December 19-20, 2011
Dec 19 08:40 Reasons to be skeptical of PPP's polling Dec 19 15:21 Senate will return to work Dec 19 18:17 Today's Feel Good story Dec 19 20:13 Let's have this fight!!! Dec 20 01:33 Cravaack exposes payroll tax holiday flaws Dec 20 11:50 The Path Forward, Part II Dec 20 13:08 Ann Coulter joins Agenda Media in giving Romney a pass Dec 20 14:17 WH whines because Senate didn't do its job; Chip Cravaack answers
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Reasons to be skeptical of PPP's polling
Ed Morrissey does a great job of outlining why he's skeptical of the PPP polling that shows Ron Paul leading in Iowa:
PPP says that they are polling likely Republican caucus-goers, but there's a reason for a little skepticism on their sample . At 597 respondents, the size is respectable enough, but its composition and definition of 'likely' is quite shaky. Only a little over half (55%) bothered to caucus with Republicans in 2008, an election primary with as much publicity and import as this one. Thirteen percent caucused with the Democrats, which is reasonable because (a) Democrats aren't conducting a primary this cycle, and (b) some who caucused with Democrats might be inclined to support Republicans this year.
However, almost a third (32%) didn't caucus with either party in 2008. How can they be considered 'likely' caucus-goers in this cycle? It can't be because Ron Paul is running this time, because he was running in 2008 as well.
There are other reasons for skepticism. RealClearPolitics notes two other polls taken in almost the same timeframe as PPP's survey, and Paul was below 20% in both (Rasmussen and Insider Advantage). They all show fairly close margins, but the PPP looks like a bit of an outlier - at least for now.
I agree with Ed's opinions but I'd like to add two other things that I think are noteworthy, one of which Ed touches on. First, Ron Paul's support, for the first time ever, extended beyond his usual die-hard base.
Ed's post about the racist material published in Paul's name in Paul's newsletter will, I think, stop the Paul boomlet in its tracks. James Kirchick's article is just another nail in Paul's Iowa coffin. I fully expect his numbers to tank long before the caucuses.
Nutty Uncle spent way too much time on stage Thursday night to help Paul, too. It was just another display of Paul's conspiracy theorist side. That won't hurt him with his loyal base but it'll cripple him with thoughtful people who were recent converts.
I still fully expect Newt to win the Iowa Caucuses, though it'll be a tight race. I also think that Mitt will drop, especially in western Iowa, because Mitt played the class warfare card in yesterday's interview with Chris Wallace. Playing the class warfare card won't endear Mitt to hard-working Iowans.
This race is fluid. I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Perry and Rick Santorum finish with a ticket out of Iowa.
Posted Monday, December 19, 2011 8:40 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 19-Dec-11 09:46 AM
I'm suspicious of PPP because it's a Democrat polling firm.
Rooting for Bachmann or Santorum -- the real conservatives -- in Iowa but if RuPaul wins the GOP should be publicly flogged.
Senate will return to work
Earlier today, Harry Reid said that he won't call the Senate back to deal with the 2-month extension of the payroll tax holiday. This post on ABC's Political Punch essentially says that the Senate has a gun pointed at its forehead:
Officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc. have expressed concern to members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be implemented properly.
Pete Isberg, president of the NPRC today wrote to the key leaders of the relevant committees of the House and Senate, telling them that 'insufficient lead time' to implement the complicated change mandated by the legislation means the two-month payroll tax holiday 'could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.'
ABC News obtained a copy of the letter, which can be read HERE . Isberg agreed that it would be fair to characterize his letter as saying that the two-month payroll tax holiday cannot be implemented properly.
It's inevitable that the Senate will return and pass House Republicans' year-long extension. They'll complain about Republicans' rigidity and unwillingness to work on a bipartisan basis. In fact, Sen. Schumer has started his spin/whining :
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he expects the House to reject a bipartisan Senate proposal Monday evening and then appoint negotiators to iron out a new deal.
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer told MSNBC that trying to hammer out a binding agreement with Boehner 'is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.'
'He keeps moving the goal posts back because he can't control his caucus - they are running off a cliff, and he is following,' Schumer added.
Schumer said Senate Democrats and Republicans had worked out a compromise over the weekend that all parties thought would secure a two-month extension of the payroll tax break, which is set to expire at the end of the year.
First, Sen. Schumer should stop his whining. Second, the Senate should return and pass a year-long payroll tax holiday extension so that it can be properly implemented. Third, Senate Democrats should admit that the agreement can't be implemented according "the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc."
The agreement is shoddy work. It can't work. That means that the people who made the mess should return immediately and clean up their mess. Senate Democrats should stop with their whining, too.
If the payroll tax lapses, which isn't likely, because Democrats weren't called back into session, Harry Reid should expect his caucus to be alot smaller in 2013.
Posted Monday, December 19, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 19-Dec-11 04:52 PM
Gary:
The reason Schummer is crying because the Democrats will have no leverage let alone bill to park a tax the rich thing on.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Today's Feel Good story
Regular readers of this blog know that most of the posts are about politics, with a few posts about sports. When I read this article , though, I knew I had to write about it. Here's why:
Marine Scott Wood died four weeks ago after suffering injuries during combat in Iraq. Before his burial, his wife dressed him in two uniforms. On the outside, Scott wore his military dress blues. Underneath, he wore the blue No. 80 jersey of Houston Texans wide receiver Andre Johnson.
Sara Wood had been married to Scott for eight years. They have a 5-year-old son together named Landon. Now he and Sara live in a single room in her parent's house.
"He knows daddy's in heaven," Sara said of Landon, "though I don't know if he fully comprehends what that means. He knows daddy's not coming back."
When Sara got an offer to go watch the Houston Texans play the Carolina Panthers on Sunday, she jumped at the opportunity. She knew her husband would have loved to have gone to Reliant Stadium to watch his beloved team play. Plus, she and Landon had never been to a game before.
It's impossible to read that without feeling a bit sad. That is, unless you read the rest of the story:
As described in a column by Tully Corcoran on FSHouston.com, the team brought Sara to the game under the pretense that she and her son would be part of a halftime ceremony in which Landon would receive a bike and Scott's memory would be celebrated by the 71,500 in attendance. Both those things happened, but a much bigger surprise awaited.
The team told Sara she and Landon would be receiving a custom-built, mortgage-free house in a Houston suburb. It's courtesy Operation Finally Home, an organization that builds houses for wounded and disabled veterans or their widowed families. In its seven years of existence, the charity has built 32 homes in 32 states, all mortgage free.
I can't praise the Texans and Operation Finally Home enough. For that incredible gesture of generosity, the Texans and Operation Finally Home are patriots in every sense of the word.
Posted Monday, December 19, 2011 6:17 PM
No comments.
Let's have this fight!!!
This afternoon, I wrote this post stating that the Senate will return to work so that the payroll tax holiday could be properly implemented. I stand by that prediction.
Imagine my disgust, then, when I watched Special Report's opening All Star Panel discussion. I didn't expect much from Juan because, in his mind, any news benefits President Obama and the Democrats. I wasn't surprised that David Drucker said that Republicans had given Democrats a new opportunity to demagogue them. (That's my phrasing, not Druckers's.)
When the discussion finally got to Charles, a voice of sanity was finally heard, albeit temporarily. Mr. Krauthammer rightly stated that the bill couldn't be properly implemented, that House Republicans were doing the right thing, then unfortunately saying that House Republicans would take a beating politically for doing the right thing.
I was with Charles until that last sentence. That's when he lost me.
Republicans won't lose this fight politically. That'll only happen if they assume the fetal position on this issue. That'll only happen if they don't constantly pound home the truth about the House Republicans' plan. If Republicans consistently tell the American people the truth, Democrats will cave because Republicans will win overwhelming support for their plan.
If Senate Democrats won't give in on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, fine. I'd double dog dare them to stand in the way of maintaining great international relations with our Canadian allies. I'd double dog dare them to listen to their militant environmentalist base instead of doing what's right for securing energy independence.
In fact, I'll triple dog dare them to insist on sticking with a 2 month extension of the payroll tax "long weekend" (that's Charles's spot on description of the bill passed by the Senate) instead of passing a year-long extension of the payroll tax holiday.
With video all over the internet of President Obama saying it'd be unconscienable not to extend the payroll tax holiday for the full year, the advertising that could be run against stubborn Democrats wouldn't take a full morning to put together.
My recommendation to Republicans is simple: let's have this fight. Let's crank up the decibels. Let's have GOP presidential candidates weigh in on the fight.
Then, in the end, let's watch the Democrats assemble their circular firing squad and point fingers on why they didn't win...again.
Finally, I'd love having the opportunity to criticize the media for not reporting the truth about this issue. While we're hammering the Democrats, let's file the indictment against the Beltway's Agenda Media for not giving the American people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The more I think about it, the more I can't wait to start the battle.
Posted Monday, December 19, 2011 8:13 PM
No comments.
Cravaack exposes payroll tax holiday flaws
Thanks to Chip Cravaack's statement , Minnesotans now know that the payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate is deeply flawed. Here's Chip's statement:
'Unfortunately, the Senate agreement is a hurried Washington 'band-aid' fix that does not achieve the goals the President asked for. The House bill sent to the Senate includes a payroll tax extension for one year which will put $1,000 into the pocket of the average American worker. By comparison, the legislation passed by the Senate on Saturday would only grant a two month extension.
Additionally, the Senate's two month 'doc fix' means Medicare payments will be withheld, which would cause some seniors to be denied coverage. Moreover, officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) have warned members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be properly implemented.
The American People are tired of the Senate 'punting' on important issues, and so am I. This kind of behavior is inexcusable and quite frankly reckless. We cannot continue to govern two months at a time, thus precipitating even more instability in our fragile economy.
Presently, the House is planning to meet tomorrow to consider the amendment to the House bill passed by the Senate. If it does not garner the 218 votes required, the House will then move to regular order and appoint conferees. I hope the Senate Majority Leadership will return to Washington and quickly follows suit.
As it stands, I cannot support the Senate Amendment tomorrow, but I am completely committed to working as long and as hard as it takes to come to a long-term solution, and agree with the President when he says: 'It would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year.'"
The key point in Chip's statement is when he says that the NPRC told Congress and the administration that the 2-month long plan couldn't be properly implemented. That means, in reality, that there isn't a Senate bill to be acted upon.
Rubberstamping the Senate bill isn't a serious option because it's fatally flawed. The only options at this point are for the House to a) pass its own bill, then go to a conference committee or b) pass a bill, then have the Senate pass the House bill.
If Democrats want to renegotiate the Keystone XL Pipeline, fine, let's have that fight . Republicans should welcome that fight.
Posted Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:26 AM
No comments.
The Path Forward, Part II
This morning, the left is chattering about striking while the iron is hot. From a tactical standpoint, that's a wise decision. It's what Minnesota's conservatives should expect.
That said, the DFL really doesn't have a positive agenda to tout, which makes it difficult to appeal to people. That's why we should expect the DFL to run a negative campaign. That's why we should expect them to rely on the same discredited policies as before.
For instance, the Dayton campaign touted their "tax the rich" all campaign long. When the Dayton campaign submitted their budget to be scored, MMB said that Dayton's budget wouldn't balance. Then he submitted a different "tax the rich" budget plan. MMB said that budget didn't balance either, that it still left a $1,000,000,000 deficit.
When Gov. Dayton submitted his initial budget, it contained provisions for the 2 highest tax rates in the nation. It called for the creation of a new top tax bracket that would've caused "the rich" to pay a top marginal rate of 10.95%. It called for the filthy rich to pay an additional 3% surcharge on top of the 10.95% top marginal rate.
If there is a DFL legislature next year, there's no doubt but that taxes will skyrocket, regulations will get crazier and businesses will leave for states with sane policies.
That's before talking about how the businesses that don't leave will shrink their participation in their employees' 401(k)'s. That's before talking about how employers that get hit with confiscatory tax rates will reduce wages, cut their participation in paying for health insurance or a combination of both.
The simple truth is that the DFL will attempt to make property taxes the centerpiece of their campaign, with increased LGA payments and dramatically increasing K-12 and higher ed funding being the other parts of the DFL's campaign.
At the end of the day, the DFL will have to run on class warfare, the status quo and redistribution of wealth based on loyalty to the DFL. LFR will be a leader in exposing the DFL's euphemisms, lies and failed policies.
While GOP HQ is in disarray, it's time for conservative activists to stand in the gap and devise a winning narrative that excites the base and unites the party.
Posted Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 21-Dec-11 07:59 AM
I think "tax the rich" is both a serious and a good agenda going forward into the next election.
It kind of puts the Republicans in the light of standing for "don't tax the rich," and while they're powerful they are not numerous when it comes time for a popular vote.
Calling them "job creators" just puts lipstick on the pig.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-11 08:37 AM
If "tax the rich" is such a great policy, why did Gov. Dayton have to rethink his campaign budget twice & still not get a balanced budget? Why would President Obama's "tax the rich" scheme run companies out of the country or out of business? I know it's the closest thing the DFL and national Democrats have to serious policymaking but it's a joke amongst serious economists.
PS- Reagan was right in saying that "You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Unfortunately, the DFL hasn't figured that out.
Ann Coulter joins Agenda Media in giving Romney a pass
It isn't news that Ann Coulter loves hearing the sound of her voice more than she loves conservatism. It isn't surprising that, as a member of the Agenda Media, she's supportin Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, 2 of the 3 most liberal candidates in the race. You didn't know that AC's supporting RP? Thanks to Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft's post , we can watch the video of her going full lunatic:
It's disappointing that Coulter would give Mitt Romney a total pass on the BS that he's peddling. That's why it's impossible for me to think of her as a serious person anymore.
Why hasn't Ms. Coulter questioned Mitt's premise that you have to work in the private sector to know how to create jobs? Is she willing to ignore facts? Apparently.
When President Reagan took office, he'd never run a company. During his administration, he put in place policies that gave companies the incentive to create 20,000,000 new jobs.
That information alone refutes Mitt's schtick that he's the only person with the ability to create jobs.
That's before piling on the facts that Newt Gingrich, John Kasich and Bill Clinton didn't have much experience running a small business or a corporation when they put in place policies that led to 20,000,000 new jobs getting created during Clinton's term in office.
Doesn't this information totally discredit Mitt's sales pitch? As a matter of fact, it does. Why isn't Ann Coulter criticizing Mitt for that sales pitch? I'll bet we'll never find out.
Another thing that the Agenda Media, Ms. Coulter included, hasn't talked about or investigated is the fact that Mitt's been rescuing the Olympics, running for governor or running for president since February, 1999.
Since leaving Bain Capital, he's hired John Holdren, now President Obama's Science Czar, to advise him on global warming. That's a stunning success for the greenies because Mitt listened to Holdren in signing an executive order putting the strictest limitations on CO2 emissions in the northeastern states.
Mitt wasn't satisfied that he'd just imposed millions of dollars of costs on Massachusetts energy companies. Again, he took Holdren's advice in signing an executive order imposing price controls on Massachusetts energy companies.
Perhaps Ms. Coulter or the rest of the Agenda Media can explain what capitalist principle Mitt followed in imposing price controls on companies. That might happen but I doubt it. I'm betting Lucifer will hand out skates before Ms. Coulter explains what capitalist principle led Mitt to impose price controls on people.
Since leaving the private sector, Mitt signed Romneycare into law, a law that he's still defending. Mitt's clung tightly to his Tenth Amendment argument.
It's a phony argument that's actually laughable. Has anyone beside me said that government doesn't have the authority to tell private citizens that they have to buy anything as a condition of their existence? That's true whether it's the federal, state or local government attempting to impose the purchase.
The only time they have the right to impose our purchasing a product is if we choose to engage in a privilege. Driving is one such instance.
Somehow, Ms. Coulter's conservative principles appear to have left for a Christmas vacation. When they'll return is anyone's guess. In fact, it's questionable that they'll ever return.
It's worth noting that Mitt didn't sign the CO2 limits executive order in 2003. Mitt didn't sign Romneycare into law in 2004. Mitt signed the CO2 executive order and the price controls executive order in December, 2005. Mitt signed Romneycare into law in April, 2006.
That's awful enough but it's worse than that. Mitt's still defending Romneycare even though he's admitted that it doesn't do a thing to lower health care costs.
Mitt said Saturday that he's the ideal TEA Party candidate. That's BS. Mitt isn't a conservative. He's a liberal. I can't explain why Ann Coulter or the rest of the Agenda Media isn't exposing him as such.
It's time that conservatives started ignorning Mitt. It's time they started ignoring AC, too. They aren't intellectually honest and they certainly aren't principled conservatives.
Posted Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 21-Dec-11 07:56 AM
"It's disappointing that Coulter would give Mitt Romney a total pass on the BS that he's peddling. That's why it's impossible for me to think of her as a serious person anymore."
Anymore? You say, "Anymore." Why in the world would you have viewed this challenged anorexic woman, ever, as a serious person? Gary, that you ever did ...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-11 08:34 AM
I didn't take the self-promoting Ann Coulter seriously. The lady disguised as Ann Coulter who occasionally showed up doing serious policy analysis was someone to take seriously.
Comment 2 by David at 21-Dec-11 10:41 AM
You say: Has anyone beside me said that government doesn't have the authority to tell private citizens that they have to buy anything as a condition of their existence? That's true whether it's the federal, state or local government attempting to impose the purchase.
Sorry but this is wrong. States can (if their state constitution permits it). Federal can't. the inability for pundits like you to discern this difference blunts your ability to make a credible argument against Romney.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-11 11:38 AM
I'm being charitable in saying that that's hair-brained logic.
The attorneys general's logic is that government can't tell people they have to buy something as a condition of their existence.
There's no difference between states telling free people that they have to buy what they have to buy or the federal government telling free people what they have to buy.
More importantly, your application of the Tenth Amendment is shaky at best. Here's what it says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.I'd love hearing you explain why buying health insurance shouldn't be a right reserved "to the people."
The argument would have to start with the premise that state government knows better what families need than families know what they need.
Mitt's failure, along with his airhead foot soldiers, is that they cherrypick which parts of the Tenth Amendment fit their agenda.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 21-Dec-11 12:51 PM
Ann Coulter jumped the shark when she tried to pass off Chris Christie as a real conservative. Now she's trying to put earrings on the hog known as Myth Romney.
No individual mandate. The phrase "Live Free or Die" comes to mind, but under Zerocare, only the last portion will come to fruition.
WH whines because Senate didn't do its job; Chip Cravaack answers
It isn't surprising that this administration is blaming Republicans for rejecting the Senate's payroll tax holiday legislation. It's what incompetents do when they're caught in their failures.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said it is a "Tea Party revolt" that would be responsible for the House rejecting a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut.
"Speaker Boehner's position on Sunday was not the position that he had on Saturday when the 89 Senators came together to pass a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. Let's think on that. 89 Senators, the Republican leadership. You can't get 89 votes in this day and age for apple pie, yet they all supported this. The did it with the understanding that the House would approve this two-month extension and Speaker Boehner got on the phone with his caucus, tried to sell it. He had a Tea Party revolt. He reversed his position and he's now putting danger, a tax increase of a $1000 on 160 million Americans in like 12 days now," Pfeiffer said on MSNBC.
The media wimps apparently will let Democrats and this administration off the hook without calling them on their BS.
First, I don't care how many people voted for legislation that can't be implemented. If the tax holiday can't be properly implemented, then the so-called Senate plan doesn't really exist .
Additionally, the Senate's two month 'doc fix' means Medicare payments will be withheld, which would cause some seniors to be denied coverage. Moreover, officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) have warned members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be properly implemented .
I'd love hearing Ed Henry and Jake Tapper ask Dan Pfeiffer what the purpose is of passing a tax holiday that can't be implemented. After Pfeiffer attempts to dodge the question, I'd love seeing them ask him why he's dodging their question.
Democrats, this administration and Pfeiffer can't handle serious questions. That's why they try and filibuster as much as possible. Let's admit that President Obama is the master of the filibuster. They want nothing to do with transparency or accountability.
Chip Cravaack is right on the money with this statement :
As you know, the payroll tax holiday scheduled to expire at the end of the month would result in a tax increase for all American workers.
Unfortunately, the Senate's current plan is a hurried Washington 'band-aid' fix that does not achieve the goals asserted by the President. The House bill includes a payroll tax extension for one year, which will put $1,000 into the pocket of the average American worker. By comparison, the legislation passed by the Senate on Saturday would only grant a two month extension.
Additionally, the Senate's two month 'doc fix' means Medicare payments will be withheld, which would cause some seniors to be denied coverage. Moreover, officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) have warned members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be properly implemented.
The American People are tired of the Senate 'punting' on important issues, and so am I. This kind of behavior is inexcusable and quite frankly reckless. We cannot continue to govern two months at a time and create even more instability in our fragile economy.
Presently, the House is meeting today to consider the best path forward toward middle class tax relief for American workers. Meanwhile, the Senate has fled Washington. I hope the Senate Majority Leadership will return to Washington and quickly get to work on The People's business.
I am completely committed to working as long and as hard as it takes to come to a long-term solution to give people the certainty they deserve. I agree with the President when he says: "It would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year."
Again, the NPRC, not TEA Party activists, shot down the Senate's bill. The bill failed because of the Senate's ineptitude. The bill failed because the Senate attempted to put a band-aid on something that needed an ER visit and stitches.
It's time that this administration stopped with the scapegoating. It's time that the media started calling this administration on their dishonesty. The American people deserve better than this administration and this biased media.
We deserve solutions-oriented men of integrity like Chip Cravaack representing us.
Posted Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:17 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 21-Dec-11 08:03 AM
Cravaack seems to be getting a lot of attention, at least on Let Freedom Ring. I suspect this blog is not alone that way. Is it possible Cravaack may be drawing attention from both Romney and Gingrich?
He has the virtue of no track record to attack if in the Veep spot of a ticket, and he can be a campaign attack dog allowing the top spot candidate to play statesman.
And for either the east coast or the south, there would be a geographic ticket balance.
Feasible, or just a wild guess at this point?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-11 08:31 AM
It's totally a wild guess, though Chip's getting alot of positive things done in his first year in office. Chip is undoubtedly a much more substantial a target than the DCCC was bargaining for.
