December 23-26, 2011
Dec 23 01:57 Michael Brodkorb: the ultimate competitor Dec 23 12:27 Conservative media tanking for Mitt Dec 23 15:53 ABA president fighting with a losing hand Dec 24 22:43 Christmas: A night of humility & grandeur Dec 25 14:41 Questions about Christmas Dec 25 15:34 Mitt, big gov't liberal? Dec 26 01:39 Gov. Dayton gets hand caught in union thugs' slush fund jar Dec 26 15:02 The face of NFL ineptitude
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Michael Brodkorb: the ultimate competitor
Ever since Michael Brodkorb broke onto the blogging scene in July, 2004, he's been a high profile force in Minnesota Republican politics. Most Democrats think of Michael as the devil incarnate.
While I've disagreed with Michael's tactics from time to time, I never questioned his commitment to winning. Likewise, there's no arguing that, during his blogging heyday, he didn't break alot of stories that the Strib or the PiPress wrote about after Michael had broken the stories.
The reality is that, whether you love him or hate him, there's no denying that Michael's a force of nature and a bare-knuckled fighter. I think Noah '17 failed attempts isn't hacking' Kunin still gets cold sweats when he thinks of Michael.
In many respects, I wish more elected Republicans, especially the spineless kind in DC , had Michael's go-for-the-throat attitude. Too often, Republicans get sucked into playing into the Democrats' hands. Compromise, compromise, the Democrats say when they're getting their asses handed to them, which the John McCains, Lindsey Grahams and Mitch McConnells of the world immediately comply with.
These gents, plus other DC politicians, should take their lessons from Michael. When the other side is losing the fight because the American people agree with us, that's when a fighter like Michael would push the advantage and leave the other side with table scraps.
Putting things simply, Michael's motto for fighting Democrats could be phrased this way: We win, they lose.
Summarizing what he'd be prepared to do is simple. Metaphorically speaking, if Democrats brought a knife to the fight, Michael would show up with a gun and extra clip. If they brought a gun will extra clips, Michael would've shown up with the gun, more extra clips and some grenades.
Michael's never been known as a policy wonk. That's ok. We've got alot of wonks. What Michael is, though, is a tactical expert.
Like other activists, I've had my disagreements with Michael. Not once in that time did I ever question his commitment to helping Republicans win races. While there are GOP activists that don't like Michael, (Joe Repya leaps to mind) the reality is that Michael has his allies.
No Michael story is complete, though, without talking about the day that Michael interviewed Peter Fritz after Fritz was harassed by Al Franken . At the time, Fritz was attending Carleton College. Here's a recap from Michael's first post :
C.J. from the Star Tribune is reporting that Al Franken repeatedly mocked a Carleton College student during a recent visit to Northfield, including ridiculing the young man's manner of speaking. At one point, Franken even refused to shake the young man's hand. The best part: the Carleton College student's account is backed by the head of the Carleton College Dems.
To repeat: this was a GROWN MAN being cruel to a young college student. Mocking him and being mean. This wasn't an example of someone being tired and just being a jerk; this is an ADULT deliberately making fun of someone who was clearly nervous and uncomfortable. Absolutely mean and totally unMinnesotan.
At the end of Michael's interview of Fritz, Michael asked if Franken was driving himself or if he had a driver. When Fritz said that Franken was being driven by College Democrat from Mankato State, Michael replied "I think I know the driver."
It was a totally Michael moment. Only Michael would know the College Democrats from Mankato State who got paid by the DFL to drive Franken around.
Is it any wonder why Michael broke as many stories as he did?
Posted Friday, December 23, 2011 1:57 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 23-Dec-11 09:22 AM
At least Michael has a backbone of titanium and could take a stand on issues. He is a survivor and will be back.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 23-Dec-11 10:32 AM
" ... force of nature and a bare-knuckle fighter ..."
Force of nature, call of nature, we could debate, but you write in the present tense, not the past tense, which is interesting.
"When the other side is losing the fight because the American people agree with us, that's when a fighter like Michael would push the advantage and leave the other side with table scraps."
Putting aside that "people agree with us" as unduly presumptive, leave it to the ballot box, please --
If you see it as two sides at perpetual war, as he arguably does/did, where does that leave the people, the public, those needing sane and sound ongoing government done in a reasonably cooperative, responsible and collegial way, to get things moving and done?
Others need to expend extra effort on getting the trains to run on time when there are ones after gaining positions of responsibility still going about gleefully tearing up tracks.
There is the campaign.
Then there is responsibly governing after the election.
Now, how exactly did Brodkorb facilitate the latter? Aside from getting himself fired?
As a blogger he could be one thing; but on taking a public legislative staff paycheck there were things he should have set aside, e.g., burying the hatchet for the duration, while collecting his regular and substantial government staff paycheck.
Finally, and you can think otherwise, but I expect the man's demolition derby style relates more to his removal than his publicly exposed personal affairs, which exist and conveniently form a ready excuse for more polite GOP folks to have themselves a needed and generally helpful purge.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-11 11:38 AM
Putting aside that 'people agree with us' as unduly presumptive, leave it to the ballot box, please.In 2010, the GOP gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, flipped alot of state legislative chambers from blue to red & gained 680 state legislative seats. In Minnesota, the DFL didn't lose their veto-proof majority in the state senate while retaining their majority. They went from a 46-21 majority to being the minority party with only 30 seats. Yes, that's a 20% loss for the DFL. On the House side, the DFL went from having an 87-47 seat majority to having 62 seats as the minority party. Yes, that's a 25 seat loss.
Based on those facts, I think it's foolish to say that I'm being "unduly presumptive." I'm basing my opinion on verifiable facts.
If you see it as two sides at perpetual war, as he arguably does/did, where does that leave the people, the public, those needing sane and sound ongoing government done in a reasonably cooperative, responsible and collegial way, to get things moving and done?It leaves the people right where they should be. Unlike the DFL, Republicans actually listened to the people. They sold their fresh ideas for reform & a pathway to prosperity door-to-door. Dayton got elected because his first ex-wife spent a ton of money. If she doesn't open her wallet up as wide as she did, Tom Emmer would be our governor & it wouldn't have been close.
Comment 3 by Charlie Quimby at 23-Dec-11 11:22 AM
I agree with Gary on Michael's strengths and with Eric on his weakness.
Taking a paid government job was his downfall because he didn't have the makeup to serve the entire public.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 23-Dec-11 11:38 AM
A quick note, Strib has a "Fall of Michael Brodkorb" item with the Google return listing it as "13 hours ago."
Google = strib brodkorb
It should be the first item on the search return list.
As with your writing, neither piece is an obit. Neither presumes to use the past tense a lot.
Strib does mention the Sunday, June 5, domestic argument and police report. City Pages mentioned and placed the police report online - a call by Sarah Brodkorb, words, door slamming, the children present - no physical exchange.
That was about the time the budget affairs were very hot and people on any side of the argument were likely sleepless and stressed. Yet neither Strib nor City Pages mentioned that, leaving all speculation to readers.
Will you write of Koch? She was the one who'd faced an electorate in all this. Not an appointee, although in Buffalo, Wright County, if you are the GOP candidate you will be the general election winner. How it is. It is that kind of an SD. Emmer land, that part of Wright County where the Koch and Emmer homes are -- as GOP as any part of the State. Limmer land too, isn't it?
Strib also has kept online a mid-July item on the budget, interesting in that it has a photo of Koch and Cullen Sheehan together - before Sheehan left in September but only after meeting with some Senate GOP leaders about things. startribune.com/politics/statelocal/125722713.html
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-11 11:42 AM
Will you write of Koch?I won't if I don't have something more than my opinion to offer.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 23-Dec-11 11:47 AM
Gary you are basing your opinion on an off year election, where Dayton, not Emmer won. Also, you are not as thick-skinned as Brodkorb, being quick to post in a defensive way. I was stunned to see redistricting fall into the wrong hands, and my guess is in 2012 a different balance will be struck after the votes are counted. But we wait. We see. Both houses in Minnesota with DFL majority, an election both swing GOP, each time the swing margin being thin. The tide ebbs, the tide rises. 2012 will be interesting to see Obama defeat Romney. There now, jump that and say I am the one being presumptive. Our shoes seem to fit each other's feet.
Comment 6 by LadyLogician at 25-Dec-11 04:42 PM
"Taking a paid government job was his downfall because he didn't have the makeup to serve the entire public."
I somewhat agree with Charlie - taking the paid government position was his downfall. However, I don't know necessarily if it was because he didn't have the makeup to sever the "entire public" or not. Michael is a very good political operative....a good opposition researcher. I think taking the paid position with the Senate was his downfall because he didn't have the diplomacy skills necessary to do the job well. Michael communicates his ideas and ideals well - but in the job he had, he needed to be able to communicate other people's ideas and ideals and put his aside. That may have been the true cause of his downfall.
But make no doubt - Michael Brodkorb is too talented of an individual to stay down long. He will back - and woe to the democrats who get in his way.....
LL
Conservative media tanking for Mitt
Here's a news flash that isn't getting talked about: Too many Republican analysts/strategists/pundits aren't interested in the truth. The reality is that the stuff that was passed off last night in the name of conservative political analysis wasn't interested in the truth.
The first example I'll cite is Mark Steyn interviewing Karl Rove. Steyn opened by saying that "Newt doesn't have a message; he's got 1,000 messages." He then asked Mr. Rove how Mitt's done in the staying on message department. Mr. Rove's reply was predictable. He said that Mitt had done a good job with staying on message.
To his credit, sort of, Mitt is staying on message. There's a reason for that and it isn't good. Mitt's record as Massachusetts governor is liberal. Mitt went farther on CO2 emissions than this administration's EPA has, though it appears as though they're making up for lost time.
Why would Mitt talk about his imposing millions of dollars of costs on power plants, then impose price controls on those power plants to artificially keep prices from spiking?
If Mr. Rove had bothered to mention those things, which he should do if he's serious about his job as a FNC political analyst, Mitt would be toast. Mitt's staying on message wouldn't be relevant because Mitt's record is that of a Massachusetts liberal Republican.
Charles Krauthammer isn't any better. There's no arguing with the fact that he's a brilliant thinker. Likewise, there's no arguing that he isn't interested in whether Republicans have wholly and repeatedly rejected Mitt Romney as their candidate.
If Mssrs. Krauthammer and Rove cared about what GOP primary voters thought about, they'd be on the right track. More importantly, if they actually talked about Mitt's inability to win people over, they'd be doing GOP primary voters a service.
Instead, they're doing their utmost to give Mitt Romney the nomination. The good news is that people are rejecting the media's attempts to hand Mitt the nomination. And yes, I'm talking about the liberal and the conservative media are tanking it for Mitt, albeit for different reasons.
The liberal Agenda Media is tanking it for Mitt because they know he's a lefty that they'll characterize as further left that President Obama. The conservative Agenda Media is tanking it for Mitt because they don't trust in the American people.
The reality is that, other than President Reagan, Newt's got the longest list of conservative accomplishments in modern history. In fact, it isn't really that close. Pundits whining about Newt's baggage are missing it. This election, the American people are looking for solutions to the crisis that this administration has created.
Yes, it's true that the recession started during the Bush administration. That isn't what I said, though. I said the crisis that this administration created.
Crises like the NLRB overstepping their bounds with Boeing. Crises like the EPA's attempt to shut down coal-fired power plants. Crises like this administration's attempt to control the health care and health insurance industries. Crises like chronic, longterm unemployment.
Newt's solutions are appealing. That's why GOP activists rallied to him. That's why Mitt refused to go toe-to-toe with Newt. The minute that the debate is between Newt and Mitt, Mitt loses. That's why Mssrs. Krauthammer and Rove don't want to talk about important things. They'd rather just talk about the horserace. They don't want to talk about Mitt's lack of veracity.
Considering all the advantages Mitt has in the strategists' checklist, he should be the prohibitive frontrunner. The fact that he's in the fight of his life against an underfunded candidate that strategists and pundits have rejected should speak volumes.
What's important to GOP activists is that Newt is a solutions-oriented conservative. Yes, you read that right. Newt's a conservative. Name me another politician with a list of conservative accomplishments over a longer period of time than Newt.
I won't hold my breath because I know the answer. That answer is that he stands alone atop that list. And it isn't even close.
Posted Friday, December 23, 2011 12:27 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 25-Dec-11 07:47 AM
"What's important to GOP activists is that Newt is a solutions-oriented conservative. Yes, you read that right. Newt's a conservative. Name me another politician with a list of conservative accomplishments over a longer period of time than Newt."
Barry Goldwater.
And he was an honest man, and respected even by those who held differing views. His consistency was respected.
ABA president fighting with a losing hand
William Robinson, the ABA's president, is fighting Newt Gingrich even though he's playing with a losing hand. Robinson's op-ed in the Des Moines Register is as defensive an op-ed as I've seen lately. Here's the opening paragraph to Robinson's op-ed:
Abolish courts. Ignore rulings. Impeach judges. These are just a few of the ideas Newt Gingrich has suggested to win over the Republican voters in Iowa.
Judges who issue rulings based on personal policy preferences rather than what the Constitution says should be impeached. As for Congress abolishing courts, Jeffrey Anderson's article is instructive:
Gingrich deserves credit for reminding Americans that , except for the Supreme Court (which was established by the Constitution), the entire federal judiciary was established and designed by Congress. As such, it can certainly be redesigned or reined in as necessary. In their early days, the federal courts, filled with Founders and those whom the Founders had appointed, were exemplary (despite attempts by modern law school professors to lump judges like the great John Marshall in with the policymaking judges of today).
Lawyers have, to a great extent, developed an attitude that the judiciary is a sacred cow that shouldn't be criticized under any circumstances. Last night, Catherine Crier was interviewed by Greta van Susteren on this subject. Catherine Crier's statements are lazy at best, dishonest at worst. Here's the first thing Catherine Crier said during her interview with Greta last night:
Well, I don't think we should even be having a discussion on this. We should simply condemn this type of conversation. This country is based on the rule of law as a founding principle and when he's attacking the third branch of government, this is more than an ideological debate. He is attacking the foundations of this constitutional republic and I think it's absolutely outrageous.
That's incendiary, inaccurate rhetoric. Mark Levin refuted the "constitutional foundation" of this nation when Mr. Levin ripped Ann Coulter's arguments to shreds . During his 10 minute dialogue, Levin explained that the SCOTUS is the only federal court created by the U.S. Constitution. He then explained that the lower courts were created by acts of Congress and that, theoretically speaking, they could be dismantled by passing a bill that abolishes several or all of the lower courts.
Later in the interview, Crier said this about Speaker Gingrich:
When he talks about radical, what he's talking about are rulings that he personally disagrees with.
That's intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Speaker Gingrich frequently mentioned Judge Biery of San Antonio. Speaker Gingrich didn't just throw a hissy fit because he didn't like Judge Biery's ruling. Speaker Gingrich criticized Judge Biery's ruling because he ignored the straightforward language of the First Amendment and clearly articulated recent rulings of the SCOTUS about prayer in public schools.
Since when does arguing for the verbatim text of the First Amendment constitute a situation where Newt is throwing a hissy fit based on personal ideology? For Ms. Crier's edification, here's the text of the First Amendment :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I agree with Ms. Crier that America "is based on the rule of law as a founding principle." I disagree with Ms. Crier when she implies that Speaker Gingrich's statements constitute an abandonment of the rule of law. It's clear that Newt's fighting for the rule of law and the Constitution and that Ms. Crier is fighting for a myth.
The reason why this argument is important is because the courts have been the tool of choice for progressive special interest organizations for tying America's economy in knots. When investors wanted to build the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant, progressive special interests litigated it to death. When PolyMet wanted to create high-paying jobs, progressive special interest organizations tied it up in the courts.
If the judiciary isn't reined in ASAP, progressive special interest organizations, along with the EPA and the NLRB, will tie America's economy in knots for a generation or longer.
It's troublesome when liberals like Ms. Crier misrepresent the truth. It's quite another when allegedly conservative candidates and pundits argue that Newt's following the Constitution and knowing the history of the judiciary is incendiary and radical.
By saying these things, Mitt and Ann Coulter are playing into the hands of the political correctness police. If there's anything that the political correctness police hate, it's people telling the real truth about this country's history. In fact, the political correctness police are frightened by people like Speaker Gingrich telling the truth about the judiciary.
Whether we're talking about Mr. Williams, Ms. Crier, Mitt Romney or Ann Coulter, if they're arguing against Speaker Gingrich's positions on the judiciary, they're fighting a losing fight against Speaker Gingrich, Mark Levin and Thomas Sowell.
Good luck winning that fight.
Posted Friday, December 23, 2011 3:53 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Dec-11 04:31 PM
Lets keep in mind the voters of Iowa went and swept out three state supreme court justices they got the first chance to make up for their ruling on gay marriage. Even if it seems stupid nationally this is apparently a winning issue for Newt in Iowa.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-11 07:08 PM
That's a good point, Walt. Thanks for the perspective. Merry Christmas, too.
Comment 3 by eric z at 25-Dec-11 07:43 AM
You do not like Citizens United, the far-fetched fiction of some, fools all, that "corporate persons" are to be the equivalent of humans when it comes to buying elections?
Good for you, Gary.
Those damned Federalist Society judges. Get a mob, get a rope? Get the impeachment petitions humming?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Dec-11 12:02 PM
Eric, Does the Fourth Amendment only protect people or does it protect corporations from unreasonable searches? Why do you think corporations should have their speech restricted? I don't recall the First Amendment saying this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, except with corporations, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Since the First Amendment doesn't expressly prohibit corporations from the same First Amendment rights as Gary Gross or Eric Zaetsch, it should be read that to mean that both corporations & people should have the right to speak. Without exception.
PS-The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with federalism. Federalism is the system that the Founding Fathers created. First, it's based on the belief that authority for governance comes only with the consent of the governed. Second, federalism is based on the belief that the first level of 'government' is the people because they grant power to "the several states", then to the federal government. Third, the Ninth & Tenth amendments list the federal government's enumerated powers (Ninth Amendment), then says that those things that aren't the federal government's responsibility are given to the states & to the people themselves (Tenth Amendment).
The theory behind federalism was that it's relatively easy for the distant federal government to not act in the best interest of individuals & that it'd be relatively difficult for the city councilman to raise your taxes or impose foolish regulations because there's a possibility that they'd have to explain themselves at the local grocery story.
I know that sounds quaint or archaic but that's a central issue in the principles of federalism.
Christmas: A night of humility & grandeur
When I think of Christmas, two things catch my attention every time.
The first thing that catches my attention is that the Christchild was born in the "mean estate" of a cave, which served as a stable for farm animals.
The other thing that's inescapable for me is that, while Christ exited Heaven and eternity and entered time and the world He created as a little child, God planned a great celebration for the shepherds in the hills surrounding Jerusalem.
It was a night of humility and a night of regal celebrations. Nowhere is this captured better than in the King James Version Bible and in the second chapter of Luke's Gospel:
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
Imagine the Man that the Bible calls "the King of kings and LORD or lords" being born in a rock cave on the outskirts of His Father David's city of Jerusalem.
Imagine the shepherds keeping watch of the sheep on a hillside well outside of Jerusalem. One minute, it's like any other night, routine, probably boring and cold. The next minute, angels and the heavenly host are telling them that they're part of the story of God's fulfillment of one of His most important prophesies.
These shepherds weren't part of the religious elites. In the order of their society, they were nobodies. Perhaps that's exactly why God chose to announce the birth of His Son to them.
It's pretty believable that the shepherds were "sore afraid." These shepherds were part of history, part of a story that's still being told 2,000+ years later.
Given these events, it isn't surprising that the shepherds "returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen."
I hope you experience the wonderment and grandeur of that regal night 2,000 years ago. Merry Christmas and God bless.
Posted Saturday, December 24, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 25-Dec-11 09:45 AM
Will there be ANYONE live blogging on the Tuesday GOP Senate confab? I understand it will be closed to outsiders, so that while you have live blogged other things that might not be possible for you.
The GOP leadership caucus, I expect you'd be a delegate and could live blog it.
Any intentions?
Comment 2 by LadyLogician at 25-Dec-11 09:54 PM
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China Eric - for gosh sake's it's Christmas.....
LL
Comment 3 by eric z. at 26-Dec-11 09:23 AM
LL - How about a big holiday celebration thing commemorating driving the money changers out to the Temple? For, against? It appears a significant step toward crucifixion, an attention gainer among powerful people of the time, and one of the earliest Gospel stories there is, on the timeline of Christmas birth to Easter.
Also, a celebration specifically keyed to the Sermon on the Mount would be valid.
Questions about Christmas
Last night, I wrote that Christmas is a study in humility and festival of spectacular grandeur . It's difficult to square the great humility of the Christchild's birthplace with the spectacular show God provided to the shepherds.
Is there a logic behind these events? I think there is.
First, Christ's birthplace is fitting in that Christ left the indescribable majesty of Heaven to become our Emmanuel, God with us. During His life, Christ experienced pain and sorrow, joy and triumph.
He didn't come as triumphant King, though he certainly became that at the end of his life. Israel was certainly looking for a triumphant king to lead them from military victory to military victory, in much the same way as King David did.
Second, there's a wonderful bit of logic behind the spectacular show given to the shepherds. By sending the angels and the Heavenly host to the shepherds, God signalled that His Indescribable Gift wasn't just for the religious elites but for all mankind, first to the Jews, then the Gentiles.
Eventually, word of Christ's birth was made known to the whole world.
God has a habit of exalting the lowly while lowering the exalted. What better way of showing that than through the Christchild's 'birthday announcement' to these lowly peasants?
Posted Sunday, December 25, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 26-Dec-11 09:57 AM
Any thoughts about the Book of Thomas, or Gospel of Thomas, you can check it out at gnosis.org
Pagels has a nice short book about it. It was somehow dropped out when the Romans were deciding what was good gsopel and bad, and the full manuscript was lost until the 20th Century discovery of Coptic texts at Nag Hammadi.
How about this - Patterson and Meyer translation:
5. Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"
6. His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"
Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed."
7. Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
8. And he said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"
A lot of things can be thought of to square with that, and as good teaching for today. Or for tomorrow, when the esteemed GOP Senators convene.
And making the lion human, and eating the big fish. Interesting parables.
Mitt, big gov't liberal?
I've thought for awhile that Mitt's a closet liberal who doesn't truly believe in limited government conservatism. After reading this article , though, I'm certain Mitt isn't a limited government conservative. For that matter, I'm certain that Mitt isn't a conservative. Here's why I think that:
On the other hand, even a skeptic like me has admitted that Romney's record in Massachusetts is difficult to assess because he was governor of a very left-wing state and he had to deal with a state legislature with heavy Democratic majorities.
That being said, there's a new development that suggests Romney may be an unacceptable alternative to Obama. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal , he basically said he is willing to consider a value-added tax for the United States.
'He says he doesn't 'like the idea' of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, 'particularly at the corporate level,' as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn't do is rule a VAT out.
In other words, Mitt's willing to keep the income tax intact, temporarily zero out the corporate tax rate, then let Democrats re-institute the corporate income tax the minute they regain their majorities.
What's worst is that Mitt's VAT is a gusher of new revenues just waiting to be spent on more redundant programs, unneeded bureaucracies and agencies and more payoffs to the Democrats' special interest allies. If you think Solyndra was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. That's kids' stuff compared to what they could do with the revenue from a VAT.
Mitt's willingness to even entertain the possibility of a VAT is disturbing enough. Couple that with Mitt's belief that state government bureaucrats, not families, should determine a family's health insurance purchases and you're painting a picture of someone who thinks that government, not people, should control people's lives.
That isn't conservatism. There's a different term for that. It's called big government progressivism.
Mitt's ability to briefly imitate a conservative is well-documented. His inability to consistently act like a conservative is more well-documented. That's the problem conservatives have with him.
Mitt's well-rehearsed conservative lines vs. his well-documented dalliances with progressive policies would fit perfectly into the Holiday Inn commercials. You know what I'm talking about. They're the ones where a person asks the actor, who's sitting in the helicopter pilot's seat, if he's ever flown. The actor replies "No, I haven't but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night."
Mitt isn't a conservative. He's participated in a Republican debates and acted like a conservative.
Posted Sunday, December 25, 2011 3:34 PM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 25-Dec-11 09:52 PM
When a Paul Wellstone type progressive like Rocky Anderson says that Mitt is "progressive" at heart well I just have to take that comment at more than just face value....
http://www.ladieslogic.com/component/content/article/20-president/718-mitt-hearts-rocky.html
Rocky is a progressive true believer and not a partisan hack - I take him at his word....
LL
Comment 2 by eric z. at 26-Dec-11 08:03 AM
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
You cannot make Mitt Romney a progressive, despite all effort that way. He's not.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Dec-11 09:24 AM
Eric:
1) Sanders & Kucinich aren't the final arbiters of who's a progressive.
2) Mitt called himself a progressive, a claim that Rocky Anderson, a Paul Wellstone progressive verified.
3) While Mitt isn't a hardline progressive like Sanders & Kucinich, that doesn't mean he isn't a progressive.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 26-Dec-11 08:04 AM
Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are progressives. Have you noted evidence of either embracing Mitt Romney?
They don't.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 26-Dec-11 09:28 AM
If one stretches "progressive" that far, then even Clinton or Obama could be called one, and I'd imagine that, for either, would get great debate among the many disappointed with Obama's conservatism when better things were anticipated, "HOPE" and "CHANGE" and all that stuff abandoned once in office.
Comment 5 by eric z. at 26-Dec-11 09:31 AM
Also, who's Rocky Anderson? I never heard of him. Rocky Balboa, yes, Rocky Anderson, no.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 26-Dec-11 10:10 AM
First, you would've known who Rocky Anderson is if you would've read the Lady Logician's post.
Next, Bill Clinton & President Obama are definitely progressives, with President Obama being the more rigid progressive.
That hardline progressives like Kucinich are upset with President Obama doesn't mean President Obama isn't a progressive. It means that he's upset that President Obama isn't radical enough for his tastes.
The reality is that President Obama is a jingoist in an empty suit.
Comment 7 by Kevin at 26-Dec-11 10:15 AM
It is really beginning to amaze me how far anti-Romney types are now reaching to attack him. 'He says he doesn't 'like the idea' of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, 'particularly at the corporate level,' as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago.
Hellooooo... He said he doesn't like it. Why does he have to say exactly what you want him to say? Why is it that if he doesn't say exactly what you want to say, he is a closet liberal? Is Paul Ryan a closet liberal? Cut me a break. Romney is plenty conservative. He has it totally together and is ready to take on Obama. You might want to consider getting on board.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Dec-11 10:35 AM
The fact that Mitt hasn't totally ruled VAT out says everything. Adding a VAT to the income tax is inviting a rapid increase in the size of government. It important to remember that President George H.W. Bush never proposed a tax increase. He just leaked it to the Democrats through John Sununu that he'd be willing to consider a tax increase. The next thing you know, Bill Clinton was beating President Bush over the head with "read my lips" ads.
Second, Ryan didn't propose a VAT. He proposed tax reform that resembles the 1986 tax reform known as TEFRA.
Third, Mitt, as governor, imposed expensive regulatory costs on coal-fired power plants, then imposed price controls on those power plants so that they'd take a major earnings hit. That isn't what conservatives do.
Fourth, Mitt ignored sanctuary cities the first 205 weeks of his administration. He didn't lift a finger to help until he was prepping himself for his presidential run.
Fifth, Mitt supported President Clinton's assault weapons ban. It wasn't until he prepared to run for president that he joined the NRA.
There's nothing in Mitt's political actions that says he's a conservative. NOTHING. There are lots of words that sound conservative but we both know how much we should trust a president's, or a presidential candidate's, words, don't we?
Finally, if Mitt's the nominee, he'll lose. Conservatives don't trust him. Mitt's policies run against all that the TEA Party stands for. Good luck getting their votes.
Response 7.2 by Gary Gross at 26-Dec-11 01:35 PM
BTW, I've been consistent. I criticized Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan because it added an additional revenue stream to the federal government's arsenal. Having both a national VAT or sales tax & a federal income tax system is a limited government conservative's worst nightmare. That's true whether it's Herman Cain's plan or Mitt Romney's plan or Paul Ryan's plan.
Comment 8 by Lady Logician at 26-Dec-11 02:27 PM
Who is Rocky Aderson? Eric sweetie -did you see the little linky thingy in my initial comment? If you follow it you will know everything you want about him.
Kevin - there are real questions to be answered about Romney. As a Utah resident I do find Anderson comments and ENDORSEMENTS OF Mitt Romney to be quite problematic. Anderson is a Progressive true believer a la Paul Wellstone. Those things do matter to serious voters.
Gov. Dayton gets hand caught in union thugs' slush fund jar
It's been the worst kept secret that Gov. Dayton is the best governor Big Labor's money could buy. When Sen. Parry criticized Gov. Dayton for being bought and paid for by union money, Gov. Dayton lost his temper. This article says that Sen. Parry has it exactly right:
Minnesota State Senator Mike Parry (R-Waseca) recently caused a stir with strong accusations against Governor Mark Dayton. 'It's no secret that the labor unions helped buy the Governor's Office for Mark Dayton: he began to return the favor, most recently by trying to help unionize some of Minnesota's in-home, private child care providers,' said Parry in a fundraising letter.
Sen. Parry's allegations elicited a strong reaction from Dayton, who called it 'inaccurate and deeply offensive.' A review of the facts, however, shows that the real reason the governor is so upset: the truth hurts.
Since 2005, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have been trying to organize child care providers Minnesota. Associated Press found that AFSCME wrote a $125,000 check to Gov. Dayton's Recount Fund once restrictive campaign contribution limits ceased. Combined AFSCME and SEIU PACs contributed $14,000 to Dayton during his campaign. The Minnesota Family Council calculates that Big Labor stands to gain up to $3.3 million a year in dues from unionizing child care providers.
Thanks to the AP's investigation into the unions' political contributions, Gov. Dayton has been exposed. Gov. Dayton's faux outrage won't play well now that it's been shown that Sen. Parry's accusations have been validated.
If not for ABM's months-long dishonest smear campaign, Mark Dayton would've lost the election by more than 20,000 votes instead of winning by 8,800.
More importantly, the information contained in the AP article raises questions of whether Gov. Dayton puts Minnesotans' interests first or if Gov. Dayton is putting the special interests' interests first.
The unions contributed $139,000 that we can verify to Gov. Dayton. In exchange, they stand to collect $3,300,000 a year in union dues if Gov. Dayton's special favor to the special interests goes through.
Wouldn't you like to make a one-time investment of $139,000, then get an annual return of $3,300,000 for the forseeable future? Wouldn't anyone?
It's important to remember that AFSCME and the SEIU aren't just PEU's. They're thugs, too. Here's what AFSCME did in Wisconsin :
Last month, Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar Store in Union Grove, Wis., was asked to display a pro-union sign in her window. Ms. Bobo, a self- described conservative Republican, refused and received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asking her to reconsider.
'Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business,' the letter said.
Here's what SEIU did in Maryland :
Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that, in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action, makes his family fair game.
Waving signs denouncing bank "greed," hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer's steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer's teenage son Jack, alone in the house, locked himself in the bathroom. "When are they going to leave?" Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.
Think about this. Gov. Dayton is trying his best to shove unionization down small businesses' throats. What's more is that he's standing up for unions that have a habit of threatening private citizens' 14-year-old kids. Not only that but Gov. Dayton is doing favors for union thugs that threaten to boycott businesses if they don't take the unions' side.
Simply put, Gov. Dayton is taking the thugs' sides. He should be rejected as a corrupt individual who sides with thuggish special interests rather than listening to the people. That's inexcusable.
Posted Monday, December 26, 2011 1:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 26-Dec-11 08:09 AM
I think it is remiss of the NRA and the Chamber of Commerce to not be helping Dayton along. They make it look as if he does not have their unyielding support. If they put their cash where their hearts are they'd probably draw right wing criticism too.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Dec-11 09:33 AM
Regarding Dayton, he isn't worthy of being Minnesota's governor. He's a quitter. He's the most corrupt governor since Rudy Perpich. He fights for his special interest allies but he won't fight for companies that'll actually create high-paying jobs. He hired Paul Aasen as MPCA chairman. Prior to that, Aasen's claim to fame was that he sued Big Stone II out of business. Thanks to that, Minnesotans are paying substantially higher electric bills.
That isn't standing with the people.
Gov. Dayton listened to Paul Thissen & Tom Bakk in rejecting the GOP offer. That caused the needless layoff of 23,000 state employees. That also caused month-long delays in road construction projects.
Gov. Dayton isn't Minnesota's "jobs governor." He's Minnesota's unemployment governor.
If that isn't enough, Gov. Dayton is so intent on paying off his special interest allies that he's willing to ignore Minnesota state statute in calling for unionization efforts.
Comment 2 by Tom Dwyer at 27-Dec-11 10:14 AM
You have to remember that Governor Mark Dayton never ran for office without the support of organized labor. In his race in 1982 for the U.S Senate and later for State Auditor he ran with labor endorsement. He ran in 2010 with labor endorsement what is the big secret about that. In the eight years that Tim Pawlenty was governor he ran with the support and money from the Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership. He was never once seen at a union gathering or convention during those eight years he held office. Very deceiving for a guy from a middle class family in South St Paul who's father was a blue collar worker. He must have forgot his roots.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 28-Dec-11 01:05 AM
Tom, does your union know that your grammar is this pathetic?
The face of NFL ineptitude
For years, the face of NLF ineptitude was the Detroit Lions. With the Lions looking to be on a longterm, dramatic upswing, the new face of NFL franchise ineptitude is the Minnesota Vikings.
Going into Saturday's game with the Redskins, the Vikings had a realistic shot at getting the top overall pick in the draft. This year, the NFL Entry Draft is subtitled "the Andrew Luck Sweepstakes" because Stanford's Andrew Luck is considered the best QB prospect to come out of college since Peyton Manning. Some scouts say he's the best QB prospect to come out of college since John Elway.
Either way, the Vikings would've held the rights to the jewel of the draft had they lost out & the Colts won their last game.
Instead, the Vikings screwed up a miserable season by a) defeating the Washington Redskins and b) watching Adrian Peterson, the dominant running back in the NFL, suffer a nasty knee injury.
Initial reports are that AP tore his ACL and that there's damage to the MCL, too. There's a distinct possibility that AP won't regain his dominant form again. It's more likely, though, that he'll return to 100% sometime in 2014.
As a result of Saturday's victory against Washington, there's a strong possibility that the Vikings will miss out on QB Luck, LT Matt Kalil, WR Justin Blackmon & CB Morris Claiborne.
That means that the Vikings will have lost out on the 4 top-of-the-blue-chip bluechippers in this draft. What's worst is that each of these players would've filled the void at a major position of need at a playmaking position.
That's on top of playing Peterson in a meaningless game. That's after thinking about losing a transcendant player like AP in a meaningless game.
Peterson had missed 3 straight games with a high ankle sprain, at minimum a painful injury that left him at less than 80%. What was the wisdom of playing AP in a meaningless game like Washington? Now AP's career is at a crossroads.
This Vikings fan just hopes they'll lose to 'Da Bears this Sunday. At least, then, they'll still get the third overall pick. At that point, they'd likely have their choice between Matt Kalil and Justin Blackmon.
At that point, too, they'd likely have alot of offers for their pick. When they get those offers, they should let it be known that they're perfectly content picking a dominant player who'll be a differencemaker for a decade. They should also let it be known that it'll take three-fourth's of a king's ransom to trade for their pick.
If the Vikings get the third pick, they'd be in a position of relative strength. If they hadn't won Saturday, they would've guaranteed themselves the high draft pick they could parlay into a dominant player or into a trade that would've turned this franchise around.
The Minnesota Vikings: the NFL's new name for franchise ineptitude.
Posted Monday, December 26, 2011 3:02 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 27-Dec-11 09:18 AM
NFL expertise. Breese breaking the Marino record, Monday Night Football, on a touchdown throw. Hollywood could not script it better.
I take it you equate ineptitude with not deserving a ton of taxpayer money for a new stadium?
Or do you reward ineptitude, because well fed it changes?
Some ratholes will never fill up regardless of how much fiat money gets poured down the hole.
