December 20-22, 2016
Dec 20 08:17 Definining requisite qualifications Dec 20 15:32 Red Wisconsin -- Is Minnesota next? Dec 21 08:32 Hillary Clinton's legacy: failure Dec 21 09:33 President Obama's legacy Dec 22 00:28 Why is Gov. Dayton upset?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Definining requisite qualifications
Over the past few days, liberals have repeatedly quoted the phrase "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." Early in John Conyers' op-ed , the aging Democrat, cites that quote, too.
What hasn't gotten discussed is who determines what defines those "requisite qualifications" are. In this instance, Democrats insist that Donald Trump is lacking in those amorphous qualifications. That's a rather risky proposition. Democrats literally insisted that Hillary was the most overqualified presidential candidate in history. Forgive me if I don't trust their opinion, especially after watching Mrs. Clinton get a US ambassador killed by reducing the security forces in the country.
Forgive me if I think that Mrs. Clinton was the ultimate corrupt politician. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton operated a pay-for-play scheme with her family's foundation. I'm fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton didn't think being corrupt was a "requisite qualification" for being commander-in-chief.
Since his election victory, President-Elect Trump has put together one of the most impressive cabinets in US history:
That suggests that he's more than qualified to be this nation's chief executive.
What's interesting is that Democrats have only proposed eliminating the Electoral College. They haven't talked about reforming the way states award their delegates. It isn't surprising why. If electoral votes were awarded proportionally instead of on a winner-take-all basis, Trump would've won decisively.
Wouldn't you love hearing Democrats explain why they're opposed to such a reform? Recently and temporarily, Democrats have praised the principles of federalism. Those appeals are dishonest. Democrats' love of federalism is as authentic as an atheist's appreciation of Jesus.
It's time for Democrats to stop whining and accept the fact that their nominee was a corrupt, cold woman who ran one of the worst campaigns in history. That's why she got trounced in the vast majority of battleground states.
Posted Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:17 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 20-Dec-16 09:13 AM
The Constitution defines requisite as, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Beyond that, requisite is determined by the states through the Electoral College. It's simple.
Comment 2 by John Palmer at 20-Dec-16 09:46 AM
Under the current system for selecting electors, the voters and political parties get to decide who gets to be electors. Popular vote is the determining metric for which slate of electors wins the right to represent each state. We need to remember the constitutional republic is a united group of states, not a united group of people. The States, thru their electors, have overwhelmingly elected our new President.
Red Wisconsin -- Is Minnesota next?
Salena Zito's article about Wisconsin becoming a red state is must reading for Minnesota conservatives. That's because it provides the blueprint for turning Minnesota red.
Salena's article starts by saying "Eight years ago, Wisconsin Democrats were in the catbird seat; they held the Governor's office, the majority in both chambers of the state legislature, two U.S. Senate seats, five of the state's eight congressional seats and handed Barack Obama a rousing victory in the presidential election." That's the Wisconsin of 2008. That isn't the Wisconsin of 2016.
What changed in that time? Since the 2008 election, "Republican Gov. Scott Walker has won his seat three times (there was a recall election in between his two outright wins) and Republicans have twice taken the state attorney general's office, won control of both state legislative chambers (and retained them twice) and won a bruising state Supreme Court race."
In short, Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan put together a blueprint that's caught fire:
House Speaker Paul Ryan has played a big role in the redirection traditional Democrats towards the Republican Party with his stabilizing, responsible economic message; while his district voted for Barack Obama in 2008, it supported Mitt Romney in 2012 when he was on the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee.
The Cheeseheads' Three Amigos turned the Republican Party of Wisconsin into winners on a mission:
What's possible in Wisconsin is possible in Minnesota, too. The thing that Gov. Walker, Chairman Priebus and Speaker Ryan have in common is that they're principled leaders. That means this trio isn't afraid to push conservative initiatives. More than any other trio in US state governance, this trio has created a reform movement that's attracting erstwhile Democrats into their movement:
And despite the news media nationalizing the raucous 2011 state capitol protests in Madison when Walker passed Act 10, which curtailed collective bargaining for most public employees, the conservative movement stubbornly continued to attract independent and Democratic voters to their message and their candidates. Walker won the recall election the unions forced with more votes than he did when he ran the first time. He won reelection in 2014 even as experts also predicted he would lose.
That led to this:
Folks have altered their allegiances politically said Todd. "The government sector unions broke the bank and forced a reckoning that surprisingly found trade union members on the taxpayer's side," he said.
Minnesotans don't need another Scott Walker, Paul Ryan or Reince Priebus. Minnesotans just need principled leaders who are conservatives, too.
The one remaining state-wide elected Democrat in Wisconsin is U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who will have to try to defend her seat in 2018, the same year that Walker will likely seek a third term as governor. Those two races will be a true test to see if the Democrats understand their faults and display a willingness to comprehend and reconnect with their electorate.
If not, they risk placing Wisconsin on the battleground map in 2020 alongside Ohio.
It's too early to predict a Republican winning the governorship in Minnesota in 2018. Still, with Republicans flipping Minnesota's State Senate, it isn't unreasonable to think it's a possibility. Already, things are starting to look like it will be a good year for Republicans in 2018. Democrats will be defending 10 red-state seats in the US Senate. Once President Obama leaves office, Democrats won't really have a national spokesperson. Meanwhile, Donald Trump will be the Republicans' chief spokesman. He'll be touting the many popular accomplishments of his administration, including tax simplification, returning to the rule of law and replacing Obamacare with something that's actually affordable.
It's time to make Minnesota a red state.
Posted Tuesday, December 20, 2016 3:32 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 21-Dec-16 08:25 AM
Seems to me the essential here is to start promoting at least one high-profile Republican by letting them be the common sense, common language candidate. Not sure who that would be, though.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-16 08:49 AM
Jerry, my first impression is that Kurt Daudt & Pete Hegseth best fit that description. Daudt has gotten fantastic press without being a McCain maverick. IMO, Downey isn't a good fit because he's got too much baggage from running the state party.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 22-Dec-16 09:21 AM
Now that Pete Hegseth is apparently not going to be head of VA, yes, that looks like a good fit. Daudt seems to have a lot of baggage within the GOP, occasionally seen as too "weak." His tiffs with Gov. Xanax may help him considerably, especially if he can outmaneuver the Gov. on critical legislation.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-16 06:58 PM
Thinking that Speaker Daudt is weak is stupidity. I'm not endorsing anyone at this point but, having watched him consistently outmaneuver Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk & Rep. Thissen tells me he's anything but weak.
The guy with baggage, fairly or unfairly, is Chairman Downey. He's run the party with decent results but he's also had difficulties eliminating the debt he inherited.
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 23-Dec-16 06:30 AM
Yes, I was surprised to hear that about Daudt. My guess is that some people are still getting their information from the MSM. Getting out accurate information is key to Republican victory, but difficult.
Permit me to disagree about Downey. I think the debt is under control, but while he has done well in many areas, he has failed to mend bridges after some decisions he has made.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-16 06:47 AM
Jerry, I'm just saying that the DFL will mock Chairman Downey as being fiscally irresponsible if he's the GOP nominee in 2018. Fair or unfair, that's just the truth. The other part of that is that defending him against that will take lots of time and cost Republicans lots of political capital and goodwill. Daudt & Hegseth don't come with that baggage.
Comment 4 by Sarah Short at 08-Jan-17 02:17 PM
It is already happening in Minnesota. Hillary getting our electoral votes is misleading. Minnesota split their conservative votes between 2 candidates. Hillary only beat Trump by 20,000 votes. Less than 1% of the total vote. We could have easily had a recount. Let's face it though, those votes weren't needed so nobody cared. Gary Johnson received a little over 100,000 votes here. If all the conservative votes were put behind one candidate instead of two there would have been a much different outcome here. This is a classic case of a third party candidate taking votes from another candidate.
Hillary Clinton's legacy: failure
When it comes to diagnosing why Hillary Clinton lost, Chip Englander, "a Chicago-based GOP consultant", got it exactly right when he said the Clintons' "intent to try to rewrite the history books is super obvious. The history books are not written by losers. She lost the election because she broke the law and didn't bother to campaign in swing states. She's got nobody to blame but herself."
By comparison, Robbie Mook, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager, couldn't get it more wrong than when he said "if you ask me what is the single greatest headwind we faced in the race ... it was the two letters by James Comey." I won't deny that those letters produced some strong headwinds. They didn't happen by themselves, though. If Mrs. Clinton hadn't tried hiding her State Department emails from FOIA requests by using her own server, there wouldn't have been a Comey investigation.
The 'Comey headwinds', therefore, were Mrs. Clinton's fault.
In August, 2015, Quinnipiac University asked respondents " the first word that pops into their heads when they think of Hillary Clinton . This word-cloud is telling:
Mrs. Clinton's spinmeisters simply re-inforce the images that a) it's never her fault, b) she lives by different rules than the little people and c) Mrs. Clinton doesn't accept criticism, especially as a presidential candidate.
Mrs. Clinton's post-mortem:
I could get long-winded but I won't. What we know about Mrs. Clinton is that she's dishonest and uninteresting. It's time for her to leave the national stage -- forever.
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2016 8:32 AM
No comments.
President Obama's legacy
Thankfully, President Obama will soon be riding off into the history books where we can ignore him. His biggest legacy, of course, will be that he's the first African-American elected US president. After that, though, he's totally forgettable.
One of President Obama's multitude of negatives is his hatred of energy independence. Even now, he's trying to put huge oil and natural gas deposits permanently off-limits. According to this article , "President Barack Obama took new action Tuesday barring offshore drilling in areas of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans indefinitely." Later, the article said "The US is also declaring 31 canyons off the Atlantic coast off-limits for drilling, citing 'critical and irreplaceable ecological value.'"
Despite the Obama administration's hostility towards fossil fuels, the United States is getting closer to achieving energy independence by the day. Another bit of proof that the Obama administration is hostile to fossil fuels is their decision to deny the final permits to finish the Dakota Access Pipeline. This op-ed , written by John Cavanagh and Domenica Ghanem, shows who President Obama wants to be friends with:
The president-elect has pledged to remove constraints on fossil fuel projects, and it's likely he'll try to reverse this decision once he takes office. But there's something you can do to help stand up for life and for justice.
The controversial pipeline would be 1,170 miles long and cost $3.7 billion. A project of that scale doesn't build itself. Behind the lead investor, Energy Transfer Partners, stand heavily armed police forces, sound-cannon trucks, water cannons, tear gas and attack dogs - and 38 banks funding it all.
That's why the Institute for Policy Studies, where we work, is pulling its money from one of these banks, SunTrust, and switching to a more socially responsible institution. Banks that fund the planet-destroying fossil fuel economy and undermine Native American land rights aren't the ones we should be doing business with.
President Obama has aligned himself with ranting idiots like these. What's disappointing is that the Democratic Party used to be the party of working people. Now they're the elitist snobs' party. He isn't pretending to like construction workers. These are 2 of the faces of the new Democratic Party:
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2016 9:33 AM
No comments.
Why is Gov. Dayton upset?
Earlier this week, Speaker Daudt told reporters that his relationship with Gov. Dayton was "damaged." The key question that the Twin Cities media hasn't asked is why their relationship is damaged. The AP's Kyle Potter opened his article by saying "Gov. Mark Dayton and House Speaker Kurt Daudt will enter 2017 with a 'damaged relationship,' the Republican speaker said Monday, foreshadowing difficulty at the Capitol when the Legislature is charged with passing a two-year budget and address other key priorities."
Let's re-examine what happened since mid-October. On Oct. 12, Gov. Dayton admitted that "the Affordable Care Act is no longer affordable for an increasing number of people. We're going to need both state and federal governments to step in and do what they need to do to remedy these problems." Since then, Republicans came up with a plan to fix the affordability part of the ACA/MNsure crisis. This chart shows the differences between the Republicans' plan, which addressed affordability, access and other important factors, with Gov. Dayton's bare bones proposal:
There's no disputing the fact that Gov. Dayton is upset. What's in question is why he's upset. Is he upset that Republicans put together a serious plan that would fix each of the major problems with the ACA? Is Gov. Dayton upset that the DFL's plan is pathetic and skimpy?
Gov. Dayton owes it to Minnesotans to stop acting like a spoiled brat. For better or worse, he's Minnesota's CEO. It's time he put his big boy britches on and did what's right for all Minnesotans. Lately, there's been lots of talk from the DFL about government shutdowns. It's time Gov. Dayton and the DFL stopped pandering to their special interest allies and did what's right for Minnesotans.
Posted Thursday, December 22, 2016 12:28 AM
No comments.
