December 12-16, 2011
Dec 12 02:45 DFL's stupidity on display Dec 12 15:59 The secret to Newt's success Dec 13 01:44 Savage's, Glenn Beck's 'I want attention' afternoon Dec 13 02:42 Greiling's Diatribe Dec 14 01:25 Chip Cravaack, engineers union join in supporting Keystone XL Pipeline Dec 15 12:38 Mitt's admission Dec 15 17:30 Is Tarryl moving again? Dec 16 00:51 Chip Cravaack attacks WH on the economy, environment Dec 16 02:56 Gingrich schools Bachmann on life issues during Iowa debate
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DFL's stupidity on display
Saturday night, the DFL announced to the world what they think is the world's greatest threat. Actually, it wasn't the DFL state party. It was the SD38 DFL that made this analysis. It's stunning that they cited this article . Here's what the DFL thinks is the single biggest threat to the world:
The single greatest threat to the United States is not joblessness, foreclosures, another recession or skyrocketing debt or health care costs. Nor is it terrorism, China or declining influence abroad. No, the single greatest threat to our country is today's Republican Party.
That's because the GOP is relentlessly pursuing a policy of the American public be damned, so that next year Republicans can regain the national political dominance they held from 2001 to 2006. Their sole, selfish aim is to complete the transformation of the U.S. to a government of, by and for the rich and the far-right.
This isn't aberrant behavior on the DFL's part. It's part of their national DNA. This is an exchange between the late Tim Russert and Howard Dean :
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about some of the things you have said about the Republicans. Here's Howard Dean in January: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."
Howard Dean in February: "This is a struggle between good and evil and we're the good?"
Do you really hate Republicans? Do you consider them evil?
It's apparent that a significant portion of the DFL is hateful.
Thanks to the SD-38 DFL's tweet, we know that terrorism isn't the biggest threat to America. It isn't the national debt that President Obama imperiled us with. It isn't a record-breaking stretch of unemployment. It isn't even China owning tons of our debt.
The DFL thinks that the biggest threat to the U.S. is the GOP:
Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by using any means available...Control as much as possible what the population gets to see and hear; create chaos for your opponent's government, economically and politically; blame it for the mess; and establish in the minds of the voters that their only way out is to submit, that the pain will stop once your side is back in power...
Republicans and the Right...are well positioned to roll the U.S. economy off the cliff and blame the catastrophe on Obama. Indeed, that may be their best hope for winning Election 2012.
In addition to being hateful, the DFL doesn't hesitate in lying. They know that President Obama's stimulus plan failed miserably. They know this administration's attempt to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline project hurts the construction industry and keeps the unemployment rate needlessly high.
House Republicans have passed 22 bills that would help create hundreds of thousands of jobs. They're piling up on the Senate's doorstep. That'd be the Democrat-controlled Senate.
They're piling these bills up so they can lie to the American people by saying that Republicans want to demolish the American economy. That's BS. I wrote in this post that the annual unemployment rate for 2006 was a paltry 4.6%. That's the final year that Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House. That year's annual deficit was $160,000,000,000, approximately 8 times less than the this administration's average annual deficit.
The next time that the SD-38 DFL tweets that Republicans are the greatest danger to the world, they'd better get their facts straight. If they're spreading this type of rubbish and I see it, I'll rip them like I'm ripping them tonight.
The DFL is proficient in reciting their talking points that Republicans are evil. What they're worthless at is defending them against a skilled debater who's got the facts on his side.
Posted Monday, December 12, 2011 2:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 12-Dec-11 07:47 AM
Classic case of projection.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 12-Dec-11 10:37 AM
Whistling past the graveyard. It's what Democrats do.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 12-Dec-11 12:04 PM
The biggest threat long term, since the end of World War II, is population growth exceeding the capacity of the planet to sustain things. If there is not a birth solution to the population bomb, there will be a death solution, famine worse in the third world, suffering spawning greater terrorism, our next generations not having the chance to have things as good as we've had, exhaustible resources being exhausted - including petroleum and clean fresh water, surface and ground water where aquifer depletion is real and an ever increasing danger. Any other story is off base.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 12-Dec-11 12:08 PM
Eric, baby boomers will start dying off in significant numbers within 10 years. The generation after that is smaller.
Comment 5 by eric z at 14-Dec-11 07:12 PM
Gary, the world does not end at the borders or the oceans.
The secret to Newt's success
I've said for awhile that the big thing propelling Newt's rise is his obeying Reagan's 11th Commandment. I've had plenty of company. This article by Jed Babbin is the best written piece on the subject. Mr. Babbin's article also did a nice job explaining Mitt's fall.
Gingrich's staying power has the Washington cognoscenti frustrated. When the Romney campaign launched its attacks on Gingrich, there was a flood of seemingly coordinated press promoting the attacks. In response, Gingrich had two New York press avails, looking friendly and presidential. And, in a now much-reported conference call with his staff, the former Speaker ordered them to avoid going negative.
Newt's support keeps growing because he hasn't attacked the other GOP presidential candidates. He's hit back hard but he hasn't attacked. Let's remember that an attack is an offensive action. Defending yourself is the expected response against an offensive action.
Another thing that's helped Newt is that Gov. Romney's, Dr. Paul's and Rep. Bachmann's attacks are either wimpy, old news that activists have already factored in or that seem more vitriol than substantive.
The political consultants working against Gingrich seem unable to absorb facts or adapt their ideas to them. One of the biggest criticisms of Gingrich is his inability to organize staff and run a campaign. Karl Rove wrote what was supposed to be a devastating criticism of Gingrich's leadership deficiencies in the Wall Street Journal last week. Rove said, among other things, that Gingrich had failed to qualify for the ballot in both Missouri and Ohio and that the former House speaker had little or no organization in Iowa.
Rove's article would have been devastating but for one fact: it wasn't true. Gingrich has, for example, qualified in both Missouri and Ohio. His Iowa staff is strong and getting stronger by the hour.
It's as if people haven't figured out that people are thirsting for a statesman with some gravitas and a sense of humor. Herman Cain didn't have any gravitas. Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann aren't statesmen and their sense of humor hasn't shown through in the debates.
I just spoke with Matt McClellan, the Communications Director for the Elections Division in the Ohio Secretary of State's office to confirm that Newt had qualified that he'd be on the Ohio primary ballot.
Matt said that there's a new law taking effect on January 20 on the Ohio presidential and congressional primaries. Matt confirmed that Newt had met the original Dec. 7 deadline. He then said that when the law takes effect, all of the candidates will have to refile for the March Ohio primary.
In other words, Newt's supposed missin the Ohio Primary filing deadline is a myth.
This is another hissy fit that the media has fueled:
When Gingrich said that school kids, especially those in poor families, could work in schools to learn the habits of reliability and earning, the media jumped on him. But people understood that Gingrich was right. Young Americans don't have the work ethic of their parents or grandparents.
This shocked the undies-in-a-bunch media but it's something that the heartland understood immediately. Which brings me an important point that can't be overemphasized.
Where people get their news from matters because it determines what their policies will be. If people get their information from the NYTimes, CBS News and the Washington Post, they're likely to be moderate to liberal. People that get their information from their own research, talking with experts and a portion of their information are likely well-informed, center-right to conservative.
Mitt likely gets most of his information from the Washington Post, CBS News and the NYTimes. Newt's always talking with people in various industries, reading studies and reports. That's why he's always the most-informed candidate on stage.
That tells you why Mitt's the inside-the-Beltway candidate and Newt's the Heartland candidate.
Posted Monday, December 12, 2011 3:59 PM
No comments.
Savage's, Glenn Beck's 'I want attention' afternoon
Michael Savage and Glenn Beck have long been known for their thirst for publicity. For awhile, the running joke was that the most dangerous place in DC was between a TV camera and Sen. Schumer. That applies to Mssrs. Beck and Savage.
This morning, Glenn Beck said that he could support Ron Paul as a third party candidate if Newt's the nominee :
This afternoon, Michael Savage announced that he'd offered Newt $1,000,000 to get out of the race :
Glenn Beck said this morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he'd consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, and he hates Ron Paul's policies on the Middle East.
The Republican presidential field has come down to two candidates who have a real chance of getting the nomination: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. While it's true that Romney is not as strong a conservative as many would like him to be, the most pressing issue before America today is defeating Barack Obama. And that is something Newt Gingrich cannot do.
What a pair of dimwits. Beck allegedly loves Israel. Still, he's throwing Israel under the bus by supporting a presidential candidate that, at best, is indifferent to Israel.
As an evangelical Christian, I've seen historical proof that God takes seriously the covenant He made with Abraham. That's where He said "Surely, I will bless those that bless you and I will surely curse those that curse you."
The Democrats' best years came when they forged a strong bond between the U.S. and Israel. It isn't coincidence that they started going dowhill shortly after they started taking a more pro-Arab policy stance.
My bigger point is that Beck is willing to ignore God's command because Newt Gingrich isn't conservative enough for him. That's total stupidity.
Savage's logic is even more tortured. It's his opinion that Newt can't win even though he's attracing a wide variety of voters into his coalition. This shows that Mr. Savage isn't the brightest bulb in Talk Radio's chandelier.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz put together the Congract With America. All 10 items polled at 70% or better. If you read Newt's 21st Century Contract With America , it's apparent that these proposals all get 70% support.
I'd love to hear Mr. Savage explain how Newt isn't electable when he's running on a set of important issues that each gets 70% support. If Savage thinks that Newt's pulling uphill with a dozen issues that each gets 70% support, then he's an idiot.
All candidates would love to have those type of difficulties.
Posted Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Dec-11 07:15 PM
A history of ethics violations, censure, and then Colbert comparing Gingrich to James Bond, "And just like Bond, Gingrich is calm under pressure, a little cocky, and is frequently seen with different leading ladies."
Greiling's Diatribe
Before going to bed each night, I check the SCTimes editorial page. Tonight's trip brought me to this offensive LTE from Rep. Mindy Greiling.
What Rep. Greiling doesn't want people to know is that Gov. Dayton's compromise called for a 50-50 split instead of the GOP's 60-40 split. Another thing that Rep. Greiling doesn't want people to find out about is how school districts waste money.
Unfortunately, Matt Dean's already found some questionable decisionmaking :
House Majority Leader Matt Dean (R-Dellwood) is doing his own inquiry into how the Minneapolis Public Schools spends it money after reading this Star Tribune report. The story revealed Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson's decision to award $270,000 in retroactive raises to central office administrators at the same time the district cut more than 100 jobs including 52 teaching positions.
Firing 52 teachers is bad enough. Giving administrators a $270,000 retroactive pay raise after firing 52 teachers is unforgivable. The taxpayers' money is getting wasted.
But Rep. Greiling is more interested in adding money to the formula than she's interested in investigating this incident. The Minneapolis Public Schools aren't the only school administration that's squandering the taxpayers' money. More to come on that in the days to come.
Posted Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:42 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Dec-11 10:22 AM
I'll say it again. I can PROVE that the higher the money spent, the LOWER the academic achievement in general. But it is also true that academic results vary by about 2:1 for any given level of school funding. If you want to improve academic achievement, you have to measure academic achievement and pay schools that achieve it. Number 1 problem in MN schools is that they get paid MORE if they achieve less.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 13-Dec-11 01:41 PM
Before asking King & GOP to make education a top priority, she might first ask her own party to do the same. Maybe they should spend the last dollar on K-12 before spending the first dollar on Light Rail, for example.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-11 04:51 PM
I like your thinking Rex.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 14-Dec-11 01:19 PM
Just curious. $270,000 will pay for four or five teachers. Maybe those 52 laid off teachers might see the light about what party really cares about the kids. Minneapolis votes for an all democrat school board and they control everything the school district does.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Chip Cravaack, engineers union join in supporting Keystone XL Pipeline
Chip Cravaack joined with the Operating Engineers Local 49 in issuing this statement calling on Harry Reid to stop the Senate's filibuster and pass the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011:
'This bill is good for workers, Minnesota, and America. This is yet another common sense, bipartisan House initiative that puts more money in working Americans' pockets and gets government off their backs. I call on Senator Harry Reid, whose one man filibuster has single-handedly blocked 27 House jobs bills from being considered in the Senate, to act on this measure immediately in the best interest of the American People,' said Rep. Cravaack.
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 extends the payroll tax holiday without raiding the Social Security trust fund by freezing pay for government workers, including members of Congress, reforming programs that are riddled with waste, and reducing subsidies for the wealthy. 90 percent of these savings have also been proposed by President Obama.
The bill also approves the Keystone XL Pipeline and halts the EPA's job-killing boiler MACT regulation, which hurts Minnesota schools and the economy by imposing excessive control and monitoring standards for 11 subcategories of boilers and process heaters.
"The Keystone XL Pipeline project is poised to create 20,000 jobs and would provide a critical boost to the construction industry in Minnesota and the Midwest," said Glen Johnson, Business Manager of Operating Engineers Local 49. "We applaud Rep. Cravaack's effort to move the project forward and create work opportunities for heavy equipment operators and other skilled tradespeople.'
Operating Engineers Local 49 represents 12,000 men and women in Minnesota, North and South Dakota with contracts for highway/heavy and building contractors, well drillers, equipment repair shops, welding shops, sand and gravel suppliers, counties, municipalities, hospitals, school districts, cemeteries, and more.
Recognizing that unemployment services should focus on helping Americans get back to work, the bill uses a two-step process to gradually reduce current maximum weeks of benefits and requires that recipients are actively seeking employment or utilizing job training or education program.
Rep. Cravaack serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he is Vice Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, the Homeland Security Committee, and the Science, Space and Technology Committee. The 8th Congressional District covers 18 counties in Northeast Minnesota.
This shouldn't be a difficult vote if your first interest is doing what's right for America. Tens of thousands of jobs would get created this spring. If President Obama's goal is to create jobs, then it's simple for him to lobby the Senate and tell them to pass this bill.
This summer, President Obama took a bus tour through Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois talking about how passing his jobs bill couldn't wait. This bill creates jobs and extends the tax holiday and unemployment insurance that he wants.
Not only has he not supported it, he's said he'd veto it. That's proof that President Obama won't hesitate in not doing what's right for the nation because he won't sign bills that create jobs.
Chip Cravaack hasn't hesitated in forging alliances that move our nation's and Minnesota's economies forward. Unfortunately, that isn't what President Obama is doing.
Posted Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:25 AM
Comment 1 by Tom Dwyer at 14-Dec-11 09:00 AM
This is a phony GOP bill going nowhere. I grew up in an era where there was a compromise on Capitol Hill. The Operating Engineers have a vested interest in this legislation which I understand. Is it all right for federal employees to have their wages frozen at the expense of others who have their own self interest being fulfilled? I don't think so!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Dec-11 12:26 PM
Tom, Thanks for revealing your liberal thinking. Let me address your concerns.
This is a phony GOP bill going nowhere.So creating important jobs with 14% unemployment in the construction industry is a phony bill?
The Operating Engineers have a vested interest in this legislation which I understand.They're dealing with high unemployment. Couple that with American's need for oil from friendly nations & this is a no-brainer.
Is it all right for federal employees to have their wages frozen at the expense of others who have their own self interest being fulfilled?It's perfectly fine. Since when did it one person's wages in one industry get tied to another person's wages in another line of work? I can't even call because gov't workers aren't adding anything to the GDP.
Comment 2 by John von Lange at 14-Dec-11 07:27 PM
"Chip Cravaack joined with the Operating Engineers Local 49 in issuing this statement calling on Harry Reid to stop..." It is about time a common sense Representative and the best Union in the area started to work together, the operative word being together! This effort is truly what the Representative and Union must dedicate themselves to do. A solid, fair representation of the interests of all concerned. Those being the Citizens of this and the other States receiving the immediate beneficial impact of the pipeline. Good job Chip and 49'ers. Keep moving forward and we will all be winners!
Comment 3 by Tom Dwyer at 15-Dec-11 09:29 AM
Gary: I worked over 20 years on Capitol Hill. This legislation is going no where. The Senate will not accept it in present form. The White House will not accept it with the "Pipeline" language in it. It is an effort in futility and the GOP leadership knows it. If you want to pass the "pipeline" bill they should pass it as a stand alone bill on its own merits. Divided government is what we are dealing with which leads to gridliock....very simple.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 15-Dec-11 10:53 AM
Facts are facts. Keystone is the largest shovel-ready project in America at the moment and the only things now standing in its way are the Democrat Party and its far-left base. Republicans, for a change, have chosen the right path here.
Economies are driven by cheap energy. Democrats say they want compromise: well, here it is. Make a compromise that HELPS America for a change. Harry Reid, explain why you don't want Americans to go back to work, using less than the seven basic ballet moves.
Proud that my Congressman is signing on to this.
Comment 5 by Mark D at 16-Dec-11 07:53 PM
Looks like Obama will have 60 days to decide if the XL is a go or if He (Obama) wants the American workers to drop further in to Poverty. The environmentalist movement is spending huge amounts of Cash to stop Hundreds of Iron/Copper & Coal mines all over America & Canada and many slimy Democrats & "Republicans" are taking them up on the offer. The good news that is starting to show light is, People in Government & Activist are starting to look at how these powerful environmentalist groups are comming up with Hundreds of Millions of dollars every year. Is China and mid-east countries investing in these environmentalist groups? It is logical to think so. Coca Cola could not sell enough cans of coke with Polar Bears on them to fund this massive payed movements.(Also) The EPA is starting to gain momentum on shuting down the North Dakota Oil Boom on the grounds that Fracking is contaminating the water table..Proof maybe found the same-day Obama is re-elected and pulls the pin... God For-bid!
Mitt's admission
It isn't surprising that Newt is considered the ideas candidate in the GOP presidential race. What's surprising is Mitt's admission that he can't complete with Newt on that battlefield. Mitt's onslaught of negative ads against Newt Gingrich is admitting that he can't defeat Newt on the battlefield of ideas.
Listen to the pettiness in Mitt's attacks against Newt:
Romney began Monday morning, telling Fox News that Gingrich should return the $1.6 million he was paid by Freddie Mac. Then he told POLITICO that Gingrich is the front-runner, but he's in for the long haul of an extended primary season, which he believes his campaign will be able to sustain.
Then Tuesday, on a day otherwise devoted to fundraising, Romney told the Post that Gingrich is an 'extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world.'
A sharper knife came out Wednesday, with Romney expanding his personal attacks on Gingrich. He started with the New York Times, saying of Gingrich, 'zany is not what we need in a president.'
He taped an interview Wednesday morning for the CBS Evening News accusing Gingrich of becoming rich because of his prominence in Washington while hitting him for the $500,000 line of credit from Tiffany's.
'Newt Gingrich has wealth from having worked in government,' Romney said. 'He's a wealthy man, a very wealthy man. If you have a half a million dollar purchase from Tiffany's, you're not a middle class American.'
That last attack is the most insulting of Mitt's whining attempts to derail Newt. Let's remember Mitt's plan to quadruple the size of his San Diego home:
The GOP presidential candidate has filed an application with the San Diego government to bulldoze the 3,009-square-foot beachfront house in La Jolla and replace it with a 11,062-square-foot property.
According to a campaign official, "They want to enlarge their two bedroom home because with five married sons and 16 grandchildren it is inadequate for their needs."
In addition to the California house and a townhouse outside of Boston, which is their official primary residence, the Romneys own a $10 million vacation home on the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, N.H.
In 2009, they sold the 6,400-square-foot colonial in Belmont, Mass. where they raised their five sons for $3.5 million and their 9,500-square-foot Deer Valley, Utah ski lodge for close to $5.25 million.
This isn't a criticism of Mitt. If he's got the money to afford that much real estate, God bless him for accumulating that type of wealth. It's just that Mitt's hypocritical streak shows when he makes that type of comment.
It's also dishonest.
Newt's made tons of money through speaking engagements and writing 24 books, including 13 that made the New York Times bestsellers list.
Setting those things aside, this race is about which candidate offers the best vision for America's future.
Most of Mitt's 59-point plan is dedicated to criticizing President Obama. Newt's 21st Century Contract With America focuses almost exclusively on solutions.
Mitt's plan for a capital gains tax cut is limited to those people making less than $200,000. Newt's plan calls for eliminating the tax on capital gains. Mitt's plan for the corporate tax is to drop it from 35% to 25%. Newt's plan is to drop it to 12.5%.
Mitt's admission isn't getting alot of attention. Nonetheless, it's there. To be fair, though, it isn't fair to say that Mitt isn't competent. Right now, though, this nation needs an inspirational leader with a long list of conservative accomplishments .
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt's post highlights Hugh's partiality towards Mitt Romney. It's important that conservatives remember that Hugh wrote a book about Mitt Romney , then turned his radio program into Mitt's campaign messaging center.
Hugh's opinions about Mitt or Newt simply aren't credible.
Posted Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 15-Dec-11 03:41 PM
Gary:
I know you're a big Newt fan but can I make two points in this effort you did to attack Mitt.
One, a lot of Republicans are mad at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I've recently heard about the Newt connection. It's quite possible (even if Newt did no lobbying) for people to consider that to be a waste of money just like a bonus to Harold Raines for example. Making a demand for the money to be returned seems reasonable and Newt should have to defend that. Hopefully in greater detail.
Two, you're sinking to Mitt's level which you're mad at because he tore down a house to make a bigger house. Mitt's wealthy and has got a big family so that makes sense. So why don't you stay above Mitt's level and stick to real issues?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 16-Dec-11 07:56 AM
Gary:
Your update is another example of your lack of logic. I guess since you use your blog to promote Newt just like Hugh uses his radio that means you have no credibility. I guess I should read somewhere else for credible news. I listen to Hugh too and I think he tries to tell it straight. If you think Hugh has no credibility can you explain why Mitt was endorsed by the Washington Examiner instead of Newt.
Walter Hanson
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 16-Dec-11 08:49 AM
Walter, Quit talking out of your ass. Many of Hugh's listeners stopped listening to him because Hugh refused to admit that Mitt had any serious flaws.
That's the difference. While I've touted Newt as the best candidate, I've certainly not contended that Newt doesn't have his flaws.
As for why Mitt was endorsed by the Washington Examiner & NRO, I don't have an explanation for their endorsements, though I suspect that NRO's endorsement has more to do with their abandoning the path of their founder, William F. Buckley.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 16-Dec-11 10:00 AM
Gary:
You're so busy attacking me you don't understand how low you've sunk.
Example, I believe that if you're wealthy either because you've worked hard or you inherited it you have the right to spend your money as you please. The occuppy crowd and Obama seems to think if you have lots of money it should go to the government instead. Your mentioning in the update about lack of credibility isn't credible because you were attack Rommey for tearing down a house and building a new doesn't talk about any issue in the presidential race.
It's saying that he's wasting money just like Occuppy people think.
It's not objective. And by the way I didn't mention NRO. I did mention the Washington Examiner because I heard the interview and the Washington Examiner person was making Mitt sound good. So by that logic if you put up something that says Newt should be the nominee then I shouldn't take that seriously either.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 16-Dec-11 10:39 AM
Walter, again, you didn't read everything I wrote. First, let's start with the fact that I said that Mitt had the right to buy however many multi-million dollar homes he could afford. That seperates me from the occupy crowd. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
I'm merely making the point that Mitt's accusation that Newt was rich because Newt bought his wife expensive jewelry was a stupid argument considering Mitt's wheeling & dealing in multi-million dollar homes.
That's the point I was trying to make. It's unfortunate that you didn't pick that up but that's your fault, not mine.
As for a newspaper making an argument for Mitt over someone is reasonable. That isn't what Hugh did. His on-air rants, his posts & his columns were consistently over-the-top & not in touch with reality.
He was as over-the-top with Mitt as Democrats were about Obama.
I've been enthusiastic about Newt but I've explained why I prefer Newt. I've said that Newt's debating skills are exceptional, which they are. I've said that Newt's actually got a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments, something that nobody else on stage has. I've shown how he helped balance the budget.
Which of those arguments can you refute?
Comment 6 by eric z at 16-Dec-11 04:25 PM
"It isn't surprising that Newt is considered the ideas candidate in the GOP presidential race."
I don't.
Walter might not.
Perhaps a better opening would have been, "It isn't surprising some think that Newt is considered the ideas candidate in the GOP presidential race."
Ron Paul has ideas.
Better ideas.
More importantly, consistent ideas.
Not ideas like a menu, always ask what today's special is but be careful before biting into it. Newt, the Chile Relleno with Praline sauce, that does not really resonate with many in the diner ...
Comment 7 by walter Hanson at 16-Dec-11 06:04 PM
Eric:
Just curious is one of these ideas for Ron Paul which you're citing is let Iran have a nuclear bomb and do nothing even if you have solid intelligence (Paul ducked that question)
The idea that Paul has expressed which is to cut spending is what everyone on that platform will do. So since those seem to be Paul's only two ideas (one he is copying everyone else on and one that said let Iran have the bomb) I haven't heard a new idea from Paul yet.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 8 by Sam at 16-Dec-11 11:55 PM
Walter:
Paul has a lot of new ideas that the other candidates are picking up to try to get Paul supporters, such as auditing the Fed and cutting cabinet departments.
Paul is also the only one that will balance the budget in his first term unlike all of the others. Including eliminating 5 cabinet departments.
Also, Paul is the only one that is not enamored with big government, so he is the only one that will actually have any real spending cuts.
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-11 01:51 AM
Shame on you for saying that "Paul is also the only one that will balance the budget in his first term." Newt's balanced the budget as Speaker. He entrusted John Kasich to write the budget bills but it wouldn't have been possible without Newt first supplying the impetus.
RP's supporters need to start looking objectively at the facts. While RP probably has a better ACU rating, Newt actually found a way to maintain a majority while working with a reluctant liberal Democrat to run surpluses. I don't doubt that RP voted for those balanced budgets, Newt was the leader that put a GOP majority in place, then persisted until they started running surpluses.
The other thing about "actually having any real spending cuts" is projection. Newt's proposed massive, real spending cuts. RP isn't the only conservative in the race. I'd doubt that you'll admit that but Newt's consistently touted the things he'd cut in real terms.
Comment 9 by eric z at 17-Dec-11 08:49 AM
Dec. 16, 2011 - National Journal reports the Republican governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, endorsed Romney:
"Haley, in her first term, is considered a rising star in GOP political circles, and Romney is hoping that her backing - announced early Friday on Fox News -- will help boost his campaign in this crucial, deeply conservative primary state. Recent polls have shown the former House Speaker with leads of between 16 and 23 points over Romney in the state."
For what it is worth.
Is Haley another GOP insider aiming for Romney's VP selection? That always is a suspicion with endorsements, e.g., Pawlenty endorsing Romney.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-11 08:56 AM
She's early in her first term as SC's governor so she shouldn't get any serious consideration for VP. TPaw endorsed Romney, I suspect, so that Romney would pay off TPaw's campaign debt.
Comment 10 by Sam at 17-Dec-11 12:16 PM
Gary:
First off I was not talking about what Newt had done. I was talking about their plans as POTUS candidates.
Newt http://www.newt.org/contract/legislative-proposals#Five gives no specifics or cuts or plans other than to " Balance the federal budget by freeing job-creators to grow the economy, reforming entitlements, and implementing productivity improvement systems, such as Lean Six Sigma, to eliminate waste and fraud. Pass a balanced budget amendment to keep it balanced."
Paul http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ on the other hand, has specifics with numbers and everything to reduce the spending and size of the Federal government. Shame on you for not reading Paul's plan before dismissing him.
Response 10.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-11 01:34 PM
First, his plan to reform Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid are part of his 21st Century Contract With America. It isn't his fault that you didn't read it. It's your fault. That's a ton of spending cuts.
Second, you apparently haven't paid attention to Newt's talking about a book titled "Stop Paying the Crooks". That book talks about how the federal government is paying out between $75,000,000,000 & $150,000,000,000 to fraudsters annually.
It's your right to vote for the candidate of your choice. On this blog, though, it isn't ok to not get important facts straight.
Comment 11 by Sam at 18-Dec-11 10:17 AM
I did read the sections on SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Again lots of talking points, but very light on specifics. He did want to stop fraud to the tune of $70 -120 million. Great, but hard to stop fraud completely. Even if it is $120 million, that is long way from the needed cuts to the budget. Again I don't see much cutting and lots of support for government to just be more effective.
"Government is the problem, not the solution" - Reagan
I agree, stopping payment to crooks and fraudsters is a great idea. I am sure that everyone supports that.
Response 11.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Dec-11 10:32 AM
Sam, that's billion, not million. He's on board with the Wyden-Paul Medicare reform. If you want more specificity than that, wait until it's put into legislative language. By that measure, RP's cuts aren't specific in that they aren't in legislative language either.
Comment 12 by Sam at 18-Dec-11 11:26 PM
Sorry, I meant billions. Still a small amount compared to the $1.3 trillion budget deficit.
I looked into the Wyden-Paul plan, seems like a watered down, toothless version of the Paul plan that was put out earlier. Didn't Newt say that was right-wing social engineering?
Comment 13 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-11 08:07 AM
The difference being that people will choose the Paul Ryan option if given the option. RP's plan doesn't have a chance of being enacted.
Newt didn't say that Ryan's plan was social engineering. That's how the media & Mitt Romney are portraying it.
Newt's social engineering answer was in response to a question about whether the Ryan plan should get pushed through. Newt essentially said that pushing legislation through without first winning the debate was foolish. He then said that right-wing social engineering wasn't any better than left-wing social engineering.
Comment 14 by Sam at 19-Dec-11 10:25 AM
In a backdoor way he did. He said that radical change, either from the left or the right is social engineering. He then said that the Ryan plan was to radical.
If RP was the nominee, his plan would have just as much chance of being enacted as Newt's. By the way, RP's plan for Medicare is very similar to Ryan's original plan.
Either way at over $15 trillion in debt and a trillion being added every year, radical change is what we need.
Response 14.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-11 03:28 PM
RP won't be the next nominee because he's bat-shit crazy on foreign policy. First, he'd be a disaster greater than Jimmy Carter...by alot. Second, it's easy to picture Newt getting something positive passed because he's got a history of getting important conservative legislation passed. That can't be said for RP. He's fought for alot of good things but he's been totally unwilling to budge on anything. That's why his list of conservative accomplishments is tiny.
As a result of the budget agreements put in place by the collaboration of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich & John Kasich, over $405,000,000,000 was paid off of the national debt. I'd call that a radical departure from the failed status quo.
Comment 15 by Sam at 19-Dec-11 05:54 PM
Bat-shit crazy is wanting to run all over the world and kill Muslims. If either Mitt, Newt, or Bachmann get the nomination, it will be four more years of Obama. True conservatives will stay home and moderates will vote Obama. RP's list of conservative accomplishments is great, just not in your view. Look at his voting record. It is the most consistent, principled voting record. RP can't help that Congress is filled with warmongers and big government types.
Speaking of balanced budgets, Newt keeps claiming that he balanced the budget for 4 years. Except he was only speaker for 2 of those budget years before he resigned. Also the $405 billion was paid off is false as the debt went up every year the he was in office.
Comment 16 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-11 06:33 PM
Sam, I don't appreciate you making things up. The unfunded liabilities continued increasing but that isn't the same as debt. The minute that Social Security, Medicaid & Medicare are reformed, those unfunded liabilities shrink significantly.
First, voting records aren't accomplishments. Second, purists don't get important things done. Third, RP didn't write legislation that reformed any entitlements or cut spending. He just whined about "big government types and warmongers." Big flipping deal. Any sourpuss can do that.
RP & Michele Bachmann are proof of that.
Comment 17 by Sam at 19-Dec-11 10:53 PM
I'm not sure what I made up, but debt is debt. Until they are reformed, they are debt.
If voting records are not accomplishments, then we can throw out Newt's 90% conservative record. In fact, we can throw out all of Newt's accomplishments then, because they are just votes.
The most important accomplishments of RP are changing the discussion. Among them are auditing the Fed that Newt now supports. http://www.newt.org/news/audit-and-reform-the-federal-reserve
Chip Cravaack attacks WH on the economy, environment
Chip Cravaack is being outspoken today, starting with this op-ed . Chip's op-ed about the Keystone XL Pipeline is spot on, starting with this opinion:
Labor unions, such as the 49ers of the International Union of Operating Engineers, have strongly urged the Obama Administration to issue a presidential permit giving the go-ahead for the project. And workers along the pipeline route are ready to begin construction in 2012.
That was the case until the administration told them not so fast, that maybe in 2013 it would decide to issue a permit for the project.
Supporters of this project have every right to be angry and frustrated that the administration is withholding its blessing. At a time of high unemployment and our country's growing reliance on oil from the Middle East it should be an obvious decision to approve construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Why the delay? It would appear politics are at play, at the expense of America's unemployed and underemployed.
This shouldn't be a difficult decision. The pro-Pipeline project logic is exceptionally straightforward. Unemployment in the construction industry in nearing 14%. Our reliance on Middle East oil isn't wise.
This administration's decision to not decide this issue has the average man or woman on the street scratching their heads. The explanation for their decision is actually pretty straightforward. Chip's statement on budget negotiations offers insight into the administration's thinking:
'It's unbelievable that the provisions aimed toward protecting private property and ensuring greater public safety from problem wolves was removed from this legislation by Senate Democrat Leadership and the White House. Minnesota's Eighth District has the highest population of gray wolves in the Upper Midwest, and currently the state DNR, farmers, livestock producers, and families have little means to deal with this matter accordingly. I urge the House to quickly consider Rep. Kline's House bill for a more responsible wolf management program in Minnesota.'
Rep. Kline and Rep. Cravaack support legislation that would return control of Minnesota's wolf population to Minnesota's DNR. The Obama administration can't afford to delist the timber wolf prior to this election cycle. President Obama is dragging his feet on delisting the timber wolf for the same reason he's dragging his feet on deciding on the fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Obama's administration is dragging their feet on these decisions because he thinks he can't afford to alienate the environmental extremists in his base.
This is politics at its worst. President Obama made speech after speech in which he criticized Republicans for putting partisanship over doing what's best for America. That's projection. Now, it's politics at its worst.
Militant environmentalists can't defend their positions on the Keystone XL Pipeline and they certainly can't scientifically defend their position on not delisting timber wolves in Minnesota.
Thanks to militant environmentalists, farmers, union workers and middle class families are getting hurt. Timber wolves are shrinking livestock herds in places where they haven't been in decades. Oil pipelines aren't getting built because militant environmentalists tie things up in courts with no repercussion for their militant actions.
Minnesota owes a debt of gratitude to Chip Cravaack for his sensible leadership on these important issues.
Posted Friday, December 16, 2011 12:51 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Dec-11 04:18 PM
CC, running for VP.
Interesting.
Is Tarryl moving again?
Right now, Tarryl Clark is an officially announced candidate for Minnesota's Eighth District congressional seat. After reading Tarryl's latest fundraising letter , one must wonder if she's committed to running in the Eighth:
Dear Friend,
As the holidays approach, each family has their own traditions that they enjoy every year. My family's annual tree cutting is often with filled with snowball fights, a feisty debate about the best type of tree, and hot cider with friends.
We all know the story of how the Grinch stole Christmas but now he has competition from the Tea Partiers in Washington. As we all start planning our holidays in this tough economy, the Tea Party Congress wants to take $1,000 out of our pockets when we need it most. I don't know if Boehner, Bachmann and company ever read the children's story but they sure seem to be aiming to steal Christmas from us. In these tough times the last thing we can afford is to have our taxes raised especially during this holiday season.
Several things stick out at me in that part of Tarryl's fundraising appeal. First, it's apparent that Michele Bachmann permanently lives inside Tarryl's cranium. Michele's running for POTUS. Tarryl's running in Minnesota's northernmost congressional district. The contrast couldn't be more stark.
Second, Tarryl can't get her facts straight. When Tarryl says that "the Tea Party Congress wants to take $1,000 out of our pockets when we need it most", she's actually lying. Since late last week, Republicans have linked extending the payroll tax holiday to the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline. That's a win-win situation, with union employment getting a healthy shot in the arm.
The only downside to the House Republicans' legislation is that it stings the DFL politically.
As a result of Tarryl's fundraising letter, it isn't clear whether Tarryl is committed to running in MN-08. Considering the fact that she's willing to move to a district that isn't as hostile as the 6th, we can't rule anything out.
Posted Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:30 PM
No comments.
Gingrich schools Bachmann on life issues during Iowa debate
Michele Bachmann got a lengthy taste of what it's like to take on a true top tier presidential candidate one-on-one when she clashed with Newt Gingrich Thursday night. Here's a partial transcript of Michele's exchange with Newt:
REP. BACHMANN: When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he had an opportunity to defund Planned Parenthood and he chose not to take it. That's a big issue. Even more troubling, when he was in Washington, DC, he made an affirmative statement that he would not only support, but he would campaign for Republicans who were in support of the barbaric procedure known as partial birth abortion. I could never do that and, as a matter of fact, George Will asked the question of Speaker Gingrich this: Is it a virtue to tolerate infanticide?
This is a seminal issue. It's something that we can't get wrong and, as president of the United States, I will be 100% pro-life from conception until natural death.
CHRIS WALLACE: Speaker Gingrich?
NEWT GINGRICH: Sometimes, Congresswoman Bachmann doesn't get her facts very accurate. I had a 98.5% right-to-life voting record in 20 years. The only difference was that they didn't like the initial Welfare reform bill, which every other conservative group said had nothing in it about abortion. That's the only one in 20 years.
I believe that life begins at conception. The conversation we're having, which was from an ABC interview, I was frankly thinking about proposing a commission to look at fertility clinics because I do think there is a challenge to what happens with embryos because, by definition, they have been conceived. I am against any experimentation on embryos. I actually think that my position has been very clear and very consistent.
It isn't like Newt was exposed as anything other than being pro-life. Still, Michele insisted on pushing the issue. As this transcript reveals, she didn't benefit from the exchange:
This isn't just once. I think it's outrageous to say over and over that I don't get my facts right when, in fact, I do. I'm a serious candidate for president of the United States and my facts are accurate.
Speaker Gingrich said that he would support and actively campaign for Republicans who got behind the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. This is not a small issue. This is a big issue. And I think George Will was right when he asked that question "What virtue is there in tolerating infanticide"?
SPEAKER GINGRICH: First of all, what I said on that issue is that I wouldn't go out and try and purge Republicans. Now, I don't see how you're going to govern the country if you're going around trying to decide who you're going to purge.
The fact is that, twice while I was Speaker of the House, we moved the ban on partial birth abortion. Clinton vetoed it. We worked very hard, and Rick Santorum has been a leader on this issue. I have consistently opposed partial birth abortion. I, in fact, would like to see us go much further than that and eliminate abortions as a choice. And I said that, as president, I would defund Planned Parenthood and shift the money to pay for adoptions to give young women the choice of life rather than death.
Newt's right that the fiercest warrior on banning partial birth abortions was Sen. Santorum. In fact, this article chronicles the votes:
On November 1, 1995, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 288 to 139 to pass the ban on partial-birth abortion. On December 7, 1995, the U.S. Senate voted 54 to 44 to ban this procedure. President Bill Clinton vetoed this bill on April 10, 1996.
After President Clinton was re-elected, prolife legislators continued to work to ban this procedure. On March 20, 1997, the House voted 295 to 136 to pass a bill that was similar to the one from 1995 with slight language changes. On May 20, 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 64 to 36 for the ban. Unfortunately, the Senate was three votes shy of the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto that was promised by President Clinton.
At the time of the 1995 vote, there were 230 Republicans in the House, meaning that, in addition to all Republicans voting to ban partial birth abortions, 58 Democrats joined in voting to ban the barbaric procedure.
At the time of the time of the 1997 vote, all 228 Republicans voted for banning partial birth abortions, along with 67 Democrats.
What I'd love to hear from Michele is who these Republicans were that that didn't support banning partial birth abortions. I don't think she can name one.
Posted Friday, December 16, 2011 2:56 AM
Comment 1 by John Lofton at 16-Dec-11 10:56 AM
Bachmann nailed Gingrich! The facts are that Gingrich said he would "actively campaign" for candidates who thought the murderous practice of so-called "partial birth abortion" should be legal, was OK, no problem. In other words, the fact that some candidates who were OK with murder of the unborn would not deter Gingrich from "actively campaigning" for them because they were Republicans. He put party above everything. The man is despicable.
John Lofton
Recovering Republican
Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Dec-11 03:57 PM
Bachmann is showing she can be a hit-person.
Positioning for being Romney's VP? The mud-slinging position?
That "partial birth abortion" is an outrageous invented term. Abortion is abortion. A matter of choice in any civilized nation.
Comment 3 by eric z at 16-Dec-11 04:12 PM
God told Bachmann to jump Gingrich and Ron Paul.
God said He will not give her an Iowa victory unless she does as told. He is a stern God.
There was a parting of the clouds, a booming echoing voice, "Go Negative."
Just like running for Congress, she did as told.
