August 2015 Posts
Aug 03 06:15 Dorholt, DFL, AFL-CIO see racism everywhere Aug 03 11:46 Gov. Dayton, Mille Lacs and the DNR Aug 03 14:45 Times' writer writes slanted story Aug 04 09:14 To Margaret Hartmann Aug 07 16:44 Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly Aug 08 09:08 Donald Trump's diatribe Aug 23 09:53 Hillary vs. Judicial Watch: Coronation no more Aug 28 17:26 Mark Dayton vs. North Dakota, Constitution
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Dorholt, DFL, AFL-CIO see racism everywhere
This past Saturday, the DFL and Zach Dorholt staged a protest against racism. This St. Cloud Times article didn't even get the basics right. To reporter Ben Rodgers' credit, he was right in saying that this fake protest was held at "the Stearns County Courthouse." After that, facts weren't part of Mr. Rodgers neighborhood.
Rodgers wrote that Dorholt, the DFL and the AFL-CIO gathered "to protest an anti-immigration speaker who visited St. Cloud." They identified that "anti-immigration speaker" as Bob Enos. It's fiction to call Mr. Enos anti-immigration. I wrote about Mr. Enos in this post . I included a video of his presentation to the Willmar City Council in the post. Mr. Enos' presentation was solely about the federal refugee resettlement program. Specifically, he was worried that this 'federal' program was stretching the budgets of state and local agencies. It's a legitimate thing to worry about.
Here's the video of Mr. Enos' presentation:
Jane Conrad admitted that Mr. Enos isn't anti-immigration:
Jane Conrad, a field representative for the East Central Area Labor Council, planned the rally after Bob Enos, of Willmar, appeared at an event booked at the Veterans of Foreign Wars speaking out against refugees and Sharia, the Islamic law.
Here's part of Enos' presentation to the Willmar City Council:
We've been working on an issue that's become pretty important to us which has to do with the subject of the resettlement of political refugees around the world and how that affects our counties particularly. I don't know if you've had any briefings on this matter but back in November, the coordinator for the refugee resettlement program for the state of Minnesota in St. Paul requested the director of Family Services here at the County to organize a meeting that took place over a couple of days. Twenty people attended from 3 county agencies, the Willmar School District as well as city hall. The Mayor-elect was there. A couple of vice presidents from Jenny O were there. The subject of the meeting had to do with migration of refugees to Kandiyohi County. We're used to thinking of the refugee issue in terms of those that are leaving the refugee camps in east Africa and winding up on our shores and going out to the cities and the counties.
The big issue lately that we can't seem to get a handle on very easily, particularly from a financial planning standpoint, and that has to do with the secondary relocation of refugees from other states around the country. The most recent data that we're seeing now from the State of Minnesota, specifically from the Department of Health, now tells us that of every city and town, the city that is attracting the most refugees is Minneapolis. The city that's attracting the second-most refugees is Willmar, not St. Paul, not Bloomington, not St. Cloud, Mankato, Worthington. Willmar.
We suspect that, for the most part, most of this has to do with family re-unification but, best guess, there's a number of factors contributing to this. What we're seeing is the Somali community, in particular, is such a size and critical mass, that that critical mass is, in and of itself, the primary magnet for refugees coming here from Atlanta, California and Texas. The last time we knew, we were looking at a number roughly of 2,000 or roughly 10% of our population. We know that's quite conservative.
I've been to 2 other meetings subsequent to the meeting held in November. One was held out in St. Cloud and was sponsored by Lutheran Social Services organization, which in Minnesota, is called the # 1 volunteer agency or VOLAG, which is a private contractor with the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services from the federal government to aid in that relocation within the first 6 months that they're here. That meeting, interestingly enough, had about 35 stakeholders, people that have some part, some incentive, some exposure to the program. There was not a single elected official there from the City of St. Cloud or the county. There were no representatives of the School District and these are the places where we're seeing the most impact, and, of course, the schools.
The federal contracts that the VOLAGs have, though they're hardly volunteers, requires that they quarterly have meetings with stakeholders. Those stakeholders are supposed to include members of the community. I would take that a member of the community to be an elected representative and I have not been to a meeting where I've seen a city councilman, a county commissioner or anyone of an elected status.
Nowhere in Enos' presentation did he mention Sharia law. Zach Dorholt said this in continuing the DFL's facade:
'When people come to St. Cloud with the intent to divide us and spread hate and anger we here in St. Cloud are simply going to ask for peace, love and happiness,' Zach Dorholt said. 'St. Cloud is always going to stand for peace, love and understanding over the fear and hate that those who don't live here are trying to incite.'
In other words, Dorholt thinks that worrying about city and county finances is "spreading hate and anger." Enos has talked about doing a moratorium on the refugee resettlement program until an audit is done to determine the local impact of the program.
If that's Dorholt's definition of racism, then it isn't surprising that he sees racism everywhere. Speaking about things that aren't surprising, it isn't surprising that the Times got the lede information wrong.
Posted Monday, August 3, 2015 6:15 AM
Comment 1 by Margaret at 03-Aug-15 09:39 AM
The St Cloud Times is so rabidly biased they probably never listened to Mr Enos' talks.
From my experience, the blame for "the intent to divide and spread hate and anger" here in St Cloud cannot be blamed anymore specifically than on them. They seem incapable of seeing two sides in the refugee resettlement issue. You only need eyes and ears to know what is happening and yet they keep denying it. You cannot keep calling a stone an apple and not expect to break some teeth.
Comment 2 by Heather at 03-Aug-15 01:36 PM
We need more people talking about this and the future of what St. Cloud will be in 10years. The economic impact is important!
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Aug-15 02:02 PM
I agree but I especially think that it's important that younger moms speak out about how the resettlement programs might negatively affect their children. Frankly, this program is unsustainable at current rates. Frankly, they aren't sustainable even without a significant reduction in the resettlement program.
Gov. Dayton, Mille Lacs and the DNR
Gov. Dayton took some well-deserved heat Friday when he held a meeting in the Isle High School auditorium. He got criticized because he didn't know what he was talking about and because the MNDNR has lost its credibility. A resort owner said that "the DNR's numbers are skewed from the beginning. From the minute they say that netting over spawn beds is not affecting the walleye population, that's nuts."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out that netting spawning beds will dramatically (and negatively) affect the walleye population of any lake. What does the DNR think happens when you remove walleyes that are trying to breed from the lake? Does the DNR think that they're magically replaced by other breeding walleyes?
Another thing that Gov. Dayton got criticized for was his mentioning restocking the lake. That's beyond foolish. As recently as the early 1990s, Mille Lacs Lake produced more walleye fry than all of the state's fisheries combined. It isn't possible for the DNR to restock Mille Lacs without hurting most of their other restocking projects across the state. Mathematically, it's simply impossible.
Thankfully, legislators are pushing back against a special session:
"I think the suggestion of a special session is a little bit premature," said Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, chair of the House Mining and Outdoor Recreation Committee. The state should look at alternatives, he said, such as promoting other fishing options on the lake and catch-and-release requirements for walleye.
Hackbarth said he isn't convinced the DNR should be shutting down walleye fishing on Mille Lacs at all.
"Maybe we can get past this without closing the season, and that would take care of a lot of the economic problems that they're having in the area," he said. "How critical is it that we close it right now? Maybe we don't need to do that."
Rep. Hackbarth is onto something. In fact, he might've identified a long-term solution to the problem. The guides in the area have talked about the increase in the northern and musky populations. If Explore Minnesota started highlighting the quality musky fishing on the lake, that might reduce musky populations enough to help the walleyes rebound. I wouldn't hesitate in highlighting the smallmouth fishing to be had on the north end of the lake.
Posted Monday, August 3, 2015 11:46 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 03-Aug-15 04:07 PM
Gary:
Isn't part of the problem that an Indian tribe has won federal court orders giving them greater control on how they can fish on the lake.
Walter Hanson
Minnepolis, MN
Times' writer writes slanted story
One thing that's undeniable is that Ben Rodgers, a St. Cloud Times reporter, parroted the DFL's chanting points in his article. In Rodgers' article, he said that a "group of St. Cloud-area residents" met at the Stearns County Courthouse to "protest an anti-immigration speaker who visited St. Cloud earlier this week." Jane Conrad, the event organizer, said that Bob Enos spoke 'out against refugees and Sharia, the Islamic law.' Ben Rodgers accepted that as Gospel fact without checking with Mr. Enos to verify if Ms. Conrad's statement was accurate.
What's startling is that, at no point in the article did Rodgers quote Mr. Enos. I know that I'm a lowly blogger but I'm pretty certain that Reporting 101 requires that, if you're going to quote a person making an accusation against another person, you should quote the accused, too. That way, it's a she said, he said thing, not a she said thing.
Further, the Times reporter didn't report about one of the worst-kept stories in St. Cloud. Mr. Rodgers didn't write about Prof. Mark Jaede's use of St. Cloud State's email system to announce this political event. There was little written about who attended the event in terms of protesting Mr. Enos. Did a substantial number of SCSU professors attend the AFL-CIO protest? What labor unions attended the protest? What did they say? Did they criticize Mr. Enos?
I won't mince words. This was a pathetic attempt at reporting.
Posted Monday, August 3, 2015 2:45 PM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 03-Aug-15 04:14 PM
I was there. The turnout was slight - perhaps about 30-40 people in support of Jane Conrad. Opposition was only about 7-10 people.
Several people spoke in addition to Jane Conrad, whose entirely speech was a loud denunciation of hatred and racism and fear in the community. Zach Dorholt spoke. He did not use the word racism at all, but he did repeat the hate and fear mantras so in vogue with the left today.
Another thing was their use of the First Amendment which they are claiming as their own as opposed to those who question Jane's point of view. Odd that - since they use the bully pulpit and throws epithets at people who do not agree with them - which is a form of bullying. Its purpose is to shut off all debate.
One young blonde fellow was there trying to engage the folks who were observing the event. He had a nice demeanor and I was certain that he meant well, but he threw out the outrageous claim that Christians had killed more people than Muslims had. So, I challenged this, and he tried to keep talking. I finally gently put my fingers on his mouth and told him "to let me speak - and that his statement was a BIG lie. He should learn his history better." I also told him that most people do not hate the immigrants, but do have a fear or perhaps better an apprehension about the sheer numbers coming into the community. He tried to rebut this. I reminded him that since he was a man, perhaps he had no comprehension of how women/females feel about the very real threat of sharia law coming to our country. I told him that as a man, he did not have the same concerns that women had. I think that startled him a bit.
Comment 2 by Paul Brandmire at 03-Aug-15 04:41 PM
Sadly, Gretchen, he probably has no clue as to why you mentioned your fear. I wish someone made aware not only of the sub-human status of women, but especially of Female Genital Mutilation so common in Islamic culture.
Comment 3 by Dave Steckling at 03-Aug-15 08:29 PM
Sadly, women of the Muslim religions are inculcated in early childhood and grow up believing
Allah expects them to be subservient to their male counterparts. The barbaric rituals in the
name of religion are nothing more than male domination. Islamic women are treated like
slaves and concubines. Islamic males have a similar attitude and belief that American women
deserve the same lowly slave type status. A fifteenth century archaic barbaric philosophy like
that has absolutely no place in 21st century America.
Comment 4 by Gretchen Leisen at 04-Aug-15 11:34 AM
Thanks for your responses to my comments. his young man was a speaker at their rally. He mentioned that he was next up on the podium. I did not stay to hear him. I had heard enough of in naive beliefs.
However, when I mentioned to him my fear as a female, another woman standing near me backed me. She said she also had that fear. My fear is not for myself, but for the younger generations.
We also mentioned that although the apparel of Muslim women was part of their culture, it was also a symbol of their submission to all things male under sharia law. Dressing the way they do is part of making them subhuman, in my opinion. Seeing a Muslim woman walking in a park recently with two sons and three daughters, was interesting, which is a word that is sanitized here. The boys were dressed in western style clothing, denim jeans and short-sleeved shirts. It was a nice July afternoon. The three girls were dressed in their long robes, multi-layered and hijabs, including a girl of about 2 years. Many of these children are very pretty/handsome, but the girls are all trussed up, like they are in a prison.
As a woman, it is a symbol of inferiority of the female gender, and I find it offensive. I really would like to have a liberal tell me why I should not find this offensive.
To Margaret Hartmann
I just read Margaret Hartmann's article about how yesterday's Senate vote to defund Planned Parenthood fired up the Democrats' War on Women theme. In the article, she said "Planned Parenthood officials discuss gathering fetal tissue from abortions." That's sloppy, ideology-driven journalism. What happened was someone taped Planned Parenthood officials discussing gathering human body parts from abortions.
Later, Ms. Hartmann said that "Planned Parenthood receives up to $500 million annually in Medicaid reimbursements and $60 million in federal funds for family-planning services, but by law none of that money can fund abortions." Let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose that a college freshman gets caught buying cocaine. His parents bail him out of jail. Upon getting released, the freshman insists that he didn't use any of the money his parents send him each month to buy the cocaine. Instead, he insists that he uses that money to pay his rent and buy groceries. He insists that their money makes it possible for him to use the money he's saved through high school to buy the drugs.
Isn't it accurate that this student's ability to purchase drugs was made possible by his parents sending him the money to pay for his rent?
The bottom line is simple. The Senate shouldn't defund Planned Parenthood. Instead, they should attach a rider to a budget bill that says the money can only go to women's health clinics that don't offer abortions. If Planned Parenthood wants to continue providing abortions, they can tell their corporate sponsors to fund that.
Posted Tuesday, August 4, 2015 9:14 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 04-Aug-15 10:47 PM
Such accounting "principles" could send private sector executives to prison. And some would gladly go, to hide from angry shareholders.
And yet, we are expected not to question Ms. Hartmann's "logic" which she herself would not accept in her personal dealings as you illustrate.
Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly
Last night, Donald Trump was exposed as a wimp with a glass jaw. After the debate, he whined that Megyn Kelly ' behaved very nasty to me .'
That's rich.
The man who insists he'll get China, Mexico, Russia and Iran to buckle can't take tough questions from a moderator. While he didn't crumble, he lost his temper. Then he lied. Ms. Kelly started by saying 'You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.'' Mr. Trump insisted that he'd said that about 'only Rosie O'Donnell' as though that was ok. Ms. Kelly re-asserted herself, saying 'No, it wasn't. Your Twitter account - For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O'Donnell.' Mr. Trump's condescending response was 'Yes, I'm sure it was.'
Ms. Kelly continued on track, saying 'You once told a woman on Celebrity Apprentice that 'it would be a pretty picture of her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of the man we should elect as president and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton that you are part of the war on women'?
Mr. Trump replied that "This country's problem is being politically correct" before saying that "we're $19,000,000,000,000 in debt." Poor little rich boy. A debate moderator criticizes him for playing into Hillary Clinton's 'War on Women' storyline but that's somehow mean-spirited and out-of-bounds? Trump calls women "fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals" but that's ok? Which universe was Mr. Trump born in that that makes sense?
Mr. Trump has tried portraying himself as a Master of the Universe type of omnipotent being. RealClearPolitics' Tom Bevan posted this pitch-perfect tweet , saying 'Trump is going to bust balls of Putin, China & Mexico - right after he recovers from having his feelings hurt by @megynkelly's questions."
It's impossible to not mock Mr. Trump after he told MSNBC "I'm very surprised at Fox News that they would do that because, you know, I would say it's pretty unprofessional." Saying that "it would be a pretty picture" to see a female celebrity "on her knees" is presidential but getting asked tough questions is unprofessional?
Mr. Trump isn't a man of integrity. He's foul-mouthed. He's as egotistical as Obama. Like Bill Clinton, Mr. Trump treats some women properly while treating others like trailer trash. There's nothing presidential about him.
Posted Friday, August 7, 2015 4:44 PM
No comments.
Donald Trump's diatribe
Now that Donald Trump's statements about Megyn Kelly have gone public, it's time for the media to shun Mr. Trump entirely. He shouldn't be invited on another Sunday morning show. He shouldn't be invited on cable news shows, either. This isn't about political correctness. It's about not enabling Mr. Trump to spew the most disgusting accusations imaginable on TV as an invited guest.
Last night, during an interview on CNN, Mr. Trump said that 'You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her - wherever' about Megyn Kelly. What type of man says something like that?
When word got out that Trump had made that disgusting statement about Ms. Kelly, Erick Erickson, the organizer and host of RedState Gathering 15, took to Twitter to tell people that he'd rescinded his invitation to Mr. Trump for the Saturday night finale, later saying that 'I wanted to have him here as a legitimate candidate, but no legitimate candidate suggests somehow a female asking questions is doing it because she's hormonal,' Erickson told reporters late Friday night.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump issued his own statement:
'Re Megyn Kelly quote: 'you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever' (NOSE). Just got on w/thought,' he tweeted.
His campaign also skewered Erickson in a statement.
'This is just another example of weakness through being politically correct. For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader. We'll now be doing another campaign stop at another location,' the statement read.
Mr. Trump's statements aren't credible. They're self-serving, though. What person in their right mind would buy that anyone would have blood coming out of their eyes? It's clear that Mr. Trump doesn't respect women whatsoever. In late July, I wrote an article titled Donald Trump, tyrant . I wrote that article because the Trump campaign had barred Katie Obradovich, the chief political reporter from the Des Moines Register, from a public campaign event, later saying that the DMR was "a left wing rag." (Are you detecting a pattern here?) Ms. Obradovich's offense? Her newspaper's editorial board had written a scathing editorial about Mr. Trump.
It's pretty apparent that Mr. Trump lashes out at whoever criticizes him. That criticism includes ripping people, either by calling them pathetic (in Erickson's case) or insinuating that they're hormonal (in Ms. Kelly's case).
Here's a question that Mr. Trump's supporters should ask themselves: How will Mr. Trump get things done in Washington, DC after he's alienated everyone that's criticized him?
Finally, let's admit that Mr. Trump doesn't hate political correctness. Let's admit that Mr. Trump is just a mean-spirited egotist who can't handle rejection.
Posted Saturday, August 8, 2015 9:09 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Aug-15 09:25 AM
I think it's quite possible he is both. Certainly his rejection of political correctness is part of his "charm" with voters sick to death of such silliness. Unfortunately he lacks the good manners to couch his objections in socially acceptable terms. We've got a massive ego in the WH now; we don't need another.
Comment 2 by eric z at 11-Aug-15 08:28 AM
" ... it's time for the media to shun Mr. Trump entirely."
Aug. 11, Strib online has an AP feed indicating FOX has Trump booked for two shows. Chasing ratings, or fair and balanced?
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 11-Aug-15 02:20 PM
YOU know I've had a couple of thoughts. Trump likes to portray himself as a master marketer. So he should understand how Hillary and the Democrats will attack him and will he be able to respond.
A key demographic for the Democrats is women voters. Doesn't Donald see that he might have ticked off 1% plus of the voters he needs to win. That is not good marketing.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Hillary vs. Judicial Watch: Coronation no more
A strange, albeit predictable, thing happened on the way to Hillary's coronation. What happened that's hurt Hillary most is that she reverted to Clinton form. She's unlikable. She's been secretive. She's acted like the rules don't apply to her. That's before she pissed off the MSM with her petulant behavior.
In short, Clinton's handlers let Hillary be Hillary.
She might've gotten away with it if she hadn't been the most corrupt Secretary of State in US history. Because she didn't want to deal with FOIA requests, she set up a private email account. That's an exceptionally stupid decision considering the fact that Judicial Watch's mission is to hold people accountable. Judicial Watch isn't a little mom and pop organization. They're well-funded and they're tenacious. They're well-equipped to file one lawsuit after another, which is what they've done.
As a result of Hillary's corruption and Judicial Watch's tenacity, Hillary can't afford to treat this like a coronation any more :
Amid concerns about Mrs. Clinton's softening poll numbers and her exclusive use of a personal email server as secretary of state, she will interrupt her Hamptons stay next week to travel to the Midwest and try to shift attention back to her campaign message by unveiling new policy positions.
She will then return to the Hamptons, where she and former President Bill Clinton are renting a beach-side estate in Amagansett that costs $100,000 for a two-week stay, and will attend several $2,700-per-person fund-raisers hosted there by her wealthy friends.
While there's no indication that Hillary won't be the Democrats' nominee, there's more than enough information, mostly in the form of swing-state polls, that suggests she'll get beat in the general election.
The basis for those swing-state polls is that she's a) totally unlikable, b) untrustworthy and c) she doesn't relate to the average person. That's hitting the trifecta...if you want to lose. It's understandable that Hillary's campaign wants to take the attention away from the emails by switching to friendlier turf. Their problem is that she's alienated the media and she's insisted that she be treated like royalty.
That's the perfect path to stopping a coronation.
Posted Sunday, August 23, 2015 9:53 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 23-Aug-15 10:54 AM
She's all those things you wrote about and more but if she's the Democrat nominee, the sheep will vote for her because unlike conservatives,the ends justify the means with progressives. They might not like her but they sure as hell won't let the Republicans take the election because of her lack of likability.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 23-Aug-15 11:31 AM
And us stupid Republicans seem to think that not voting for Hillary and not voting for the Republican is somehow putting a magically victorious third choice on the ballot rather than handing victory to the "sheep."
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Aug-15 04:10 PM
Do you have a link for Judicial Watch and Clinton emails?
If you don't want to post it, would you email it?
I know Larry Klayman had a RICO suit in federal court, and that he was involved years ago in the formation of Judicial Watch; but is Judicial Watch itself involved in any such litigation?
Klayman's suit was dismissed for lack of standing a few weeks or so ago, and I believe a DC circuit panel affirmed. Klayman has said he'll seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court, but that's discretionary with the Court.
From all I have seen the House Committee led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., issued subpoenas and seems to be where the main focus is. Also, there is the FBI request now, over possible security breaches, where I believe Clinton and her counsel have complied.
And, Gary, is there any speculation you'd offer on whether this is an opening for the Biden rumors to take root into reality?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-15 07:06 PM
Eric, Larry Klayman was once a part of Judicial Watch but he isn't anymore. JW's president now is Tom Fitton.
Comment 4 by eric z at 23-Aug-15 04:19 PM
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton-submits-email-information-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/
That is officially captioned, Judicial Watch v. Dept. State, I think; but I believe it is what you reference?
Yes/no, Gary?
My guess is there's more fire to arise from the Gowdy Committee's work than from elsewhere. Timing is the thing, at a guess. An October surprise perhaps.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Aug-15 07:12 PM
Judicial Watch's lawsuits have forced the disclosure of sensitive Hillary emails. Without Judicial Watch's lawsuits, they wouldn't have known that Hillary had a private email server.
While it was in the political field, Hillary & her apologists could spin this as a partisan witch hunt, which it isn't, meant to destroy Hillary's presidential ambitions. Now that it's in the legal field, Hillary's concerns quickly become complicated because judges can force her to turn over documents she didn't want to turn over. Also, Hillary's fate is now in a judge's hands. It's beyond her control. To a paranoid control freak like Hillary, that's the worst position to be.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 24-Aug-15 09:57 AM
Gary:
You forgot D. She doesn't care about protecting the United States.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by eric z at 24-Aug-15 05:46 PM
Hello again Gary. Is this email thing and her likely having it be "Hillary's turn" reason to say the two party system is the problem? There is O'Malley. But it would be a more interesting general election if there were four candidates, Trump, Bernie, Hillary and Jeb [or whoever is last GOP person standing]. It would not be a surprise if that foursome were to run to see Bernie and Trump leading the others; but neither is likely to get their party's nomination. Hillary and Jeb are two tepid choices, where nobody would be shouting and eager to get to the polls. Each party's allies would go for lesser evil, and that's an indictment of politics in America.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Aug-15 08:38 AM
Eric, Hillary's difficulties have nothing to do with anything except that a) Hillary is a terrible candidate, b) people are tired of the nation's leftward drift and c) people are tired of Washington elites not listening to them. Hillary is the embodiment of the worst of DC's culture. She's corrupt & she won't listen to people. She's built the perception that the only people she'll pretend to listen to are hand-picked activists. That's why she isn't likable. Hillary's only chance of winning is if Republicans are foolish enough to nominate Bush or Trump.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 25-Aug-15 09:36 AM
Gary;
I think you explained why Trump is so hot. The people want a wall and tough border security. Who in the field for the Republicans do you associate with an effort to help border security.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 8 by eric z at 26-Aug-15 03:27 AM
Walter - Rick Perry. It had been his key issue. He did that bit about sending out the Texax National Guard.
And Trump just took the Perry Iowa guy onto his campaign. Away from Perry.
Perry and Rand Paul seem both being sidetracked by inner party Republicans. Fox and Trump are each seeking ratings, and feeding one another's needs. Make that wants, if not needs. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Trump is clearing the field of the others, the less well financed, and that helps the Bush family. Which seems to be what the Fox management wants.
Comment 9 by eric z at 26-Aug-15 03:42 AM
Walter - and others - what do you guys make of the Trump lawsuit against the Spanish language network, Univision?
Seeking $500,000,000 on a defamation assertion.
How does that sit with you guys? Overreaching or giving that outlet its due?
I am unsure what to make of it, other than it will keep Trump's attention levels remain high. Will it help his candidacy is, however, the question, and I have no feeling for what the best answer might be.
With your being Republicans, I could learn something from how you feel about that. In favoring Bernie, I am quite distant from the feelings Republican people hold surrounding the GOP candidates.
Gary, you have written that Trump is not a conservative, and I would tend to say you are correct about that. He seems very much an activist advocating a new outlook, and doing that whether he is genuine that way or in it gaming the base and disrespecting their discernment.
Comment 10 by walter hanson at 27-Aug-15 11:20 AM
Eric:
I might not be voting for Trump but two things about the lawsuit:
One, it is for a breech of a contract as much as it's for defamation. A good businessman will defend his contracts.
And two, there are Americans who are hungry for a President who will defend the country. Trump with all of this aggressiveness on Univision and Megyn Kelly gives the impression of someone who will defend the country.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 11 by eric z at 28-Aug-15 08:35 AM
Walter - Thank you. I do appreciate your taking time to think it over and to focus on things you see. It is early in the process. I believe Gary has noted that. I think he would agree that over the next two or three months the candidates having staying power, on both sides, will separate. I expect Gary is correct also in seeing Ms. Clinton as the likely Dem candidate going into the general election. Will the Marc Rich pardon come back as something the Clintons may regret? I don't think either party recently has been keen on putting Wall Street criminals behind bars. But one was there, and then pardoned to move to Europe to keep on going. Have people forgotten how neither party's established leadership was anywhere near to being mad enough over the derivatives fiasco when it finally exploded, to want fiscal criminals behind bars? That bothers me.
Response 11.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Aug-15 12:42 AM
Eric, I don't think Marc Rich will hurt Hillary in the general election much. With that said, I think the things that are coming out about Huma Abedin's work with the Clinton Foundation while being a State Department employee, which I wrote about here, will hurt Hillary tremendously.
Eric, you know that there's a line government employees aren't supposed to cross. That's the line of using government resources for campaign or private activities. In 2006, Mike Hatch was the DFL candidate for governor. He was also Minnesota's Attorney General. In either September or October of 2006, Hatch sent out a fundraising letter using Office of Attorney General stationery. Minnesota's Campaign Finance Disclosure Board fined him for that.
What Hillary did is significantly worse than what Hatch did. Ms. Abedin, aka MRS. Anthony Wiener, used her State Department email to pull together a get together in Dublin, Ireland that included the CEO of Teneo, the company she was working for at the time, a number of contributors to the Clinton Foundation and some bundlers from her 2008 campaign.
Mark Dayton vs. North Dakota, Constitution
Gov. Dayton is certainly liberal but he certainly isn't a constitutional scholar. According to this Strib article , Gov. Dayton got a little testy with North Dakota for winning a lawsuit regarding the Next Generation Energy Act, aka the NGEA. Unfortunately, the lawsuit won't cause the NGEA to be voided. The good news is that the Supreme Court will make short work of this.
The NGEA imposes restrictions on other states by banning Minnesota utilities from "signing deals to import coal-generated electricity." It's entirely unsurprising that "North Dakota sued and won on the grounds that the law constitutes a trade barrier between the two states that is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution."
Specifically, that restriction is forbidden by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 gives the federal government the authority "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The text is clear. States aren't allowed to put restrictions on other states that might hurt that state's economy. Allowing Minnesota to dictate to North Dakota what it must do or can't do is, essentially, taking over another state's sovereign authority.
BONUS QUESTION: How would Gov. Dayton react if North Dakota's governor signed a bill into law that forced Minnesota to build a pipeline across northern Minnesota?
Gov. Dayton didn't just expose his lack of constitutional expertise. He went on another diatribe:
He said North Dakota has "its head in the sand," and that Minnesota would continue to litigate to protect air quality.
What's especially delicious is this statement:
Dave Glatt, head of the environmental health section for the North Dakota Dept. of Health, said his state is one of just a handful meeting all ambient air quality standards established by the EPA. He said roughly 25 percent of North Dakota's total electric generation comes from wind and hydroelectric power, both non-carbon sources. Total carbon emissions are down 11 percent below 2005 levels despite the Bakken oil boom, Glatt said. He acknowledged the carbon intensity of the Bakken oil boom but said Minnesota has benefited from the boom. Oil prices have plunged in part due to a rapid rise in supply in places like North Dakota.
Gov. Dayton, stick that in your stovepipe and smoke it.
Posted Friday, August 28, 2015 5:26 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 29-Aug-15 09:54 AM
I think that at root this is about pursuit of that Great Scam of global warming, which turns out to be Stupidity all the way down.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Aug-15 04:39 PM
Jerry, at the root of this crap is the DFL's desire to control our lives through central planning. Part of the DFL's central planning is eliminating parts of the Constitution they find 'troublesome', including things like state and individual sovereignty and private property rights.
This isn't small ball stuff. They're playing the long game. They're putting things in place that will eventually help them control our lives.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 29-Aug-15 02:41 PM
Gary:
Mark Dayton's reaction will be "Are you crazy?"
North Dakota can say back, "It takes a crazy person to know what is crazy!"
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 30-Aug-15 08:00 AM
Is it any surprise that Gov. Goofy is speaking about things he knows nothing about? The man and his administration are a bunch of ideologues who want things their way no matter what the law or constitution says. No different than the guy in the white house.
You are correct that this isn't "small ball" stuff. Progressives are in it for the end game and will keep chipping away and chipping away until they either wear down the opposition or find a judge who interprets the law they way they like and then another piece of our lives is controlled by the government.
