.
I watched Dick Morris' video about the enthusiasm gap, which is currently at 13 points. Don't be surprised if that's 18-20 points by next week Wednesday.
Posted Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:15 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Aug-12 07:03 AM
Is either of them Presidential; i.e., capable of a domestic and international presence fitting the nation?
In particular, Ryan.
He comes across as warmed over Bush, a bit meaner, more of an ideologue, and economically disastrous.
Yet he IS second on the ticket, and it is still Romney who must sell the Romney brand. A Romney brand. Some distinguishable brand. Whichever Romney brand of the day has been touted day by day, now is he rooted, via Ryan to look less like a wealthy waffle?
I guess the question you can answer best Gary, which part of the GOP coalition favors Ryan most, and why?
Comment 2 by Patrick at 11-Aug-12 07:29 AM
...and Obama was qualified because????
Comment 3 by eric z at 11-Aug-12 07:59 AM
... and Reagan was qualified because????? His movies even were second rate, in one costaring with a chimp.
Obama was qualified because prior to running he had excelled at all he tried, without being born on third base thinking he'd hit a triple like Romney. Or born on third base thinking he'd kicked a field goal, like Dan Quayle.
I concede - Paul Ryan is more qualified than McCain's selection was/is/will be. Is that enough? Huh?
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 11-Aug-12 12:46 PM
Eric:
Um that description is Obama and Biden. Ryan is far more qualified to be President than Obama and even democrats know it. They still go to the ballot box like you and say I don't care how bad Obama is. I want government to run my life therefore I will vote for Obama and let the country go to hell.
If you don't want government to run your life you have to vote for Romeny-Ryan!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 11-Aug-12 12:49 PM
Reagan was qualified because he'd thought through the biggest issues of his generation, then figured out the best solutions for those problems.
Eric, President Reagan created more jobs in his third year than President Obama will create in his only term.
PS- I don't want to hear this crap about how President Whiney inherited a mess, either. BFD. President Reagan inherited the mess Jimmy Carter created. All he did was install policies that led to creating 20,000,000 jobs in 8 years while bringing down the U.S.S.R. and ending the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Mitt Romney inherited a mess when he was picked to run the 2002 Winter Olympics, which was riddled with corruption, which he promptly cleaned up. Then, while he was turning the Salt Lake Olympiad around, there was this little thing called 9/11, which added preventing terrorist attacks at the Winter Games to his already full plate.
Perhaps it's time you took a long look at reality instead of whining your class warfare BS.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 11-Aug-12 12:49 PM
Eric:
Lets see Reagan served as governor of the largest state of the union and got its fiscal house in order compared with Obama engaged in hiding his college transcripts, disqualifying people from ballots, engaging in bad land deals, raising campaign funds from terrorists, and other stupid things.
What you don't want to admit that you know that Reagan was far more qualified to be President of the United States than Obama!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by eric z at 12-Aug-12 06:43 AM
Hey. I woke you guys up. Now, smell the coffee.
Comment 8 by walter hanson at 12-Aug-12 01:36 PM
Eric:
I'm just curious when are you going to wake up and smell the coffee?
Obama said give me the stimulus bill and I'll keep unemployment below 8%. We have had three years of it being over 8% every month. It hasn't work and his idea is more of the same.
Obama said that he will cut the budget removing unnecessary spending. Spending is up, the deficit is over $1.1 trillion a year (Bush's worse was just $400 billion) so it's obvious that he's not cut spending.
Obama said he's not for shipping jobs overseas yet his major plan for green energy is sending jobs to China and Finland for sure if not other countries while driving up energy prices for oil and electric power.
Obama claims the United States is respected. It's easy to think we're respected when other countries are laughing at how weak Obama is showing the country.
So Eric wake up and smell that coffee. You need to see how Obama is destroying the country.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Team Obama's negativity vs. Team Romney's positive vision
This election is exceptionally straightforward. People can vote for this administration's failed policies, their cronyism and negativity or they can vote for an agenda that restores America to prosperity, puts America on a path to repeated balanced budgets and that puts their faith in the American people, not in big government.
It didn't take Team Obama long to put out their first negative ad against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan:
Team Obama has its work cut out for themselves, as Ed points out in this post :
Despite the attacks on Ryan over his budget plan, he's easily the most liked of the short-listers among likely voters 65 years of age and over, with a 52/29 favorability rating. His 'very favorable' rating of 31% in the 65+ group is more than 10 points better than the other shortlisters in the Rasmussen survey (again, save Rice). Jindal did well, too, with a 44/28, as did Pawlenty with a 40/30 and Portman at 37/26, but Ryan's draw among seniors outpaced all of them. Ryan has plenty of room to be defined in either direction with 35% of voters overall not having an opinion, but that's only true of 20% of seniors, and Ryan already has a majority of them on his side.
Despite the Democrats' scare tactics, Chairman Ryan has a positive rating with seniors, women and independents. President Obama will have his hands full attempting to villainize Paul Ryan.
Idiots like Paul Begala are joining in the whining :
The elite love Ryan because he speaks for more cowardly members of their class; his stridently anti-middle class policies are music to their ears.
Conservatives must belittle idiots like howling dogs like Mr. Begala. Calling the guy who's "a member of his local archery association, the Janesville Bowmen " an elitist is stupid. It's typical Begala. He's never let facts get in the way opportunities for looking like an idiot.
When it comes to looking reasonable, Mr. Begala never misses an opportunity to miss great opportunities.
Whenever President Obama goes negative personal, he'll look like the petty, vindictive juvenile he is. That's because Paul Ryan has President Reagan's trait of optimism. Petty vindictiveness doesn't play well against positivity.
TEA Party activists and other conservatives aren't just energized. They're ready to write checks and pound signs for the Romney-Ryan ticket. During FNC's coverage of Mitt's introduction aboard the USS Wisconsin, Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's former campaign strategist, said that there's "no doubt that" tons of donations are flowing into the Romney-Ryan warchest via online donations.
I don't doubt that a split-second. In fact, I predicted in this article that the Ryan-Romney ticket will raise $150,000,000 this month. That'd be $40,000,000-$50,000,000 more than he's raised in either of the last 2 months.
Prior to Mitt picking Paul Ryan, conservatives were licking our chops at voting against President Obama and his failed policies. We're still licking our proverbial chops to vote against President Obama's failed policies. It's just that we're now also salivating at the opportunity to vote for the Ryan agenda.
Tags: President Obama , Politics of Personal Destruction , Paul Begala , Smear Campaign , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Paul Ryan , Ronald Reagan , Optimism , Fundraising , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:41 PM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 11-Aug-12 03:36 PM
It's troubling to see class warfare so prominent in Obama's election paradigm. Apparently his campaign feels that, 'I'm not getting my fair share' is a little obvious so they use the flip side of the coin: 'The Rich aren't paying their fair share.'
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 11-Aug-12 07:19 PM
With all of the whining about how Mitt paid 14% on his income (versus someone making say 40,000 a year pays which is roughly 18-23%). Which is a bigger number....23% of $40,000 or 14% of $2million....not what is the bigger percentage of income - what is the biggest total of tax paid? The rich ARE paying their fair share and then some - given that 53% of all Americans pay NO INCOME TAX at all and the vast majority of those get REFUNDS every year.....
LL
Comment 3 by Jethro at 11-Aug-12 09:20 PM
Well then, 53% of those not paying any taxes is not fair, either.
Comment 4 by eric z at 12-Aug-12 06:39 AM
Sowing generational discontents and divisiveness, generation war, to hide the class war the wealthy have imposed by crassly seizing more than their fair share is not everybody's cup of tea. Screw the old may resonate with some, but hopefully not with the voting old.
"... they can vote for an agenda that restores America to prosperity, puts America on a path to repeated balanced budgets and that puts their faith in the American people, not in big government."
Gary, I believe that Romney wants to enlarge the nation's reach militarily, hence keeping the California and beltway defense contractors in their current welfare queen status, or enlarging that. It is the biggest boondoggle there is, and you turn a blind eye to it, and to sandbox wars that demonize Muslims?
Pumping larger amounts of taxpayer cash into retired or soon to be retired military brass, and into mercs such as Xe, formerly Blackwater, is not going to "restore America to prosperity" nor is it anyone's true antithesis of "big government." It IS big government.
Really. Lady Logician, try logic sometime. Upping the margin on Romney millions, and closing his loopholes will get more than 14% of a big ton of money that needs to be spread around because I don't want to pay for your Predator drones. Let Daddy Warbucks pay his share.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Aug-12 10:29 AM
hide the class war the wealthy have imposed by crassly seizing more than their fair shareWho made you the determiner of what's fair or unfair? That sounds plenty autocratic. It's just short of dictatorial-sounding.
Folks, that's what progressive control freakism looks like. They determine what's enough or too much. They determine means We The People don't determine things on an individual basis.
Eric, what's the basis for your hatred & bitterness of wealth? Without wealth creation, there wouldn't be any innovation. Without wealth creation, job creation disappears & economic growth shrinks. This is desirable why?
Comment 5 by eric z at 12-Aug-12 06:55 AM
I remember the days ...
letfreedomringblog.com/?p=12459
Still a wimp? Still "yellow"?
It has been said "Consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds ... " so I apologize in advance of a response.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 12-Aug-12 01:53 PM
Eric:
Let me get your argument straight. If I'm reading you correctly you think the tax code is:
* Washington received tax income from all Americans. They then write checks to only people who are wealthy.
I did get the argument straight?
The reason being that isn't how it works Eric. The poor are written checks in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit, tax credits which the rich aren't allowed to take, government aid payments, etc. The rich aren't handed checks. Those so called tax cuts which we want to give the rich are just keeping their tax rate the same so they don't have a tax increase. That's not taking money from the poor and middle class Eric!
Just curious if Rich Person has to write a check so that you won't criticize the rich person for not paying enough in taxes what rate should they pay?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by eric Z at 12-Aug-12 06:28 PM
Walter, you must be one of those 14% wonders. How do you do it?
Comment 8 by eric Z at 12-Aug-12 07:13 PM
Gary, you are crying crocodile tears. Government's function is to tax and spend. Otherwise public goods are not provided. The question is who you tax, and how much.
A graduated tax is fine. The more you earn, the more you pay, but on the first fifty grand, everyone pays the same rate, etc. Those benefiting more from being in our social contract should pay for that benefit. At the top margins, after a million or two, what's wrong with a fifty percent rate? Gary, if you earn two million and have a shot at another million, you'd walk from it because you'd only be able to keep half of it? You'd walk from half a million? Hardly.
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Aug-12 10:06 PM
Eric, This might be news but government's function is to do only those things that the Constitution requires. If government didn't have a transportation department, businesses would create road & railroads on their own. It isn't impossible for industry to build those things.
As for taxes, it isn't just about marginal tax rates. It's also factoring in the entire tax code. Compliance costs for businessses are astronomical. That's why the tax code needs to be overhauled. (FYI- That's part of the Ryan Budget.) Simplifying the code, then collapsing the rates eliminates the glut caused by lobbyists negotiating special deals in return for special favors, would root out corruption while making it easy for companies to comply with the tax code.
FYI- Regulations hurt businesses on a variety of fronts far more than taxes do.
Finally, why do you hate the people that create prosperity?
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 13-Aug-12 06:44 PM
Eric:
I'm not one of those 14% percent wonders, but I wish I was.
Just in case you don't know Romney's secret you earn lots of money which is taxed by the federal government at over 30%, throw in state government, if you don't spend it you can save it.
Then the government decides because you're thrifty and make money on capital gains that you get to pay more taxes after you have already paid taxes on the money you saved.
Mitt's so called 14% tax rate is actually around 50% with the multiple cracks the government took.
And Eric you ducked my question (so what else is knew since you don't know how to try to debate), but what percent of income should somebody pay to the governmnet before it's enough. Apparently that number has to be more than 14%.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Is Minnesota in play?
A year ago, I didn't think Minnesota would be a battleground state. I wrote here that I'd changed my mind but that I was still skeptical.
Coupling Mitt's pick of Paul Ryan with this information is pushing me to rethink my position again:
The first ad that will begin airing in television markets Wednesday starts with video of President Obama announcing a pledge to cut the nation's deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. The national debt stood at about $10 trillion early in Obama's term, but has risen to more than $15 trillion.
The 30-second spot includes footage of an interview in February 2009 with NBC's Matt Lauer in which the president says, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
The advertisement closes with the image of a rolling debt counter, and this text: "Let's make this a one-term proposition on Nov. 6."
The ads will air in Minnesota, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
AFP including Minnesota in the ad buy isn't proof that Minnesota's in play but it's clear Minnesota won't be the blowout President Obama and the DFL thought it would be, either.
The thing that Team Romney-Ryan needs to do is start telling Minnesotans that the Obama-Dayton-Klobuchar plan doesn't do anything to get Minnesota's economy growing, doesn't do anything to bring regulations under control and doesn't doesn't do anything to lower gas prices or electric bills.
Then they need to lay out their vision of getting the economy growing, creating jobs, reforming the oppressive federal government and putting the federal government back in its proper constitutional box. Explain that the economy does best when government isn't intrusive like it is under this administration.
President Obama isn't wildly popular in Minnesota. Showing Minnesotans that limited government and the right reforms works might tip Minnesota into the red state column.
Tags: President Obama , Unemployment , Deficits , Democrats , Battleground States , Ohio , Paul Ryan , Wisconsin , Minnesota , Florida , Colorado , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:09 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-Aug-12 01:45 PM
Gary:
I think you can argue this is why Minnesota will be in play.
One, Wisconsin is in play. That means to get the western part of Wisconsin you have to advertise in the Twin Cities and Duluth which is the reason why I think those commercials have to be in play. Not to mention media appearances in Minnesota get shown to Wisconsin not to mention Iowa also in play.
Two, Romney in 2012 is on offense and doesn't have the limited funds that McCain. At least Romney will be fighting unlike McCain.
Three, the voters of Minnesota saw in 2011 that the state didn't self destruct when the government shut down and it didn't die without tax increases. What is the Obama's argument.
Four, with Chip winning in the 8th district it's safe to think that there are six congressional districts which Romney can win. That at least will make things close.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Todd at 13-Aug-12 11:24 PM
I hope so. It would be great if Romney/Ryan can carry the state. But, I think what is equally important is the senate race.
Everyone should be hammering on Klobuchar for her support for obamacare. Recently, she has partnered with the Paulson, Kline and Bachmann to repeal the 2.3% surcharge med tech tax that goes into effect in 2013. The impact of this tax is starting to come to light.
For example, several med tech companies recently announced how the new 2.3% tax will impact their businesses starting in 2013. Cook Medical announced it is scrapping plans to expand in the midwest, Medtronic figures the tax will cost them as much as $175 M per year.
They are trying to figure out how to pass that cost onto their customers, and finally during St. Jude Medical last earnings call, Dan Starks said the following: "But it's also -- here in the U.S., this medical device excise tax, it's going to take effect in January 2013, we think will have more impact on businesses that is generally appreciated. That's a cash expense every it's paid every 15 days starting in January. We think that that medical device excise tax, with that new cash outflow every 15 days, will have unintended consequences. It'll -- we think that it will reduce the level of investment that medical device companies have available. We think the reduced level of investment is going to impact jobs and result in reduced jobs.
We think that the reduced level of investment and the increased outflow of cash to this excise tax will impact company valuations. There's often the uninformed -- well intentioned but uninformed comment that the excise tax is intended to offset a windfall from healthcare reform. And it's -- although that may be a good intention, that's clearly not the way the tax is designed. We don't see a windfall from healthcare reform. Our outlook for market growth is lower as a result of healthcare reform for our particular business. And if there was a windfall from healthcare reform, that would be nicely captured in increased profits. And the tax on those increased profits would be nicely captured in normal tax rates on income rather than in excise tax that is completely divorced from cash flow and completely divorced from profit. So we think that this tax really will have a negative impact, a meaningful negative impact on some companies in the medical device space here in 2013."
Amy, you can't hide from your vote by trying to propose a repeal. You own killing these jobs and this tax!
Investing in America?
President Obama consistently insists that 'America' must invest in America. When he's said this in the past, he's said it in the context of injections of massive government spending directed towards his political allies and other cronies :
When President Obama criticized Republicans about Rush, Rush started airing all the pork in this bill. Day after day, Rush exposed the pork in the bill. It didn't take long for the Right Blogosphere jumped in. The damage was already done before this NRO article appeared but it's worth looking into. Here's a few of my favorites:
- $448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
- $600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
- $450 million for NASA (carve-out for "climate-research missions" )
- $600 million for NOAA (carve-out for "climate modeling" )
- $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Then there's this :
- $550 million for a federal fleet of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
- $300 million for even more plug-in or "efficient" vehicles
- $300 million for 'smart appliances'
- $ 13.9 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Authority (a lending mechanism for green energy projects)
- $8 billion for 'high-speed rail grants' to states, which apparently includes Reid's Vegas project
-
$21.44 billion for "environmental" issues, none of which appears to have job creation in mind, including:
Lead Paint Abatement ($100 million)
EPA State revolving funds ($6 billion)
USDA water loans and grants ($1.38 billion)
DOE environmental management ($6 billion)
- $15 billion to "increase and protect affordable housing"
- $7.2 billion for expanding broadband coverage
-
$15 billion for new Pell Grant funding
$44 billion for education block grants - $4.6 billion for "early childhood" programs
- $1.1 billion for "comparative effectiveness research"
What's most appalling is that President Obama indicated that he didn't have a plan except recklessly spending the taxpayers' money :
'So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)'
President Obama made that telling comment less than 3 weeks into his administration. President Obama's steadfast belief has been that a robust economy is based on recklessly spending the taxpayers' money. President Obama's thirst for spending money recklessly is his trademark. That's why his deficits are consistently more than $1,200,000,000,000. President Obama isn't investing in America. He's consistently paid off his political allies. Think about this:
$13.9 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Authority (a lending mechanism for green energy projects)
Then think Solyndra and all of the Obama megabundlers who got rich while the taxpayers footed the bills when these green energy boondoggles went bankrupt. That's how the seeds of corruption get planted. President Obama hasn't invested in America.
Investing in America would've meant building the Keystone XL Pipeline. It would've meant opening up the shale oil reserves in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and other states. President Obama has spent money fortifying his political allies.
This November, that spending must stop.
Tags: President Obama , Corruption , Pork , Stimulus , Cronies , Solyndra , Bundlers , Green Jobs , Spending , Loan Guarantees , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, August 12, 2012 1:35 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-Aug-12 01:39 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget that he promised to show that this wasn't wasteful spending that these were shovel ready projects to help the country and a couple of years later he joked "I guess they weren't all shovel ready"
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Tarryl's tired schtick
This morning, Tom Hauser hosted a debate between Rick Nolan, Jeff Anderson and Tarryl Clark. His first question for Tarryl was whether things had changed in the Eighth District. Here's Tarryl's response:
TARRYL: Well, it's a very diverse district, going all the way from just north of Forest Lake all the way to International Falls. And I think he sold them a bill of goods. He said he was running to change how Washington was being done and he was going to create jobs. The only jobs I've seen him create have been overseas, including some in China.
I'd love hearing Tarryl explain how Chip's 'Buy American Steel' amendment created jobs overseas. I'd love hearing her explain how his work on getting PolyMet open is creating jobs overseas.
Tarryl's troubles have started when she thought she could say anything and get away with it. The reality is that Tarryl's helped strengthen China's economy :
In addition to the environmental groups like the NRDC and the Sierra Club, unions like SEIU have also joined an umbrella organization (the BlueGreen Alliance) to lobby for federal funding for 'green' projects. Collectively, these groups have been involved in hundreds of lawsuits with the federal government over stopping fossil energy projects. Key political appointees at the DOI are former employees of the NRDC and other environmental groups.
The BlueGreen Alliance's lobbying stopped the Keystone XL Pipeline in its tracks. Tarryl's ties to the BlueGreen Alliance are extensive and troubling.
Let's see Tarryl explain how an organization she's had extensive ties to killed union construction jobs. The truth is that she's tied to the militant environmentalist movement, a movement that's killing jobs.
Tarryl's "I'll fight for you" mantra is fiction. She won't fight for the Eighth District. She'll fight for the organizations that'll support her campaigns. That hasn't changed throughout the years.
Chip didn't "sell them a bill of goods." That's Tarryl's specialty. Chip told the miners that he'd fight to make PolyMet a reality. He's kept that promise. It isn't Chip's fault that President Obama's EPA and Gov. Dayton's MPCA and Alida Messinger's Conservation Minnesota keep attempting to shut down the mining industry.
After the KSTP debate, Tarryl stopped past WCCO to be interviewed by Esme Murphy. Here's that video:
During the interview, Tarryl took a shot at DFL Chairman Ken Martin for not vetting the candidates before the endorsing convention. That's sour grapes on Tarryl's behalf. It's up to the delegates and the candidates to vet the candidates.
Here's reality: Tarryl isn't a good fit for the district. While it's true that they'd elected a Democrat since WWII prior to the 2010 midterms, it's equally true that they've elected pro-life, pro-Second Amendment liberals. That isn't who Tarryl is.
It'll be interesting to see who wins Tuesday's DFL primary. I don't have a great read on that primary. If Tarryl wins, Ken Martin will praise her effusively. If Tarryl is defeated, however, she will have burned a ton of bridges within the DFL.
Tags: Debates , Rick Nolan , Tarryl Clark , Primary , Ken Martin , BlueGreen Alliance , Keystone XL Pipeline , Green Jobs , Mining , Unions , DFL , Elections
Posted Sunday, August 12, 2012 9:52 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 13-Aug-12 11:10 AM
Chip can handle any of those three clowns in the general.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-12 11:21 AM
You're right.
Comment 3 by Patrick at 13-Aug-12 04:54 PM
I get physically ill looking at or listening to Tarryl Clark!
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-12 05:30 PM
Patrick, Thanks for sharing. That proves you're normal.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 13-Aug-12 06:48 PM
Gary:
Just curious if Tarry wins the primary do you think any reporter will ask her what has she done to open that mine instead of driving away an employer that wants to employ hundreds of people.
To me that fits the bill perfectly of "Fighting for you" Or is she just lying?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-12 08:18 PM
If Tarryl wins tomorrow's primary, I'd bet that the reporters from the Duluth News Tribune would ask her what she'd do to make PolyMet a reality. It's also possible that reporters from the Ely Echo would jump her on that because the Twin Metals mine near Ely is tied to PolyMet. That's a gigantic issue on the Range.
The thing that hurts Tarryl & Nolan is that they're both greenies. It'll be impossible for them to dodge those reporters' question. The thing they haven't proven they understand is that those reporters care about their families first, politics second. It's personal with them.
Comment 6 by MplsSteve at 13-Aug-12 09:21 PM
Gary-
Who wins tomorrow? Clark? Anderson? Nolan?
What do you think the percentages will be?
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-12 09:45 PM
Steve, I just don't have a good read on this primary. I think it'll be Nolan but that's probably just wishful thinking on my behalf.
Truthfully, I think Chip's gotta be thrilled running against Nolan, Tarryl or Anderson. Anderson can't raise money. Nolan & Tarryl are hopelessly left of where the Range is. The only thing saving Tarryl is her fundraising ability.
She doesn't understand the Eighth District. Neither does Nolan. They're fighting to out pro-choice the other in a district that values pro-life politicians.
If you'll remember, Jim Oberstar was livid after not getting MCCL's endorsement against Chip.
Nolan & Tarryl have too many ties to militant environmentalists to do worth a damn on the Range in the general election.
One man's unsubstantiated allegations...
One man's unsubstantiated accusations might be a liberal's smokescreen. That appears to be the case with this editorial . Here's what I'm specifically talking about:
Remembering this is a family newspaper, my descriptors point more toward sad, spiteful, brutal, even mean. Yes, they come in two colors: red and blue.
Whaddya mean I can't say U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann is dead-on right to say fellow House Rep. Keith Ellison is tied to a terrorist group?
Those two statements summarize several correspondences I've had from local readers wanting to share their opinions on unsubstantiated accusations from both of these elected officials.
This isn't an unsubstantiated accusation. It's Randy's excuse for not running an LTE I submitted during the height of the National Security Five noncontroversy. I provided the proof of the Keith Ellison-Muslim Brotherhood connection in this post :
Tax records show the group that paid Ellison's expenses, the Muslim American Society of Minnesota , received nearly $900,000 in taxpayer money in 2006 and 2007 from a rental arrangement for Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA), an Inver Grove Heights charter school.
Here's the connection to the Muslim Brotherhood:
In May 2005, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reported in The Weekly Standard that MAS is a U.S. front group for the Muslim Brotherhood , a claim supported by a September 19, 2004 Chicago Tribune story that stated: 'In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.'
It's become increasingly clear that Krebs sees his job as providing political cover to the DFL. This isn't an unsubstantiated rumor. Documents filed with the state of Illinois identify the Muslim American Society as being part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Tax records verify that the MAS/Muslim Brotherhood paid for Ellison's trip to Mecca. In fact, Ellison was the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation for accepting that expensive of a gift at a time when Democrats were in the majority.
It's stunning to think that Krebs thinks that the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and Keith Ellison isn't direct and substantiated.
Simply put, it isn't that the last 3 months of a campaign are the silly season. A legitimate case can be made that campaigns get silly in September and October.
It's that it's silly season 24/7 at the Times.
Tags: Media , Media Bias , St. Cloud Times , Randy Krebs , Keith Ellison , Muslim Brotherhood , Muslim American Society , Democrats , Michele Bachmann , National Security Five , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:37 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 13-Aug-12 11:04 PM
Waterboy...
Choosing time-tested excellence vs. proven failure
This presidential election is a choice between the failed policies of the Obama administration vs. the proven excellence of the Romney-Ryan plan. We don't need 3 years in office to know that the Romney-Ryan plan will work because it's based in large part on Reagan's plan of streamlining taxes (1986 TEFRA), loosening regulations and applauding the achievements of America's innovators.
The other choice is to keep the failed policies of the past 42 months in office. Does the nation want another 4 years of umnprecedented levels of strangling regulations, governance through executive orders, disdain for the rule of law, disgust with wealth creation, paltry job growth and anemic GDP growth?
Do we want to hear Jay Carney and other administration mouthpieces yapping about "29 consecutive months of private sector job growth"? Or do we prefer a labor secretary who steps to the podium and announces a third straight jobs report where America's entrepreneurs created 300,000 jobs?
Not only are economists confident that President Obama's economic policies won't consistently create that type of job growth. They're confident President Obama's economic policies prevent that type of job growth.
Do We The People want another 4 years of hearing about an endless litany of excuses (President Obama blaming ATMs is my favorite) for why the economy isn't growing? Or do we want an administration that gets America's fiscal house in order?
Do people want to hear Ben Bernanke announce another round of quantitative easing? Would people prefer hearing about eliminating deficits, restoring longterm fiscal health and stabilizing, then strengthening, the dollar?
Those aren't the subjects President Obama wants on this year's political battlefield. President Obama hates those subjects on this year's political battlefield as much as vampires hate wooden stakes.
This isn't the choice debate President Obama and his minions prepared for. That's why their first response to Romney picking Paul Ryan was utterly lame.
There's no question that President Obama and his minions will do their best to continue the small, fear-inciting, campaign they've run thus far.
There's another thing to consider. Paul Ryan utterly dismantled President Obama's arguments for the ACA. President Obama vs. Paul Ryan isn't a fair fight. In fact, if you watch the video of Ryan demolishing the ACA, you'll see President Obama initially looking stunned. That quickly changed. It wasn't long before President Obama looked upset, then irate.
That's because President Obama thinks of himself as the smartest man in the room whereas Paul Ryan is the smartest man in the room on budget and economic policy.
Finally, Paul Ryan's acceptance speech has the potential to set the stage for a wild fall campaign. Mitt Romney is energized. Paul Ryan is electrifying.
This isn't the campaign President Obama wanted to fight. Don't think that won't become apparent.
Tags: President Obama , Recession , Unemployment , Deficits , QE3 , ACA , Regulations , Democrats , Paul Ryan , Mitt Romney , Surpluses , Job Growth , King Dollar , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, August 13, 2012 12:05 PM
No comments.
Discredited liar Stephanie Cutter at it again
The last time Stephanie Cutter stepped onto the national stage, she was immediately discredited as a liar. Remember this oldie but goodie ?
Deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN she didn't know the facts behind Soptic's story.
'I don't know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance,' she said.
Robert Gibbs echoed that sentiment when he told reporters on Air Force One that 'we don't have any knowledge of the story of the family.'
But an article posted Thursday at policymic.com says that Soptic was on a conference call with Cutter on May 4, 2012.
"Stephanie Cutter knew Joe Soptic, and heard the entire story well before the Priorities USA ad debuted over the airways. It's now obvious that she lied when trying to deny it this week," Jesse Merkel wrote.
Fast forward to today's Washington Post article on Paul Ryan campaigning in Iowa. Here's what Ms. Cutter said this time:
'It really does balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the needy,' Obama's deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said of Ryan's budget plan. 'This is not a pro-growth document; this is an ideological document.'
First, let's address the obvious question. What would anyone in this administration know about pro-growth policies? I've watched this administration for almost 4 years. I watched the campaign, too. I've yet to see anything that remotely resembles a pro-growth policy initiative.
Next, considering the fact that Stephanie Cutter lied outright about Joe Soptic to a national TV audience, why should we trust her characterizations of a political opponent?
To be fair, she's right that the Romney-Ryan plan is an ideological plan in the finest sense of the word. Their plan is built on the premise that this shouldn't be a campaign about nothing. This is the biggest election in my lifetime by far. This shouldn't be fought on the battlefield of whether a person leaving Bain Capital caused a man's wife to die of cancer.
This campaign should be fought on what type of America we want to live in. It ought to be fought over what type of America we want to turn over to the next generation.
That isn't the type of choice President Obama had in mind. That's why I'm confident liberals won't rejoice Mitt's picking Paul Ryan much longer. It's imperative, though, that the pro-Romney superPAC start defining Paul Ryan with their advertising ASAP.
If Team Obama/Stephanie Cutter/Bill Burton/Priorities USA doesn't scuff him up prior to his VP acceptance speech, Paul Ryan will become a monster too big for them to handle.
Tags: President Obama , Stephanie Cutter , Priorities USA , Bill Burton , Joe Soptic , GST Steel , Democrats , Paul Ryan , Pro Growth , Mitt Romney , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, August 13, 2012 5:27 PM
No comments.
