December 3-6, 2011
Dec 03 02:03 What Romney, Obama don't get about elections Dec 03 12:52 Cain Suspends Campaign Dec 04 12:00 Will's longstanding hatred of Gingrich boils over Dec 05 15:39 Judge Lindman scuttles Gov. Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME forced unionization schemes Dec 06 07:53 What they're saying about Judge Lindman's ruling Dec 06 08:29 Electability vs. the Enthusiasm Gap
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
What Romney, Obama don't get about elections
Mitt Romney's campaign fired up the proverbial printing presses highlighting the things they view as Newt's indiscretions. They're doing their best to ugly Newt up. There's no arguing that Newt is pure as the driven snow. He isn't. End of discussion on that topic.
If Newt wins the nomination, something that people deemed impossible this summer, Team Obama-Axelrod will undoubtedly launch a withering wave of attacks against Newt. They'll undoubtedly accuse him of wanting to feed poison to children, let corporations fill the air and water with the deadliest toxins imaginable.
They'll accuse Newt of harboring plans designed to destroy Medicare and Social Security. They'll accuse him of wanting to leave senior citizens destitute, hungry and homeless.
What that means is that Mitt and President Obama don't understand that, this election especially, elections are about the future. In 2006, the GOP message was essentially 'Vote for us, we don't suck as much as Democrats.'
Team O's campaign message will be similarly uninspiring. Their pitch will emphasize how radical Newt is, how he'll protect billionaires while hurting the middle class and the 'poorest amongst us'.
Newt's message is always solutions-focused and information-based. That's important. In 2009, Bob McDonnell ran a picture perfect campaign and won in a landslide. As a result of running that type of campaign, McDonnell got 75% of self-identified independents.
Being the astute political observer that he is, Newt picked up on that and is running a similar campaign. That's why, when independents start deciding between President Obama and Speaker Gingrich, independents will pick Speaker Gingrich. Nonideological voters are impressed by reasonable-sounding solutions to their biggest worries.
By offering solutions, Newt is making his now-infamous "baggage" relatively irrelevant. The people that live for salacious gossip aren't voting for Newt anyway so why worry about them? People that are unemployed or that worry about whether they'll have a job a month from now are looking for a solutions-oriented president.
Right now, that person is Newt Gingrich. He's laid out his energy proposal, his plans to reduce regulations, cut taxes and create jobs. Whereas Mitt "looks presidential", Newt looks like a solutions factory. When the time comes, President Obama will attempt to scare people into not voting for Newt.
The gift Newt's had for decades is to counterpunch against his opponents' attacks, then maximizing the opportunity by putting his opponent on the defensive.
The other thing that Team Mitt and Team O can't grasp is that Newt poses a totally different set of challenges. Mitt Romney wouldn't push President Obama off his comfort spot, though he might just outclass President Obama. Similarly, Mitt has occasionally caught his 2nd tier candidates off-balance. He can't do that with Newt.
Posted Saturday, December 3, 2011 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 03-Dec-11 10:29 AM
"They're doing their best to ugly Newt up. There's no arguing that Newt is pure as the driven snow. He isn't. End of discussion on that topic."
It might be the end of your discussion on it, but others believe leopards do not change their spots - and that heavyhanded painting of stripes over the spots, or whatever metaphor you'd prefer, does not change the spots it only attempts to cover them up.
Comment 2 by DavidC at 03-Dec-11 11:32 AM
What you don't get about elections is that voters of all stripes are looking for the truth. It isn't always easy to find. Disclosing the truth about an opposing candidate is one way to get at the truth. If Romney over does it, he will suffer. But he won't over do it. He will simply remind voters that Newt is a creature of Washington. He is a 40 year member of the elite political class. An insider of the first order. When that 'truth' sinks in, the voters will discount Newt's run up in the polls. When the voters realize he is just another guy who went to Washington as an elected representative, then retired, then got rich by working connections, lobbying and compromising on every core belief he ever pretended to hold, they mighty hold that against him as well.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Dec-11 11:47 AM
1. Mitt's a career politician, too. The difference is that Newt kept getting re-elected. Romney kept trying to get elected but kept losing.
2. Calling Newt an elitist is pathetic. Newt's DC accomplishments, which are many, remind people that he's anti-status quo. In 1995, Newt led the fight to make the laws that Congress passes apply to Congress. That's the first time a politician has led such a fight. Today's insider trading scandal wouldn't have happened if Newt's law had been obeyed. That's your definition of elitist?
3. If unemployment was 6%, Newt likely wouldn't stand a chance. The unemployment rate would be 11% if the workforce participation rate was the same as it was the day President Obama took office. Because Newt helped craft 4 straight balanced budgets, Newt is getting the attention he deserves.
4. When people find out that Mitt was too cowardly to debate Newt one-on-one, they'll see him as the coward he really is.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 03-Dec-11 01:44 PM
Gary, Mitt made his money at Bain. Newt made his lobbying. You're trying to call apples oranges. Mitt stayed at Bain, then left, then became a career politician. That's a transition. It is not a revolving door.
Cain Suspends Campaign
Herman Cain just announced that "After much prayerful consideration, I have decided to suspend my campaign." Later in the speech, Cain said that later today, he's "launching the CainSolutions.com". I just tried the website. It doesn't appear to exist, though I can't say conclusively that it doesn't exist.
Posted Saturday, December 3, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment 1 by Joe at 03-Dec-11 08:13 PM
Cain's campaign has died today, but I hope many of the ideas he had remain alive and are implemented when Obama is ousted.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Dec-11 08:25 PM
I agree, though I hope 9-9-9 died, too.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing, at 04-Dec-11 08:40 AM
I don't think 9-9-9 was ever thoroughly thought out, but the fundamental idea behind it is, I think, an excellent idea. In particular, I thought the idea of everybody paying SOME level of tax was good, and the 9% corporate rate would be good for business. The introduction of the FAIR tax at a low rate, while the 16th amendment was being repealed in the states, was to me a great transitional move. I just don't think Mr. Cain thought through the details of what constitutes income, and what few exemptions might be allowed for any of the taxes. He did suggest that he wouldn't allow a business expense deduction for equipment purchased outside the US. That's pretty bad foreign AND economic policy, IMHO.
My concern here has always been that the Left, whether organized from the White House or not, should never be allowed to drive our candidates from the field with such scurrilous lies and character assassinations. We know it's Obama's stock in trade and only real talent. I hope it costs him, somehow.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-11 11:06 AM
Jerry, 9-9-9 had one 9 too many. Until the 16th Amendment is repealed, nobody should ever think about a national sales tax.
What's worse is having a Republican propose it. That gives Democrats tons of political cover to say that they're just raising the rates on the taxes that Republicans created.
Finally, Democrats didn't drive Herman Cain from the race. Herman Cain drove himself from the race. The allegations just hastened the process.
Herman Cain's ineptitude on national security is frightening. While this election is about jobs, there's no getting around the fact that top tier candidates have to show that they can competently respond to international crises. Cain didn't come close to proving that he was capable of that.
I just read that a Democratic strategist who's worked on the Clinton, Gore, Kerry & Obama presidential campaigns is predicting that President Obama will lose Pennsylvania.
If that's true, then President Obama's political career is essentially finished.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 04-Dec-11 04:32 PM
That Welch woman did not have a Sugar Daddy. She had a Sugar Cain.
Sweet, eh?
Comment 5 by eric z. at 04-Dec-11 04:34 PM
Seriously, who benefits from Cain's stepping back?
I think Bachmann, Santorum and Perry have faded too far back, and in Santorum's case, that was a fade from 3% to lower.
So, Gingrich? Ron Paul?
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-11 10:35 PM
Cain's endorsing Newt tomorrow.
Comment 7 by J. Ewing at 05-Dec-11 10:13 AM
I still disagree. You have the media chasing Cain from the race based on these outrageous and most likely entirely false but incendiary charges. Mr. Cain WAS weak in a number of policy areas and would have faded back into the pack of candidates as this became known. I don't like the media picking our candidates; I especially don't like them slandering one for fun and profit. Let US choose.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Dec-11 12:05 PM
Jerry, the media didn't chase Cain from the race. They just sped up his departure.
Comment 8 by J. Ewing at 05-Dec-11 06:34 PM
Potatoe, potato. Would Cain be leaving the race at this point had the media done the kind of in-depth silence on these flimsy allegations as they did on the far more substantial scandals between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers, or Obama and Rev. Wright?
Comment 9 by eric z at 06-Dec-11 07:46 AM
Cain endorsing Newt is an interesting thing, if it happens. Will there be a press release from Cain, from Gingrich, or from both? A beltway outsider endorsing the quintessential beltway revolving door inside operator, one earning great wealth by working the levers, once sanctioned for ethics abuses while in Congress, seems to discount an awful lot of what Cain's previously told news outlets and the press. How does it square? How will it play out from that angle? Will the press even notice the contradictions?
Comment 10 by eric z at 06-Dec-11 10:47 AM
Andy at Residual Forces seems to see a Cain endorsement of Gingrich as a career killer. How is he wrong?
Comment 11 by J. Ewing at 06-Dec-11 11:55 AM
Well, I know which side you are on, eric, when you mention the ethics charges by Nancy Pelosi, of which Newt was completely exonerated. Of course you didn't hear about that from the MSM, and you won't hear about it when those charges are brought up over and over again by the Obama campaign. Democrats play politics Chicago style. The best we Republicans can do is hold up the mirror and hope the voting public notices the Dorian Gray.
Will's longstanding hatred of Gingrich boils over
It's a well-known fact that George Will has hated Newt Gingrich for at least 2 decades. It's unfortunate that a brilliant man would be so filled with hate that he's let that hatred spill into his latest column so badly. I've been reading Will's columns for a quarter century. This is one of his worst. Here's what he said:
Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.
Newt's more liberal than Mitt? More liberal than Huntsman? More liberal than Ron Paul? Mr. Will's hatred has affected his thinking to such an extent that he's losing credibility.
Does Mr. Will think that balancing the federal budget 4 straight years is proof of Newt's liberalism? Does Mr. Will think that helping pass the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that triggered the explosive job growth of Reagan's administration is proof that Newt's a liberal?
What's worst is that Mr. Will didn't stop there. In fact, he lost tons of credibility in saying this:
Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how.
Making a statement like that isn't just stupid. It's beyond provable.
Mr. Will's sloppy statements plead with us to ignore that Newt's original Contract With America wasn't Marxist. Mr. Will's statements beg us to ignore the fact that Newt's 21st Century Contract With America is actually muscular capitalism. Mr. Will wants us to think that cutting the corporate tax rates from 35% to 12.5% tilt towards Marxism, that eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes aren't capitalist economic principles.
That's before talking about Newt's desire to terminate the EPA and neuter the NLRB and the FCC. Marxism wouldn't think about eliminating the tools that would allow the central government to inhibit manufacturing while giving bureaucrats the ability to control our communications while telling corporations what they can and can't do.
After spending the opening of his column ripping Newt, he then turns his attention to praising Gov. Perry and Gov. Huntsman. Here's what he said about Gov. Huntsman:
Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan's budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan's Medicare reform as 'right-wing social engineering.') Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich's benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.
It's true that Gov. Huntsman's policies sound conservative. His difficulties start with the fact that he's governed as a liberal. Policies are just words on a piece of paper. Conservatism is based on a person's actions, not their words.
On that basis, Gov. Huntsman is a liberal. That's before considering his national security beliefs are as pacifistic as Jimmy Carter's and Ron Paul's.
Mr. Will's judgment is impaired by his hatred of Newt Gingrich. That's the only explanation for his making the unsubstantiated statements he made in this column.
Posted Sunday, December 4, 2011 12:00 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 04-Dec-11 04:31 PM
Progressives have been saying for as many decades that George Will is a blow hard. It is good to see the realization spreading.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-11 10:35 PM
Will isn't a blowhard. He's a very intelligent person & a true conservative. It's just that his bias got the better of him this time.
Judge Lindman scuttles Gov. Dayton, SEIU, AFSCME forced unionization schemes
A short time ago, Judge Dale Lindman ruled that Gov. Dayton overstepped his authority in issuing his executive order calling for the unionization of in-home child care providers:
A Ramsey County judge on Monday blocked a unionization vote by Minnesota child care workers that was to get underway this week, saying the issue must go through the state Legislature.
State attorneys representing Gov. Mark Dayton argued that the Democratic governor exceeded his powers with the executive order setting up the election.
" If unionization of day care is to become the law of Minnesota, it must first be submitted to the lawmaking body of the state ," Judge Dale Lindman said after hearing three hours of testimony.
While this isn't the final fight in this power struggle, it's certainly an important first step. Sen. David Hann issued this statement after Judge Lindman's ruling:
'We agree with and support today's ruling by Judge Lindman to halt the day care union election from proceeding. We thank the providers for taking the time and effort to stand up for their rights as independent, privately-owned and managed day care providers. Judge Lindman expressed concern for the governor's desire to create law through executive order, a process we believe is unlawful. It's our hope that the day care providers will also prevail in the final ruling.'
Left unsaid was that the legislature would have to change the definition of public employees. That'll be difficult because because they're independent businesspeople.
Sen. Mike Parry issued this statement on Judge Lindman's ruling:
'We are very encouraged by Judge Lindman's decision to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the child care provider unionization election. As we repeatedly stated, it is our belief that the governor, his administration, and the Bureau of Mediation Services do not have the authority to hold this vote. Although this is not a final ruling on the matter, this initial decision is a positive step forward for our hard working, independently owned, private day care providers. Additionally, we thank the providers for challenging the governor on his overreach, and we will continue to support them,' commented Sen. Parry.
I thought that this part of Sen. Parry's statement was especially noteworthy:
During the hearing and in his decision, Judge Dale Lindman reflected concerns brought forward by the Senate in its amicus brief. Specifically, Judge Lindman questioned Gov. Dayton's circumvention of the legislature and expressed concerns about excluding nearly 7,000 providers from participating in the vote.
There's little doubt that the SEIU, AFSCME and the Dayton administration will appeal this ruling. Still, Judge Lindman's ruling is so consistent with Minnesota state statutes' definition of who is and who isn't a public employee that it's difficult to see his ruling overturned.
Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch issued this statement supporting Judge Lindman's ruling:
'I am pleased to hear Judge Lindman agreed to block the day care union election, ordered by Governor Dayton, from proceeding this week. The unionization of child care providers has been a long-time goal of AFSCME and SEIU and the Governor's attempt appears to be payoff for political support he received from those unions in the 2010 election,' said Senator Koch.
'Minnesota's private child care providers represent the type of entrepreneurship that we encourage in today's economy. What we don't need is government overreaching into an already highly and carefully regulated industry to expand the power and influence of public union organizations in the state. Decisions regarding our children's care should be made between parents and their child care providers. I will continue to support small businesses and work to prevent out of control government interference in their efforts to grow and create jobs.'
Sen. Parry's statement and Sen. Hann's statement were strong statements. Still, Sen. Koch's statement was the best at reminding people what's at stake in this fight. Sen. Koch did a great job of reminding people that public employee unions, in concert with Gov. Dayton, tried expanding their influence beyond where the law allowed them to go.
Sen. Koch's statement reminded people that child care already was one of the most carefully regulated industries in Minnesota. They certainly don't need a major onslaught of union-negotiated regulations on top of the regulations they're already dealing with.
This is a major victory but it's just the first step. Still, Judge Lindman's ruling was solid because it confirmed the definition of who is and who isn't a public employee.
Posted Monday, December 5, 2011 3:39 PM
No comments.
What they're saying about Judge Lindman's ruling
Yesterday, I wrote this post citing the statements from Sen. Majority Leader Amy Koch, Sen. David Hann and Sen. Mike Parry. Here's a quote I received from in-home child care provider Hollee Saville:
It sounds like the judge agrees that Governor Dayton overstepped his authority by signing this executive order and we're hopeful that our freedoms will be affirmed by the judge at the January 17th hearing. This is about self-employed business owners being forced to unionize through a vote that they did not want and one in which more than 7,000 out of 11,300 were not allowed to express their opinions.
It's been more than a full-time job working to educate providers about the facts; the providers pushing for unionization are paid union employees, but we've been SPENDING our own money to get the truth to providers and the public. We already have so many awesome organizations working for us; I hope that providers who think they don't have a voice reach out to other providers and these associations so they can see how we can all work together to improve the lives of childcare providers and the children for whom we care, all without the costs and detriments of unionization.
The unions certainly have pounded the message that they're the only people who can successfully negotiate with these independent businesses' best interest at heart.
Think of how silly that sounds. When's the last time that unions' highest priority was a business's best interest? Better yet, has there been a time when the unions' highest priority was a business's best interest?
Annette Meeks of the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota issued this statement :
Today's developments are great news for the scores of childcare providers from across Minnesota who have worked tirelessly to preserve their independence and fight against a coercive and intrusive unionization scheme by the governor and labor unions.
For the past year, the Freedom Foundation has worked alongside providers who have asked for nothing more than to be left alone by the unions and by state government. Instead they've been targeted by an unwanted, unwarranted, and unfair campaign by union operatives. We're pleased that, at least for now, that campaign is on hold.
Instead of looking for ways to reward his labor allies at the expense of small businesses and families, perhaps now the governor will focus instead on pro-growth policies and improving our state's economic climate.
Gov. Dayton and the unions pursued this with the same disregard for what the people wanted as President Obama pursued Obamacare. In-home child care providers didn't welcome this development. A handful of the state's 11,300 in-home child care providers wanted it but it certainly wasn't something that the majority of them wanted.
That's why Gov. Dayton attempted to rig the vote :
About 2,300 of the providers are organizing with Council 5's Child Care Providers Together. That includes providers in Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis Counties, and most other counties in the northern two-thirds of the state. SEIU is organizing providers in other parts of the state.
Getting people in Ramsey, Hennepin and St. Louis counties to sign a unionization card isn't exactly difficult. It's substantially more difficult to get signatures in stoic central Minnesota. That's why Gov. Dayton limited the voting to 4,287 child care providers.
Here's the statement issued by the Minnesota Free Market Institute:
Why are the childcare owners a legitimate target of public unions? They are not state employees or employers-and there is no common or single employer to collectively bargain against as they are employed by parents, not the state. This is crazy stuff but the unions have already succeeded in other states so we have to take this seriously.
I heard Gov. Dayton say that we and other opponents were against elections (apple pie, children, and his new puppy. You get the idea). Yes, we are against elections that are not lawful.
Let's suppose that a majority of licensed chiropractors (or dentists or doctors) wanted to unionize so they could get higher subsidies for patient care and other benefits from the state. Would that be lawful? Of course not - and those professionals would fight to fend off any union campaign just like these daycare providers have done. But childcare providers do not have paid lobbyists working for them - they are busy taking care of children and running their own businesses. The last thing they need is a knock on the door from their local AFSCME or SEIU rep.
(We keep hearing stories about union organizers coming during lunch or other busy times - pretending that the union card is just for information, rather than signing 'yes' to join. Really ethical behavior. Shows a lot of respect for these busy business owners. My advice? Call the cops and report them as trespassers.)
SEIU and AFSCME have been pictures of unethical behavior. And yes, it's been documented multiple times. AFSCME and the SEIU don't care about the child care providers. They want what they want when they want it.
Everything that needs to be said about how popular this is is shown by the fact that the DFL didn't issue a statement on Judge Lindman's ruling . As of 7:30 am Tuesday am, their last news post was about the budget forecast. Ditto with the Alliance for a Better Minnesota's website .
Posted Tuesday, December 6, 2011 7:53 AM
Comment 1 by Andy Driscoll at 07-Dec-11 09:10 PM
I was given to understand that Lindman's own words included a confirmation of Dayton's authority to issue such an Executive Order. He just didn't like it. Perhaps this sort of truth should accompany your quotes from Republican politicos, whether they agree with you or not. Shall we be fair to the facts in this case (and all others).
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-11 09:27 PM
The words allegedly spoken by Judge Lindman aren't words I've read in any of the articles I've seen. If I see those words, they'll get included.
Electability vs. the Enthusiasm Gap
Thus far, most pundits have focused on whether Mitt's more electable or if Newt's the more electable. They're focusing on the wrong thing. The thing that these pundits should focus on is the enthusiasm gap.
Mitt's supporters undoubtedly are loyal. They write big checks, too. It's just that Mitt's support isn't passionate. Mitt's supporters aren't the type to man the phones or drop literature. Mitt's supporters write checks, then disappear.
Despite his flaws, Newt's supporters will run through walls for him. That's provable by the fact that most of his fundraising has come from online contributions.
These are people who were inspired by Newt's message and intrigued by Newt's debating skills. They're people who'd love to see Newt vs. Obama in a Lincoln-Douglas debate.
Much is made of the fact that Mitt's got an experienced organization and that he's a proficient fundraiser. While those are worthy considerations, they aren't the most important considerations. As then-Sen. Biden once said, "A leader without any followers is just a guy out for a walk."
Newt's got enthusiastic followers. They aren't blind to Newt's faults. It's that they're convinced by his accomplishments. Somebody with the active mind that Newt has will make alot of questionable statements during the course of 35 years in public life. That's why his statements aren't troubling to his supporters.
Another reason why Newt's statements haven't sounded his death knell is because he's never stopped questioning the status quo. At a time when Washington is broken, we need an administration that's forever challenging the status quo.
That guy isn't Mitt, a man who's lived his life within the status quo, who's accepted conventional wisdom.
In the end, people will flock to the guy who's got original ideas to change Washington. They'll flock to the guy who's gotten important things done, things that made him a conservative hero.
That's why the enthusiasm gap drives the electability issue. Right now, the enthusiasm gap doesn't just favor Newt. It blows Mitt away.
Posted Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:29 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Dec-11 01:31 PM
Lincoln-Douglas debates?
Newt Gringich, the new Abe Lincoln?
Overreaching. Quite far.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Dec-11 02:35 PM
Newt has an ego but he doesn't have an Obama-sized ego. President Obama is the guy who announced his candidacy in Springfield, IL, then pretended to wrap himself in Lincoln's heritage. Newt's just interested in 7 debates with President Obama that follow the pattern of Abe Lincoln & Stephen Douglas. He wants these debates to be without a moderator, just with a timekeeper. If that's the format that's used, President Obama will get dissected because his words sound nice but his actions prove that he's a radical.
That isn't overreach. It's just a great strategy because it'll expose President Obama as the inept president he is.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Dec-11 01:32 PM
Gary. Prove it.
Run through a wall for us, huh?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Dec-11 02:29 PM
Read what I wrote. Online contributions don't come in through active solicitations. They come in because people step up & say they believe in you.
Comment 3 by eric z at 06-Dec-11 04:18 PM
There's an old legal caution about assuming facts not in evidence.
I would expect the format would be the GOP nominee, the challenger, debating the incumbent.
Until the nominee is decided Newt will have to settle with debating Trump. Later he might watch Obama - Romney debates.
Right now, I could not say who the nominee would be.
Comment 4 by MplsSteve at 06-Dec-11 05:02 PM
Gary, I can't argue with your post.
However (at the risk of hijacking a thread), I really want to know what you think of Sutton's resignation and the apparent start of infighting (Emmer v Seifert) among Central Committee members.
Will you be posting on this issue at all? I am legitimately curious as to what your thoughts are.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Dec-11 07:38 PM
MplsSteve & Eric, I wouldn't hesitate in writing something about Tony Sutton's resignation if I had insight into what triggered his resignation or what might happen after this, etc. I'm a conservative & a GOP activist but I'm not that up on the inner workings of the State GOP Executive Committee or the State Central Committee.
I'm more interested in issue advocacy than party mechanics.
Comment 5 by eric z at 06-Dec-11 05:25 PM
I vote with MplsSteve. Not to hijack the thread, but your views of things are generally insightful, even when we don't see eye-to-eye, and on MSteve's question, I am entirely an outsider looking in, one loving good gossip.
Please, soon, favor your fan base with a post. If not immediately - not while most of the dust is settling - at least, please, soon.
I thought Doug Grow at MinnPost had a good report.
Comment 6 by MplsSteve at 07-Dec-11 08:41 AM
Gary, Mitch Berg is not on the State Central Committe either (at least I'm pretty sure he's not) and that has not stopped him from posting his thoughts.
Your thoughts are every bit as legit as any other blogger out there. Maybe more so.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-11 09:06 AM
Mitch is much more informed on State Central workings than I am.
Comment 8 by eric z at 07-Dec-11 01:57 PM
You are more analytical and less emotional than Berg.
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-11 04:08 PM
With all due respect, Eric, I can't agree with that statement. Mitch is more than a little analytical. You just haven't noticed it yet.
