December 17-18, 2011
Dec 17 11:58 The Path Forward Dec 17 16:10 The Day Diversity Died? Dec 18 22:41 The unionization media blitz starts Dec 18 00:37 'Ideal TEA Party candidate' Romney praises Ted Kennedy Dec 18 01:52 Mitt's unforced errors Dec 18 14:58 Mitt plays class warfare card during FNS interview
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
The unionization media blitz starts
What are the odds that the St. Cloud Times would publish an anti-GOP screed that makes many of the same accusations as this hysterical STrib LTE ? Here's part of the Strib's LTE:
At a news conference organized by AFSCME, one of the unions trying to organize in-home providers, Clarissa Johnston of Mounds View and Robert Ellis of St. Paul said letters from Republican opponents to providers have misstated the union effort.
"These politicians, I think, deserve a time out," said Johnston, speaking at the home where she cares for eight children aged 4 and under.
She and the union cited a letter from Rep. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, that a provider in his district received. He said while only some providers would get to vote whether to join a union, all would eventually be forced to pay dues and would be subject to "additional regulation."
Johnston and the union said Gov. Mark Dayton's executive order authorizing the union election clearly states that "nothing in this order shall be construed to require participation, or the involuntary payment of dues by any family child care provider."
"Republican legislators are spreading lies to scare and bully us not to vote for a union," said Johnston. At the same time, she said, they have cut child-care subsidy programs and grants for improving care.
Let's first deal with Gov. Dayton's executive order. It's a PR ploy, nothing more. Executive orders can't supercede Minnesota state statutes. PERIOD. Minnesota is a Fair Share state. In this situation, that means that the child care providers that didn't get to cast a vote would be forced to pay "Fair Share fees" to the organizing union in their part of the state.
Second, don't think for a second that unions wouldn't lobby this governor to make life difficult for child care providers that are openly critical of unions. They certainly would because AFSCME and SEIU are morally bankrupt and utterly corrupt.
Let's remember that union organizers used disgusting tactics during their unionization drive :
Swanson said SEIU and AFSCME organizers operating under the names, 'Kids First,' and 'Child Care Providers Together' obfuscated the purpose of union authorization cards presented to childcare providers. 'If unionization would really be such an advantage for us small business owners, then why did union organizers approach providers during the day, when we were busy caring for children, and try to trick us, telling us the cards were just requests for more information?'
Notice how Karen Cyson's op-ed mimics the STrib storylines:
Imagine my surprise when local state Reps. King Banaian and Steve Gottwalt sent me a series of letters in an attempt to sway my vote on the day care providers union issue. These two prophets of doom attempted to get me to vote against a provider union by skewing data and misrepresenting facts.
In their letters they wrote that in other states, where a union was ratified, the 'results are alarming.' Child care rates went up as much as 35 percent, and the number of providers dropped.
At first glance, I thought this scare tactic was just plain funny. Were they suggesting that I should be worried about being paid more and having less competition?
Let's be blunt about this. What Ms. Cyson, a longtime DFL activist, said and what the STrib op-ed had in common was the use of the provocative term "scare tactic." That's understandable since Judge Lindman shot down Gov. Dayton's EO. Judge Lindman said that opening a new category of people eligible to be defined as government employees requires legislative action, that it can't be done via executive fiat.
Since they lost the war in the courts, SEIU, AFSCME and other DFL activists are attempting to turn legislators like Torrey Westrom, Steve Gottwalt and King Banaian into the DFL's boogeymen.
This fits the DFL's pattern of villainizing anyone that doesn't agree with them. Serious opposition to their agenda is subjected to a withering media campaign of villainization, especially if it involves unions.
It isn't surprising that the SEIU, AFSCME and the DFL are singing in harmony in this fight to undermine small business sovereignty. Progressives are control freaks. Villainizing their opposition is what they do because they can't win on the battlefield of ideas.
Posted Sunday, December 18, 2011 10:41 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Dec-11 04:07 PM
Without unions, regular labor is at the mercy of job destructors, like Mitt Romney.
For all the Criticism Let Freedom Ring Blog has leveled at Romney, while calling the wealthy - aka Mitt and his ilk "job creators" and while favoring Newt Gingrich - aka not as wealthy as Mitt and his ilk - there has been a hesitancy to attack Romney where he is most vulnerable - job killing for profit.
Strib today carried an AP item by a "Jack Gillum" saying among other things, "Bain walked away with millions in profits.
"A review by The Associated Press of financial and regulatory documents in the case of Holson Burnes contrasts with statements Romney has made during his presidential campaign about his success creating jobs in the private sector. It shows how Bain, then headed by Romney, wrung profits out of the company by slashing costs and trimming its work force.
"By coincidence, the economic fallout from Bain's decisions struck hardest in South Carolina and New Hampshire, early primary states that will shape the Republican race and Romney's White House prospects."
If I were for the Newter, I'd be all over that.
It stinks.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-11 05:20 PM
Eric, I just read ABC's article about Holson Burnes. I'll do more digging into what actually happened. That said, if ABC's article is accurate & the whole picture, then Mitt's firm was a deceitful, not capitalist, firm.
The Path Forward
There's been alot of upheaval and discord within the Minnesota GOP within the last month. Surely, lefty websites are writing the obituaries of the state GOP as we speak. Just as surely, there's alot of in-party complaining, too. If a snapshot were taken right now, people would undoubtedly predict that the Republican Party of Minnesota was heading for a steep cliff.
That's a fair assessment. While it's a fair assessment, it isn't a fait accompli.
The chief reason it isn't a fait accompli that Republicans will careen off that proverbial cliff is because Republicans are the reform party, the taxpayers' watchdog party, the ideas party.
The DFL is still the monied party, the I'll-fight-for-the-failed-status-quo party, the party of special interests. That's just reality. A party led by the Dayton family's cronies is a disaster for Minnesota's families.
Does anyone think that the DFL isn't the control freak party? At a time when people are pushing back against control freakism, how well will it play when it's highlighted that the DFL and the Dayton administration has dragged its feet in approving mining exploration leases? How well will it play when Republicans highlight the fact that the DFL wants to unionize small businesses?
Many of the DFL initiatives are being funded by Gov. Dayton's first ex-wife, Alida Messinger, and the public employee unions that benefit from airheaded DFL policies. It's worth noting that the DFL isn't the party of the people anymore. They're puppets of the special interests.
That said, the Minnesota GOP has its challenges. First, accountability is essentially nonexistent. That must change starting immediately.
Second, a party that's run by insiders isn't acceptable anymore. The only recent electoral success came in 2010, a year marked by new participants. This isn't coincidence. The insiders haven't had much success recently. If insiders attempt to tell true believers what to do, they'll find life very difficult.
Third, the GOP party leadership team needs to eliminate egos. Too many people think that they're bigger than the party. That list included delusional liberals like Arne Carlson and Dave Durenberger and conservatives like Pat Anderson.
I have a simple message for them:
NO MORE!!!
Arne Carlson isn't the Minnesota GOP's wise elder statesman. He's a liberal who betrayed the party. What's worse is that he thinks that he's entitled to elevated status within the GOP.
Tony Sutton was right in banning Gov. Carlson, Gov. Quie and Sen. Durenberger from attending the national conventions. Consider that the first step in the NO MORE!!! campaign.
When Pat Anderson was elected as national committeewoman to the RNC, she failed to tell delegates that she'd gotten hired to lobby for Racino. That morning, the delegates voted to emphasize the party's official opposition to Racino.
Pat Anderson essentially said that she was bigger than the party when she didn't disclose her getting hired to lobby on behalf of Racino. She isn't bigger than the party. She's just doing whatever it takes to stay viable as a statewide candidate for higher office.
NO MORE!!! will We The People stand for unprincipled politicians like Pat Anderson and Arne Carlson.
The path forward is simple: establish a system of accountability, listen to the outsiders more and tell the status quo people that they need to contribute to the vitality of the Minnesota GOP. Productive, ideas-oriented activists are vital to the health of the Minnesota GOP.
It's just that simple.
Posted Saturday, December 17, 2011 11:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Dec-11 02:02 PM
It is most unfortunate how Mark Dayton and his ex-wife were the cause of the other party being in hock, being split over gambling with the one guy who left quitting the Indian casino interests but the wife staying, for people getting into each others' pants outside of marriage, for the Tea Party calling RINO at the drop of a Rockefeller dime. And, yet, "Republicans are the reform party, the taxpayers' watchdog party, the ideas party." To one knowing that with unflinching certainty, it might be hard to see exactly how close or far away that precipice is.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-11 08:27 PM
Eric, Are you proud of the fact that the Dayton Family Politics, Inc. ran the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history? Are you proud of the fact that most of their accusations were criticized by FactCheck.org as being blatantly false? The DFL isn't a political party as much as it's a parasite organization feeding off of taxpayers.
If we'd passed a budget that reflected Minnesotans' priorities, half of the DFL's special interest allies would've gotten defunded this year. Instead, the parasites running the DFL insisted on spending money we don't have on things we don't need while insisting that "the rich" aren't paying their fair share & while their parasitic organizations dine on Minnesotans' wallets.
The DFL isn't ashamed of themselves because they don't have a collective conscience.
Comment 2 by M Hanson at 17-Dec-11 04:23 PM
Scream all you want but the ship left the port and in the eyes of Minnesotans the republican image is forever tarnished.
Comment 3 by eric z at 18-Dec-11 08:31 AM
I am generally satisfied with Dayton, given that he has to work with two houses under control of the other party.
I think he was too eager to back away from "tax the rich" as an active goal vs. having it as a campaigning point. I think the Dems did the same thing with healthcare reform for years, and then delivered a non-reform since not only single payer, but public option were too early taken off the table.
But that was national.
Gary are you proud of the carrying on?
Your first sign of learning curve - you as a party not on a personal basis - will be in choosing a party head unlike Carey and unlike Sutton and unlike Brodkorb.
Each, being better or worse at the job, was a partisan tactician. You need a top person concerned with unimpeachable integrity, with that portfolio, and the politics can be left to the deputy chair.
Why help, not being GOP?
Because if you're going to continue, and hold a stranglehold voting majority where I live, I want you to be as clean as a squeaky plate, as pure as Ceasar's wife. Then go from there and, hopefully, be sensible too. Mop up, then shape up.
The Day Diversity Died?
Liberals love talking about diversity and tolerance. Hamline's initial hiring of Tom Emmer spoke well of those principles. Unfortunately, Hamline caved to their liberal special interest group supporters. Thanks to this Strib op-ed , though, Hamline's diversity and tolerance is getting exposed:
While this page strongly differs with Emmer's strident views on taxes, health reform, state's rights and social issues, especially when it comes to the state's proposed marriage amendment, the Hamline incident raises disturbing questions about academic freedom and administrative backbone at one of Minnesota's most respected educational institutions.
Although Hamline officials declined comment for this editorial, it appears that the university reneged on at least one viable job offer, possibly two, because of last-minute faculty objections to Emmer's politics, particularly his stance on gay marriage.
I'll sum this up quickly. Hamline's administrators don't have a spine. They aren't committed to intellectual diversity or academic freedom.
Hamline can't argue that Emmer wasn't offered the job either:
Tom: I hope all is well with you. I understand from Anne that you are interested in teaching Business Law. We have a spring section scheduled from 9:40-11:10 on Tuesdays and Thursdays on the St. Paul campus for which I could add you as an instructor if you are interested.
I hate to make you rush a decision but we have to put schedule changes in over the next week to have things ready for spring registration. If you are interested in this course, I need to get a copy of your CV and your SSN as soon as possible so we can get you added as an instructor in the system. If you have questions about the class, you can certainly give me a call. I don't have the content expertise but I'm sure I can get you copies of others syllabi from past courses so you can see what is generally covered. I also think Bob Kramarczuk was/is going to contact you regarding doing some practice teaching in the MBA program so you can get a feel for the classroom.
With the job offer being substantiated with this official email, the question left is what went wrong. This information might help:
Things allegedly went south when Emmer showed up at a November faculty meeting. In a long letter sent to Hamline President Linda Hanson, Emmer details the back-and-forth conversations he had with McCarthy about faculty opposition.
According to Emmer, McCarthy continued to convey her support until the conversation where she said the university couldn't bring him on board because of a "very vocal few" professors.
If President Hanson doesn't have the spine to stand up to a "very vocal few" professors, then she isn't qualified to be president of a university. Not only that, but it calls into question the need for a university president. If the faculty sets policy and makes hiring decisions, what's the justification for having a president.
This paragraph bothers me:
That Hamline's leaders apparently gave the boot to Emmer simply because of his politics suggest a startling lack of confidence in their students, faculty and the institution.
I'd argue it's proof that Hamline have fascist tendencies. Rather than winning a debate, they'd rather prevent a merit-based discussion of differing opinions. That's why they booted Tom Emmer.
FYI: Here's the definition of fascism :
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
If a tiny fraction of the faculty indeed have veto authority on faculty hiring, then that's certainly fascism. If that same tiny fraction of the faculty won't let dissenting ideas be presented, then they've failed at giving students a balanced education that explores all sides of a possible equation.
Hamline should be ridiculed for their intellectual timidity, their intellectual rigidity and their closemindedness. In my estimation, they've lost their right to be called educators.
Posted Saturday, December 17, 2011 4:10 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 18-Dec-11 08:34 AM
Would YOU hire Tom Emmer? Be reasonable about that.
I think quality control in the institution was as big or a bigger factor than politics.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Dec-11 10:38 AM
Yes, I would've hired Tom Emmer to teach business law. In fact, I'd relish the possibility of having him debate David Schultz on politics. This is why liberalism is getting weaker intellectually. The Alinskyite model teaches that you destroy your opponents rather than debate them.
A liberal can go his entire college term without ever having his world view challenged. Conservative college students have their world view challenged daily.
'Ideal TEA Party candidate' Romney praises Ted Kennedy
Once again, Mitt Romney is admitting that he can't compete with Newt Gingrich on the battlefield of ideas. By going this negative , Gov. Romney is saying that he isn't confident that his vision for America isn't appealing enough to win.
Romney campaigned in early voting South Carolina, where tea party activists have given Gingrich a strong lead in polls. Romney told reporters that many voters now are just beginning to pay attention to the race and will turn on Gingrich after they learn about his time in Washington and his role with mortgage company Freddie Mac, a quasi-government agency.
Gingrich's consulting firm collected $1.6 million from the company.
"I think as tea partiers concentrate on that, for instance, they'll say, `Wow, this really isn't the guy that would represent our views,"' Romney said after a town hall meeting with South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott. "Many tea party folks, I believe, are going to find me to be the ideal candidate."
That last line is laughable, especially when they see Mitt praise Ted Kennedy for his contribution to Romneycare:
Newt sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. Mitt collaborated with, then praised, Ted Kennedy in putting Romneycare. I'm pretty certain that actions are infinitely more important to TEA Party activists than empty gestures.
Mitt's praising Ted Kennedy for his behind-the-scenes work on Romneycare is confusing because Mitt's admitted that Romney doesn't control health care costs. He said that that wasn't its goal, saying that getting everyone insured was the goal.
TEA Party activists know that a) Mitt isn't one of them and b) that Mitt's priorities aren't the TEA Party's priorities. It's never been TEA Party activists' goal to collaborate with Ted Kennedy, the biggest of the big spending Massachusetts liberals, on the precursor of Obamacare. That's what Mitt did.
What's almost as disgusting is the fact that Mitt's attempting to be a person he isn't. It's just Mitt's most recent attempted 'transformation' to fit his campaign's needs.
Mitt's team isn't stupid. They know that he's never connected with TEA Party conservatives. That's why Mitt's attempting to be something he isn't. It's one thing to say foolish things or make mistakes. It's quite another to attempt to be something that you aren't.
The biggest requisite to being a TEA Party activist is being conservative. The next biggest requisite is being yourself. If there's anything that TEA Party activists won't tolerate, it's a pretender. We want the real thing, not a charlatan who plays a conservative when it's necessary.
Posted Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:37 AM
No comments.
Mitt's unforced errors
Mitt's decision to go negative on Newt will hurt him, especially if he keeps making unforced errors like this one :
Mitt Romney took a jab at GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich today during a town hall meeting for an ad the former speaker filmed with Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi aimed at spreading awareness on climate change.
Asked about his views on global warming by an audience member, Romney responded without missing a beat, 'First of all, I'm not planning on cutting an ad with Nancy Pelosi.'
The crowd erupted in applause.
That's exceptionally boneheaded on Mitt's behalf. Thanks to Mitt's response, Mitt's given me the opportunity to remind people of this disastrous decision :
Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation:
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.
President Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, was Mitt's consultant on CO2 emissions.
"Stringent CO2 emissions" is a euphemism for Cap and Trade. It's another way of saying that utility prices are about to go up. Mitt was thinking ahead on that:
He imposed CO2 emission caps, the 'toughest in the nation', in an effort to curtail traditional energy production. Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer. As we have seen in RomneyCare, regulation and price controls eventually drive businesses into bankruptcy or relocation.
That isn't what free market capitalists do. What's worse is that this was Mitt's initiative. It would've been bad enough if he'd signed a bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature that imposed these CO2 restrictions. It would've been worse if that legislation included price controls to stiff the energy producers.
This wasn't legislation. This was Mitt signing an executive order restricting CO2 emissions and imposing price controls on the energy producers.
That's significantly worse than sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.
Mitt has to hope that nobody's paying attention to his statements. Unfortunately for Mitt, people are paying attention to his deceitful negative attacks. He isn't getting away with it.
While it's true that Newt's poll numbers have dropped, it's equally true that Mitt's numbers haven't budged. In short, he's praying that this strategy works because he can't raise his support.
Posted Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 18-Dec-11 08:37 AM
Mitt must, unfortunately, have been reading that Gingrich GOPAC memo, and taken it to heart as how to use language and negative implication and name-calling to top a perceived enemy. Newtie should never have written it, but once out and circulated, is he whining about his methodology being used against him? It seems goes-around, comes-around justice, to me.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 18-Dec-11 09:50 AM
Strib carried an AP report of yet another Romney endorsement, so don't allege Strib bias. Jump the AP if you choose:
"Iowa's largest newspaper, The Des Moines Register, announced its endorsement of Romney on its website Saturday evening. It was as much an endorsement of Romney as it was an indictment of his competitors.
"'While other candidates have pandered to extremes with attacks on the courts and sermons on Christian values, Romney has pointedly refrained from reckless rhetoric and moralizing,'the newspaper wrote."
With Romney not being a global warming skeptic, as the post points out; and with others being that, the skeptics naturally would want to suggest Romney is wrong.
Yet, scientifically, the skeptics argue from a position of great weakness.
Were the argument to be that internationally allocating carbon emissions is a way of managing nations as a cartel of nations, and how they may be wealthy year-by-year going into the future the argument is defensible. Annual energy consumption, per capita, is a measure in a way of prosperity per capita. Everyone should agree to that except for distributional problems nations such as ours suffer.
To say that ever-increasing carbon dioxide emissions is not altering an environment where prior to the industrial revolution carbon emissions were far lower because population was less and animal power vs combustion steam turbine or internal combustion power is more carbon efficient, vs carbon intensive.
Animal power was renewable energy usage, as was use of the water wheel in early industrialization.
If the argument is made in terms of restricting carbon emissions being the equivalent of enforcing a lowered standard of living on the middle and lower classes, that argument has validity but then adjust distribution of wealth and income as a first step, with a second step being to transition the economy into greater dependence on the available lower cost renewable options.
Anything else is the equivalent of eating seed corn.
There is debate over how soon peak oil problems will be severe, not whether it is going to happen.
The later, the better - for humankind.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 19-Dec-11 04:58 PM
Gary:
Just curious what is your reaction to Newt letting a person who believes in global warming write a chapter about global warming in a book that Newt will have published next year. It looks like Newt and Mitt still haven't learned that global warming is a hoax.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-11 05:16 PM
Until the contents are revealed, not just speculated on, I'll withhold comment.
Mitt plays class warfare card during FNS interview
If anyone needed proof that Mitt Romney is more liberal than he is center-right, they needn't look further than Mitt's interview on FNS . Here's what Mitt said:
But Romney also emphasized contrasts between his economic plans and those of other Republican candidates by saying that he does not support major tax cuts for the rich.
"The people who have been hurt are in the middle class," Romney said. "I'm not looking to dramatically reduce taxes for the wealthiest in society."
The only thing I can think of for Mitt's playing the class warfare card is to appeal to the most liberal parts of the GOP. That's his right but it's a stupid move, strategically speaking.
He'll get their votes but he's essentially telling conservatives that they aren't a priority for his campaign. This shows that his saying he's the " ideal [TEA Party] candidate " isn't serious because 'Mitt, the conservative' isn't real.
This morning's interview is just another tidbit of proof that Mitt's a typical shape-shifting politician. While Mitt was playing the class warfare card, he also played the 'I'm a true conservative card':
Fox host Chris Wallace pressed Romney on his support for the Ryan budget, suggesting that Ryan's plans to eliminate $700 billion in aid to states, including $127 billion in food stamps, would make Romney vulnerable to Democratic attacks in the general election. Romney said that he would help the poor by growing the economy, and suggested that cutting government benefits for the poor wouldn't cause problems.
"Cutting welfare spending dramatically, I don't think will hurt the poor," Romney said.
How foolish is that? In one exchange, Mitt said something that the conservative base will heartily disagree with him on. In another exchange, Mitt said something that'll alienate moderates and left-of-center voters.
I said in this post that Mitt's making alot of unforced errors. Based on Mitt's interview with Chris Wallace, Mitt's making more unforced errors. It's amazing that Charles Krauthammer, the NRO Editorial Board or Hugh Hewitt haven't uttered a peep about Mitt's unforced errors.
Instead, they've talked about how he'll be a formidable opponent in the general election. If Mitt keeps making this many mistakes, I'll ask what these pundits are basing their opinions on.
Posted Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:58 PM
No comments.
