December 1-2, 2011
Dec 01 04:04 Why did Common Cause MN get involved with TakeAction Minnesota? Dec 01 09:59 Was this week the turning point? Dec 01 10:59 Mitt's attacks are stale, predictable, ineffective Dec 01 13:33 Minnesotans hear good news on budget, whining from Rep. Winkler Dec 01 15:45 Mitt sends in Chris Christie to attack Newt Dec 02 00:25 Hugh's missing something vitally important Dec 02 03:07 Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME are rigging child care unionization vote Dec 02 09:08 That's President Obama's definition of prosperity? Dec 02 14:33 BREAKING NEWS: Romney won't debate Newt one-on-one
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Why did Common Cause MN get involved with TakeAction Minnesota?
Wednesday night, Mike Dean participated in a roundtable discussion of redistricting hosted by Jack Tomczak on Late Debate with Jack and Ben. Part of Dean's schtick was that Common Cause wanted to be the people's voice.
Another part of his schtick was that people who testified in judicial hearings in each congressional district didn't really have a voice in drawing the map, supposedly meaning they didn't get to help draw the final map.
Dean is actually right about that. The people didn't. Thank God for that. While lots of people have opinions on how the legislative and congressional districts should be drawn, few have the expertise to draw the maps. Getting the numbers right in each district is the easy part.
That isn't Dean's biggest problem. Explaining why an allegedly good government, nonpartisan organization like Common Cause MN paired up with a corrupt, hyperpartisan organization like TakeAction Minnesota will be difficult.
TakeAction Minnesota was an important member of the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, the organization that funded and ran the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history. In fact, TakeAction Minnesota had a seat at the table for ABM's board of directors .
ABM's smears were dismantled by FactCheck.org. Here are the summary statements of FactCheck's objections to ABM's ads:
The ad claims that Emmer "opposed a plan that would force corporations and CEOs to pay their fair share of taxes." That's false.
The ad also claims that the "Emmer-Pawlenty plan created a huge deficit." That's false as well.
KSTP gave ABM's ads an F , their worst rating. In addition, ABM and TakeAction Minnesota created, then posted outrageous things on, a website titled Tom Emmer's Minnesota. That website no longer exist, though some of the things that were posted on it still float around the internet. Here's a sampling of ABM's utterly dishonest postings:
Settle in high flying corporate executives, because Tom Emmer's Minnesota is going to be more fun than your last trip in a golden parachute. Here in Tom Emmer's Minnesota, we believe that paying for good schools and hospitals is the job of the unwashed masses. That's why the slightly regressive taxes of the past have been replaced by a massively regressive tax code in Tom Emmer's Minnesota.
In Tom Emmer's Minnesota, we don't even care if you have your interns set up post office boxes all over the world to avoid paying your taxes. Even if those funds would go to fund nursing homes and other medical facilities, in Tom Emmer's Minnesota we want nothing to get in the way of the gobs and gobs of money coming your way, not even fair play.
Rest assured, my very rich friend. This isn't just a one-time deal. You can trust that in Tom Emmer's Minnesota, solid investment in good schools, nursing home facilities, clean lakes, fixing roads or health care for "regular folk" will never get in the way of your extreme wealth and stealthy tax maneuvering.
TakeAction Minnesota was a vital part of that smear campaign. Mike Dean and Common Cause MN didn't speak out about TakeAction Minnesota's corruption. Isn't it interesting that Common Cause MN had the time to whine about a transparent redistricting process but they didn't have the time to criticize a corrupt organization like TakeAction Minnesota?
Posted Thursday, December 1, 2011 4:04 AM
No comments.
Was this week the turning point?
When GOP activists look back on the last partial week of November, will they see this as the week when the dynamics of the GOP presidential race? I'm betting they will.
Perhaps the biggest event of the week was Mitt's disastrous interview with FNC's Bret Baier, seen in this video:
and this video:
In that interview, Mitt was irritated, frustrated and unable to suppress his disgust with Bret Baier's questions. Throughout the debates, pundits have said that Mitt looked presidential on stage right before noting that nobody laid a glove on Mitt.
The lone exception was when Rick Perry accused him of hiring an illegal immigrant to do his lawn. That night, it was apparent that Mitt didn't have thick skin, that his temper was his achilles heal.
When Bret Baier started asking tough, fair questions, Mitt lost his cool.
During that interview, Mitt took this shot at Newt:
Asked by Fox News's Bret Baier in an interview Tuesday whether Gingrich could beat President Obama, Romney said: 'I think to get President Obama out of office, you're going to have to bring something to the race that's different than what he brings.'
'He's a lifelong politician. I think you have to have the credibility of understanding how the economy works. And I do. And that's one reason I'm in this race.'
Told later about Mitt's shot, Newt responded forcefully:
'I would point out as a matter of fact, having participated in the development of supply-side economics with (former Rep. Jack) Kemp, having campaigned with Reagan on it in 1980, having helped pass it in '81 and having gone thorugh the recovery in the '80s and having 11 million jobs created over four years as speaker, I may have some knowledge of the economy.'
Wednesday night, Newt spent the hour being interviewed by Sean Hannity. It isn't accurate to say that Hannity asked as many hard-hitting questions as Baier did, it's accurate to say that he asked Newt some questions that GOP and TEA Party activists insist on getting answered, including the infamous hospital visit story.
While I didn't learn anything new about Newt policywise, I learned that he isn't easily flustered, even when asked his most challenging questions.
Whereas Mitt got flustered when asked tough questions, Newt stayed composed.
There's a reason for that. He's played on the world's stage for so long that it'd be surprising if he got intimidated by historymaking moments. Newt might not have an immediate solution but he'd have a solution in short order.
People are noticing that Newt's giving them solutions in response to their questions. Mitt's presentation is more about how he's experienced about the economy in general, blah, blah, blah.
Mitt's personna is that of being detached. Newt's is that of being engaged. That's why a turning point has been reached this week.
Posted Thursday, December 1, 2011 9:59 AM
No comments.
Mitt's attacks are stale, predictable, ineffective
Politico is reporting that Mitt Romney's campaign is plotting strategy on how they'll attack Newt . I'm not impressed with them. Let's see if you're as unimpressed as I am:
They know the stakes are higher with five weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and a challenger who now poses their most substantial threat. They're preparing a robust, sustained attack that tags the former House speaker as a Washington insider and serial flip-flopper who can't be trusted with the nation's economy.
And they're gearing up to have Romney bring the challenge directly and proactively. There's a double-edged benefit: Blasting Gingrich also lets them shore up their own support.
They'll point out Gingrich's past policy shifts which can protect them from attacks against Romney's own inconsistencies. They'll highlight Gingrich's conservative apostasies as a hedge against Romney's own moderate views. And they'll highlight his stable family while leaving an unspoken impression about Gingrich's two divorces.
This isn't impressive strategy. Whenever Mitt attacks Newt on flip-flopping, people will be reminded that Mitt's history of flip-flopping is lengthy. Mitt's attacks against Newt about who's better equipped to handle the economy is, at best, a wash.
Mitt can talk about his time in the private sector but Newt can talk about his accomplishments as CEO of the House of Representatives. Frankly, I don't think people care whether the best economic solutions come from an inside-the-Beltway guy like Newt or from someone who's pretending to be a Washington outsider.
Does anyone think that hedge fund managers aren't in contact with DC on a regular basis?
Mitt's pure-as-the-driven-snow attacks have been, and will continue to be, easy to swat aside. Looks presidential is a post-debate compliment. It isn't a rallying cry to undecideds, at least when compared to Newt's image of being a problem solver.
Something that will help Newt is the fact that Newt's accomplishments have come on the nation's biggest stage. Mitt's accomplishments, while impressive, have come far from the national spotlight.
Another thing that's working in Newt's favor is that he isn't prone to giving into the Beltway's conventional wisdom. His solutions are the things that middle America can quickly relate to because they're rooted in common sense, not Washingtonspeak.
Mitt's staffers won't admit it but they're rightfully worried about Newt. The other quick risers either didn't have the history of accomplishments or the debating excellence Newt has. When Mitt attacks, Newt's response will be swift and hard-hitting.
This is a difficult strategy to pull off but Mitt doesn't have another choice at this point. The race is shifting quickly away from a battle between Mitt and the not Mitt. It's shifting to a battle between Newt and the not Newt.
With the Iowa caucuses a month away, people are finalizing their choices. Voters had their dalliances with Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Now they're getting serious about Newt.
Mitt's facing an uphill fight against Newt. This should be an interesting fight to watch.
Posted Thursday, December 1, 2011 10:59 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 01-Dec-11 12:36 PM
Andy at Residual Forces has posted a Ron Paul video about Newt. I respect Ron Paul for not letting Reagan's Eleventh Commandment get in the way of saying what's on his mind.
Ditto, for Andy.
Gary, I know you and Andy are not in agreement about Newt, but I view both you and Andy as sincere in what you think and say. I think the disagreement is healthy, with each of you wanting your party to run the strongest ticket possible.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 01-Dec-11 12:40 PM
Out of curiosity - the Gip's Eleventh Commandment -- you are following it regarding Romney?? You seem restrained and this sentence is a legitimate critique I hope you remember down the line:
"Whenever Mitt attacks Newt on flip-flopping, people will be reminded that Mitt's history of flip-flopping is lengthy."
That is where Ron Paul, never in any inconsistency glass house, can throw stones.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 01-Dec-11 12:46 PM
Eric, I'm proud to call Andy my political ally. More importantly, I'm proud to call Andy my friend.
We don't always agree, which we've both viewed as healthy, but we eventually find ways to strengthen the conservative movement.
Minnesotans hear good news on budget, whining from Rep. Winkler
Expecting (fearing?) that they'd be dealing with another major deficit, legislators were greeted with good news this morning:
Minnesota budget officials on Thursday estimated an $876 million surplus for the rest of their two-year budget, easing fears of another bruising political fight just months after partisan deadlock led to a partial shutdown of state government.
The surplus was a surprise. Most Capitol observers had expected bad news in the economic forecast, with red-ink estimates ranging from $500 million to $1 billion.
Surely, the DFL will attempt to spend the surplus. In fact,that's dog-bites-man news. The GOP will, at most, use part of the surplus to pay down the school shifts. Even then, that wouldn't happen until after the February forecast.
Rep. Ryan Winkler released this statement outlining how he'd like the money to get spent:
'The State of Minnesota just found a $20 bill in its pocket. We haven't solved our money problems. So Minnesota politicians should not repeat past mistakes and use a small budget surplus to offer tax cuts or rebates to tax payers. This surplus should be used to move us toward a responsible budget by paying back tobacco bonds and paying down the school shift.
'We have tremendous obstacles to future prosperity that we must address: a shrinking middle class, reduced research and development, an aging population, and an education system that isn't preparing enough students for the world economy. We can't tackle any of these problems without sound state finances.
'The forecast could also change between now and February, and Minnesota faces a huge deficit in the next budget cycle. We must take this opportunity to begin paying off the irresponsible debt racked up as a result of dysfunctional politics and an extremist Republican majority.'
By issuing a statement that essentially says that spening fists full of money is his first priority, Rep. Winkler sounds like other cookie cutter progressives.
His statement is filled with complaints about all that's wrong with the shrinking middle class, education, people getting older, etc. What's missing from Rep. Winkler's statement is a lengthy, detailed list of solutions.
Pat Garofalo's tweet is totally spot on about Winkler:
RepRyanWinkler Like a 2 year old in a temper tantrum-the Democrats mess their diaper and then complain about how mommy cleans them up.
Apparently, Rep. Winkler hasn't figured it out that Minnesotans are demanding their elected officials to solve problems, not just whine about them. It'll become apparent next fall is that Republicans are the political party proposing solutions and the DFL is the political party whining about them.
Posted Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:33 PM
No comments.
Mitt sends in Chris Christie to attack Newt
After Mitt's attacks on Newt Gingrich failed, Mitt turned to Chris Christie to spread Mitt's manure in an attempt to thwart Newt's momentum :
"Speaker Gingrich has never run anything," Christie said when asked to compare the two candidates, according to FLDemocracy2012.com, a Scripps Media project. "He's been a legislator. I have to tell you - I don't think being a legislator is the best calling card."
"Look at the guy we have in the White House now: He never ran anything and was a legislator," he continued, linking Gingrich to President Obama.
Christie also dismissed Gingrich as just the latest "flavor of the two weeks," saying his poll numbers are just "as solid as the Cain numbers were, as solid as the Perry numbers were, as solid as the Bachmann numbers were."
With all due respect to Gov. Christie, that's BS and he knows it. You can't say that Newt's companies collected tens of millions of dollars for his consulting companies in one breath, then say that he hasn't run anything. That's total nonsense and Gov. Christie knows it.
Second, it's worth noting that Newt wasn't just a legislator. He was the Speaker of the House. In reality, Newt was the CEO of the House of Representatives. That's certainly running something.
Third, it's apparent that Team Mitt is getting desperate if they're attempting to equate Newt with President Obama. People know that Newt's conservative accomplishments far outdistance Mitt's conservative accomplishments.
When was the last time that Mitt balanced the federal budget? When was the last time that Mitt put in place policies that created 11,000,000 jobs in 4 years? That's right. He hasn't.
The best accomplishments that Mitt can point to are accomplishments that only a liberal could love.
For instance, he hired John Holdren to advise him on CO2 emissions. Mitt followed Holdren's advice and signed an executive order limiting CO2 emissions, then signed another executive order establishing price controls so utilities couldn't pass the additional cost onto their customers.
After that, he signed Romneycare into law. Since that happened, insurance premiums are rising and ER visits are up significantly. (BTW, is that what Mitt thinks is working in Massachusetts?)
When asked if he'd consider the VP slot if offered, Gov. Christie defered, saying that he doubted that he'd be asked. That type of talk is expected but it's foolishness to think that Mitt is the presumptive frontrunner. Here's why it's foolishness:
Romney was himself in Florida this week. A new poll from Insider Advantage put Gingrich far out front of the field in the Jan. 31 primary state, leading Romney 41%-17%.
The best case scenario for Mitt right now is to win New Hampshire. Newt's leading nationally, in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. If Mitt loses 3 of the first 4 states, especially South Carolina and Florida, he's history and he knows it.
That's why he's sending out Gov. Christie to attack Newt. Mitt knows that he's in a difficult position.
Posted Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:45 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Dec-11 08:50 AM
You box: "Romney was himself in Florida this week. A new poll from Insider Advantage put Gingrich far out front of the field in the Jan. 31 primary state, leading Romney 41%-17%."
Source, for context and authentication?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Dec-11 08:55 AM
That's information from the article cited earlier in the post.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 02-Dec-11 09:04 AM
If a choice between Gingrich and Romney is the best we have, we might as well start packing now.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 02-Dec-11 09:15 AM
That's right, Bob. Why would we want to vote for someone who helped balance the budget 4 straight years, who helped put in place policies that created 11,000,000 jobs in 4 years & who helped "end welfare as we know it"?
In 1980, Reagan was viewed with skepticism. East Coast Republicans said he was too much a cowboy. Needless to say, the skeptics were wrong.
How many of today's skeptics will admit that they're wrong when Newt's policies to increase American energy production & rebuild America's economy start working?
Mr. Perfect isn't a candidate this year. Let's not confuse that with the substantial strengths of Newt Gingrich.
Hugh's missing something vitally important
Hugh's post about the GOP horserace is missing something vitally important. Here's what I'm talking about:
The Chicago gang will relentlessly probe and exploit Newt's long record of statements and actions, package them and present them as a fusillade of attacks from every direction. If Newt is the nominee, expect an ad concerning the $1.6 million or $1.8 million he received from Freddie Mac to air four times hourly on every station, to see grainy black-and-white photos of him opposite foreclosure signs, and the deepest voice you know predicting Madoff in the White House.
What Hugh isn't factoring in is the fact that "the Chicago gang" will hit whoever the GOP nominee is with what I've called 'The Barrage." Team O isn't attempting to raise $1,000,000,000 to run endless 'Hope and Change' ads while ignoring Mitt. They've prepared a dossier on all of the top tier candidates. They undoubtedly had prepared a custom-made barrage for the candidates initially.
The key question isn't whether the eventual GOP nominee will get hit. That fate was determined with the Democrats' 2010 midterm defeat. The important question to ask is who's got skin that's thick enough to withstand the negative campaign that's planned and the strategic and tactical brilliance to effectively counterpunch against the Obama machine.
Mitt's shown that his skin is too thin to handle a Bret Baier interview. What makes anyone think that he'll handle the onslaught that Mr. Axelrod of Chicago has planned for him?
Newt is Obama's strategic superior. Policywise, it isn't a contest. Couple that with the nation's disgust for this administration's economic policies and their crony capitalism and you have the makings for a great campaign this fall.
Posted Friday, December 2, 2011 12:25 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Dec-11 08:32 AM
No need to wait. Ron Paul has already released a highly negative (and IMO deceptive) ad against Mr. Gingrich. You are also overlooking the obvious Obama strategy to be used against every or any Republican. They will hit them as far too conservative before liberal audiences, and as far too liberal before conservative audiences. And if we're not bright enough, we're going to get taken in by one or the other.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Dec-11 08:52 AM
I didn't overlook those things, Jerry. They just weren't my focus for this post.
Still, they're very good points.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 02-Dec-11 09:03 AM
Isn't there a quid pro quo to this negative campaigning thing? Saying the bad ol' Dems will this and that ignores something. The GOP does its share, and turning a blind eye to that - except when they do it to one another - is not wise. Newt has character issues. They go all the way back to GOPAC and the memo about negative attack literature and statements. He invented a lot of that mud slinging stuff, or if not invented, advocated it big time to the point where there's a Doonesbury classic strip still on the web. Newt's dirty politics masterpeice is referred to on the web as the "GOPAC memo", and officially titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control." The Newtster has a big, big rock to push uphill on the character side of things, one which Romney is not subject to, so if you do not factor that into things you might reach false conclusions. I did a very simple Google = Doonesbury newt gingrich memo gopac. That online cartoon from the mid-1990's was the top returned item on the Google list. Have a look. The man's hardly squeaky clean.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 02-Dec-11 09:19 AM
Newt isn't a mudslinger. PERIOD. He's combative but it's always policy-based. That's been his habit since I've started watching him.
If Democrats can't think of coherent, fresh ideas, that's your problem. If Newt highlights the foolishness of cookie cutter Democrat initiatives, that's proof that Newt's winning a debate. That isn't proof that he's slinging mud.
HINT: He doesn't need to sling mud. All he has to do is debate Democrats on the merits.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 02-Dec-11 12:02 PM
The gist of the Hewitt thing seems to be in his wrap-up: "A extended, vitriolic Newt v. Mitt debate between the two camps will be great for talk radio and cable television, but exhausting, expensive and exhilarating for the Chicago gang.
"Which has to be on the mind of ever [sic] senior GOP leader surveying the field right now. On yesterday's show three GOP governors --John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Scott of Florida and Richard Bentley of Alabama-- declined to endorse though it became obvious that Scott will do so before Florida votes at the end of January. Will Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint and all the other thus-far-uncommitted leaders of the conservative movement stand by without declaring for either Mitt or Newt ...?"
It is saying campaign, but avoid a circular firing squad.
It is presuming, wrongly however, it is Mitt or Newt. As an either-or thing.
It ignores Ron Paul, as a credible elephant in the tent show.
Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME are rigging child care unionization vote
Gov. Dayton's letter to Speaker Zellers and Majority Leader Dean is the type of diatribe I'd expect from a petulant teenager, not from the governor of a state. What type of childish statement is this?
'It appears that you and other opponents of unions are trying to scare family providers that a big, bad union and the big, bad government will join forces to ruin child care in Minnesota,' Dayton says. 'It isn't true.'
Gov. Dayton, if unionization is so wonderful, why doesn't AFSCME and the SEIU want to bring unionization to all 11,000 in-home child care providers?
That's the reaction I got from Dan Ochsner, the host of Hot Talk with the Ox, when I talked with him Wednesday morning. Hot Talk's slogan is "an unapologetic discussion of simple truths and logical conclusions."
I'm betting that the reason why they aren't attempting to unionize all 11,000 in-home child care providers is because they'd be laughed out of court if they tried that. Calling child care providers government employees is tenuous at best when the parents of the children they care for receive government assistance. Calling in-home child care providers government employees when the parents of children they care for don't receive government assistance would get laughed out of court.
Still, AFSCME wants to continue picking the fight:
The governor says opponents are:
- wrong in claiming that unionized child-care providers will increase costs for families
- Wrong in claiming that policy changes negotiated by unionized providers would harm other providers
- Wrong in claiming that having unionized providers would 'decrease access to high quality daycare programs.'
'That is your opinion and conjecture,' Dayton writes, 'yet you state it as a matter of fact and certainty.'
We found out during the campaign that Gov. Dayton's isn't a skilled mathematician :
Democrat Mark Dayton's second stab at a plan to resolve Minnesota's projected budget deficit leaves him about $1 billion shy of a complete fix. The former U.S. senator provided new details Tuesday that calls for $3.6 billion in new state revenue, mostly in the former of increased taxes on high-end earners. His plan relies on profits from a yet-to-be-authorized state-owned casino at the Mall of America or Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.
I'll chalk his statement about unionization up to his crappy math skills. Right now, many of the child care small businesses are MLFCCA members. Their dues are approximately $65 a year. When child care providers in Ohio unionized, AFSCME charged them $25 a month for union dues. Assuming that AFSCME would charge the same rate in Minnesota, the Fair Share fee would be $240 a year. Does Gov. Dayton seriously think that these child care providers will just eat the cost of those dues? Leo Pusateri found out AFSCME's and SEIU's true intentions :
Notice how the SEIU thug at first tries to poo-poo the fact that non-union daycare providers will still have to shell out fair share costs to the union ("Fair Share" in the State of Minnesota is 80 percent of union dues-still a hefty price in anyone's book); but after being pressed on the issue, explains away the higher cost of daycare via unionization by saying that "the increased subsidies" as a result of unionization will "more than offset the (increased) cost. In other words, the SEIU leadership acknowledges that they will attempt to shift the cost of union membership of daycare providers to taxpayers (yes, that means you and I).
That isn't myth. There's no spinning the story. There's no denying words spoken once they're captured on video forever. That's what SEIU told Leo when he pressed them on Fair Share laws. In short, that's proof that the cost of child care would increase if the DFL's forced unionization scheme went into effect. Since the SEIU thug admitted that child care costs would rise, that makes it a statement of fact. That means it isn't a matter of conjecture anymore. Here's why Gov. Dayton isn't letting all 11,000 in-home child care providers vote on unionization:
About 2,300 of the providers are organizing with Council 5's Child Care Providers Together. That includes providers in Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis Counties, and most other counties in the northern two-thirds of the state. SEIU is organizing providers in other parts of the state.
It's estimated that 4,287 in-home child care providers care for children whose parents receive government assistance. That means they'd need 2,144 votes to force unionization down people's throats. AFSCME's website essentially says that they've got 2,300 votes in their back pockets before the ballots are sent out.
Doesn't that sound suspiciously like rigging an election ?
Posted Friday, December 2, 2011 3:07 AM
Comment 1 by Stephen Mendelsohn at 03-Dec-11 05:56 PM
What SEIU will do when the ballots go out, and what they did in Fresno, CA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg06CC1vkX8
That's President Obama's definition of prosperity?
I can't imagine this administration not touting this morning's jobs report as proof that their plan is working. That's total BS. Here's this morning's report :
The jobless rate declined to 8.6 percent, the lowest since March 2009, from 9 percent, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Payrolls climbed 120,000, with more than half the hiring coming from retailers and temporary help agencies , after a revised 100,000 rise in October.
Here's the most important thing to take away from the report:
The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force .
That's right. More people left the labor force than were hired last month. It wasn't that close to the break even point, either. For every worker that was hired, 2.5 people left the labor force.
We can't stand much more of President Obama's definition of 'prosperity'.
This is a 'sugar high' job creation figure. Here's why:
Payrolls climbed 120,000, with more than half the hiring coming from retailers and temporary help agencies.
More than half of the jobs 'created' are temp jobs. In other words, the amount of real jobs created was approximately 50,000.
That's even more discouraging. That means 6 workers left the workplace for each full-time, long-term job that got created. When 2012 starts, 60,000-70,000 people will shift from employed to unemployed again.
How is that proof that President Obama's policies are working?
People dealing with reality know that President Obama's policies have earned him the title of being the worst jobs president ever. Things suck. Just ask the 315,000 people who left the workforce this month.
Posted Friday, December 2, 2011 9:08 AM
No comments.
BREAKING NEWS: Romney won't debate Newt one-on-one
Human Events magazine and RedState.com, both part of Eagle Publishing, tried to make history by inviting Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to one Lincoln-Douglas-style debate. The stunning news is that Mitt declined . That's astonishing news.
With the Republican presidential primary appearing to have narrowed into a two-man contest, Human Events and Red State moved quickly to lock down a date for a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
The two organizations went so far this past Monday as to firm up the Annenberg Theater at the Newseum in Washington as the venue on Dec. 19 after another debate originally scheduled that day was canceled. For its part, the Newseum was excited to host the pre-primary forum.
There was just one problem. While Gingrich was ready to take his place on the stage, the Romney campaign politely declined in a series of mostly e-mail exchanges.
As Joe Guerriero, publisher of Human Events and Red State, put it to RCP: 'Newt was all over it, and the Romney camp basically said no. It wasn't a harsh no, but it was a no.'
A Gingrich spokesman confirmed to RCP that the candidate was interested and accepted the invitation, but a Romney spokeswoman didn't return a request for comment.
It's difficult to respect the former frontrunner if he won't accept the invitation to debate the new frontrunner. People will read that as Mitt's lacking of confidence. I don't think that's it. I think it has more to do with Mitt's wanting as many people on stage for as long as possible.
It's also because Mitt loves giving easy, breezy answers without serious followups. A Lincoln-Douglas-style debate isn't locked into brief answers that sound good. The candidates have the opportunity to give expansive, informative answers.
When GOP acitivists learn that Mitt won't accept this invitation, there will only be one message: that Mitt is afraid of debating Newt. They'll know that Mitt isn't a confident frontrunner. If Mitt won't debate Newt, what does that say about his confidence to debate President Obama?
'No disrespect to any of the other candidates,' Guerriero said, but given the state of the country, the economy, and the race to date, if Romney is to be the nominee, "he needs to go against the best debater with the deepest understanding of policy both domestic and foreign, and that appears to be Newt Gingrich.'
It's no secret that Gingrich likes debates and has performed well in them, but Romney has had his share of solid performances too, and Guerriero and his colleagues believe Romney would stand to benefit from a two-person format featuring his toughest opponent to prepare him for debates against President Obama if he does win the GOP nomination.
Mitt's decision won't sink his campaign. Whatever you say about Mitt's policy shortcomings, it can't be said that his supporters aren't extremely loyal. Still, not accepting this invitation will diminish him in the eyes of the GOP faithful.
This statement might be the most damaging to Mitt in the entire article:
He continued, 'It looks like Newt's made a real run at this, and the Romney camp is trying to run out the clock, and we don't think that's necessarily a wise strategy.' Instead, he said, the base should be able to see the top candidates answer the tough questions that these conservative publications don't believe are being asked.
Ouch.
Posted Friday, December 2, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Dec-11 07:46 PM
I think a good 9th grade debater could best Mr. Obama in a substantive debate that got him off his canned answers and away from the teleprompter, so Mitt doesn't have to beat "the best" to be able to beat Obama. Likewise, Newt's deep policy knowledge doesn't necessarily give him an edge over Obama in the kind of sound-bite debates the MSM likes to host and throw.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Dec-11 11:01 PM
Newt's more than capable of short, snappy soundbite answers, too. He'd eat Obama's lunch.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 03-Dec-11 10:32 AM
It is very early. As the field narrows, you likely will get what you say is not now happening.
Be patient. See what Cain's announcement will be.
