December 5-7, 2016
Dec 05 02:13 The DFL's dilemma Dec 05 07:42 Trump nominates Carson for HUD Dec 05 07:51 Moveon.org still is influential Dec 05 08:56 Anarchists, Democrats & DAPL Dec 06 01:49 Democrats to commit political suicide? Dec 06 05:00 Democrats' anti-democratic tactics Dec 06 15:24 Democrats' DefSec dilemma Dec 07 10:26 BMS, PCAs vs. the SEIU Dec 07 16:19 DAPL fundamentals
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
The DFL's dilemma
This article questions why the DFL underperformed the Twin Cities' media's expectations. Honestly, I thought things turned out pretty much like I expected them to turn out.
To be fair, I didn't think Trump would be that competitive against Mrs. Clinton. I knew Mr. Trump would trounce Mrs. Clinton in rural Minnesota. I figured that would help Republicans flip the Senate and hold the House.
The Strib outlines the history when it says just "eight years ago, the DFL helped make comedian Al Franken a U.S. senator, held 87 Minnesota House seats to 47 for Republicans and earned a national reputation as a fertile breeding ground for top Democratic political talent." What's missing from the article is the fact that the DFL reflexively tried raising taxes each year since 2007. Furthermore, they passed MNsure in 2013 when there were DFL majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate and a DFL governor. In addition to creating MNsure and raising taxes, the DFL used taxpayer money to build the Senate Office Building, an ornate building that didn't need to be built.
Beyond that, the DFL pushed forced unionization down in-home child care providers down their throats. They killed the Sandpiper Pipeline through northern Minnesota. After Minnesotans insisted that the legislature fix Minnesota's roads and bridges, the DFL insisted that we build the Southwest Light Rail, too. When Republicans listened to Minnesotans' priorities, the DFL derailed the transportation bill. In short, the DFL stopped listening to the people.
Despite high hopes for a crushing victory against Donald Trump that would also deliver wins in congressional and legislative races, the DFL lost seats in the Minnesota House, falling deeper into the minority, while surrendering control of the Senate, which was thought to be a bulwark against GOP legislative influence in St. Paul.
These losses came despite a lopsided advantage in party organization and a reliable cadre of wealthy donors that helped the DFL employ 250 people across two dozen field offices. The Alliance for a Better Minnesota, a progressive group that backs DFL candidates, had spent $3.6 million on TV, radio, digital and mail ads as of late October, even before the final two weeks of the race.
All for naught.
"I mean, you know, it's a bummer," said Susie Merthan, a spokeswoman for Alliance for a Better Minnesota, which has become a model for progressive campaigns around the country. Now, DFL elected officials, party strategists and operatives are surveying the losses, which were especially acute in outstate Minnesota, but extended to suburbs once thought safely blue.
Here's a note to Susie Merthan: If the DFL doesn't change its ways, it should expect to lose lots of elections. People don't want to be preached to. They don't want to be told that the intelligentsia knows better. Right now, the DFL is the party that thinks they know what's best.
Posted Monday, December 5, 2016 2:13 AM
No comments.
Trump nominates Carson for HUD
Minutes ago, President-Elect Donald Trump announced that he's nominating Dr. Ben Carson to be his HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Secretary .
In his statement, President-Elect Trump said "I am thrilled to nominate Dr. Ben Carson as our next Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ben Carson has a brilliant mind and is passionate about strengthening communities and families within those communities. We have talked at length about my urban renewal agenda and our message of economic revival, very much including our inner cities. Ben shares my optimism about the future of our country and is part of ensuring that this is a Presidency representing all Americans. He is a tough competitor and never gives up."
Dr. Carson's story is an inspirational story. In this article , Carson talked about growing up in Detroit, saying "Both of my older cousins died on the streets where I lived. I thought that was my destiny. But my mother didn't. She changed all of that. She saved my brother and me from being killed on those streets with nothing but a library card."
Dr. Carson will be an important part of President-Elect Trump's outreach to African-American communities. I expect he'll play an important part in revitalizing major urban centers economically. In the past, HUD secretaries have been bit players, with Jack Kemp being the exception. Further, I expect Democratic special interest groups to criticize him because he represents a different type of thinking. In the end, though, I expect him to win confirmation with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Posted Monday, December 5, 2016 7:42 AM
No comments.
Moveon.org still is influential
Saturday afternoon, Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, appeared on Fox News to talk about the incoming Trump administration. Saying that his presentation was nothing but the typical litany of progressive chanting points is understatement. After the interview, I visited MoveOn.org's website. What I found was what I expected to find. One interesting thing that I found was this statement supporting Nancy Pelosi's re-election as House Minority Leader. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I wholeheartedly agree.
Their statement said, in part, "Progressives are also counting on congressional Democrats to express a populist and inclusive vision for the future that speaks to Americans across lines of race, class, and geography - a vision for how we can build a democracy that isn't run by corporations, and an economy that works for everybody, not just those at the top, and a country where all Americans' rights are respected and equal opportunity is protected. We believe that Nancy Pelosi is best positioned to lead House Democrats in this direction, and support her candidacy for Democratic Leader."
It's nice to know that MoveOn.org is working hard to solidify the Republicans' majority in the US House of Representatives. They're also working hard to strengthen the Republican Party for the next 4 years. That's what they're doing if this statement is accurate:
The DNC must clean house and the new chair must stand up to all efforts by Trump and Republicans to move their harmful and bigoted agenda, which lost the national popular vote. At the same time, the DNC must connect with the grassroots of the party base that wants the party to reject corporate influence and advance an inclusive, progressive agenda that will energize voters and grow our base in 2017, 2018, and beyond. To do this, we need to bring back a real 50-state organizing strategy. Rep. Keith Ellison would be an excellent DNC chair.
FOOTNOTE: Keith Ellison just said that he's open to leaving Congress if he's elected as the next chairman of the DNC .
Finally, there's this :
More than 250 million Americans did not choose Trump. In fact, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. The millions of us - MoveOn members and allies - who spent countless hours knocking on doors, making phone calls, and defending democracy can be proud of what we did together.
There's no doubt that MoveOn.org is trying to restore morale after a demoralizing defeat. That's fine. In college sports, winning the popular vote but losing the election is sometimes called a moral victory. In pro sports, though, it's still thought of as a defeat.
This is the video of Wikler's interview:
That communication style is why Democrats lost the last election.
Posted Monday, December 5, 2016 7:51 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 05-Dec-16 10:35 AM
Here's a response to the "popular vote" argument: Had Nancy Pelosi's California not been counted in the popular vote, Trump would have WON the popular vote by two million votes! So who does the popular vote winner currently represent? California or the other 49 states?
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Dec-16 11:16 AM
Jerry, why bother?
---
Gary, it was a disappointment to see Pelosi reappointed, but it's been done, it's not your party making the other party's bad choices, so what's the point in noting it?
A person closer to the grassroots would have been a happier thing, but since it's history; we should "move on."
I recall "Never Trump" posting on this very blog; where it was appropriate to focus upon your party's ways and means.
Focusing upon the corporatist branch of the Democratic Party and its having a sorrowful continued dominance of that party's control, despite the quintessential Dem corporatist being drubbed at the polls seems to strengthen Dem grassroots. Is that your intent?
I can see wisdom to advocating each party having a focus and intent to serve its grassroots rather than oligarchs, but if you are that pro-oligarch why in the world did you ever oppose TRUMP and why in the world do you not love corporatists such as Pelosi and Feinstein? The Feinstein spouses, they're oligarchs in power already. I for one would favor an upgrade. Another Barbara Boxer being in mind.
As to Ellison's willingness to switch seats instead of holding two, CD5 is as secure a Dem place as CD2, and at least there's action beyond paycheck collection out of CD5, so be careful what changes you'd welcome.
It's like happiness about Col. Kline finally stepping down being quelled by the Jason Lewis vote.
Or do you seriously contend Ellison stepping down would put CD5 in play?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Dec-16 11:36 AM
The only way CD-5 isn't a safe DFL seat is because Minnesota lost another congressional district in reapportionment in 2020. That district wouldn't be the same geographically, though.
Anarchists, Democrats & DAPL
This weekend, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that they had refused the final permit to build the Dakota Access Pipeline . What they didn't (couldn't?) say was that a federal court ruled that "the project already has court approval."
The Army Corps of Engineers' ruling isn't the final say in the matter. It's the Obama administration's last official show of support for environmental activists. It's proof that the Obama administration is the most anti-energy, anti-infrastructure administration in US history .
Predictably, a great celebration erupted at the protest site. One protester, Adan Bearcub, said "this is the best news that I've heard forever - best news for Native people, native country, the whole United States - all the people. Water is so precious." The article notes that it "would be a very big surprise indeed were Mr. Trump not to try to reverse a move by the Corps of Engineers." Since the project already has court approval, it isn't difficult to picture this as a temporary victory for the Standing Rock Sioux and the environmental activists:
What's important is that the militant-anarchist wings of the environmental movement have been exposed as always opposed to every pipeline project. They've proven that there isn't a tactic they won't try. These protester-anarchists don't care about the rule of law. Their primary principal is winning at all costs. If that means breaking the law, then that's what they'll do. That's what they've already done.
It's important that thoughtful people reject the anarchists' evil ways. People talk about how divided a nation we are. They needn't look farther than these anarchists/criminals to see society's institutions under attack. Without the rule of law, division flourishes and contempt for each other multiplies. There's nothing good that comes from this.
Posted Monday, December 5, 2016 8:58 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 05-Dec-16 10:07 AM
The Obama Administration goes out with the purest of environmental credentials. The flipside is that this hands Trump a spectacular early victory in the war to make America great again.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 05-Dec-16 10:37 AM
And it is all just stupid. There is no danger to the reservation's water supply since the crossing is downstream and not even on tribal land. All the environmental reviews have been passed.
Comment 3 by eric z at 05-Dec-16 10:51 AM
If the pipeline gets built, it will be on Trump's watch. And under his stewardship.
What's wrong with that? It's his class pushing it, make it their total responsibility.
What's your point in writing of it? Don't you favor having it on Trump's watch?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Dec-16 11:29 AM
Eric, I'm not disputing the fact that it's nice politically that Trump will get credit for getting DAPL built. That isn't as important, though, in the long-term as it is to get rid of the destructionists that are delaying the finishing of the pipeline. These anarchists are dividing the nation because of their fervent belief in a discredited ideology. It's time to crack down on the people who are committing acts of violence in North Dakota. They aren't worried about the environment. They're primarily worried about creating chaos.
Comment 4 by eric z at 07-Dec-16 05:47 PM
But, Gary, is the thing necessary, and if you say yes, what is your evidence backing that conclusion. Gas at a buck-ninety?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-16 10:46 PM
Eric, of course it's necessary. Having only as much oil or coal as you consume drives prices up. The cheaper energy is, the more manufacturing that happens. Democrats constantly whine about the dwindling middle class. Democrats don't whine about cheap energy, though, even though cheap energy helps grow the middle class.
You can't be pro-middle class and pro-expensive energy. It's as impossible as saying you're pro-safe streets, then say you prefer narrow, winding streets.
BTW, when gas is "a buck-ninety", produce is cheaper, groceries are cheaper & families have more disposable income. What do you have against that?
Comment 5 by Chad Q at 07-Dec-16 05:54 PM
Is it necessary? Since environmentalist nuts don't like shipping oil in trains, what other way is there to transport oil? I know, these nut jobs would rather we burn our own farts for energy but that's a whole other topic.
And what does it matter the price of gas? If a company wants to build a pipeline and they follow all the rules and obtain the necessary permits, why should a small group of people be able to stop a legal project because they say it could cause harm? I believe wind turbines cause more harm than a pipe buried underground.
Democrats to commit political suicide?
If this article is accurate, then it's safe to say that Democrats are preparing to commit political suicide. The opening paragraph states "Senate Democrats are preparing to put Donald Trump's Cabinet picks through a grinding confirmation process, weighing delay tactics that could eat up weeks of the Senate calendar and hamper his first 100 days in office."
It isn't that these Democrats can stop President-Elect Trump's cabinet nominees from becoming President Trump's cabinet secretaries. The Democrats blew that up when Harry Reid was stupid enough to exercise the nuclear option on appointments. The minute Senate Democrats start with these tactics, rest assured that that's the minute that President Trump schedules a trip to Missouri, Montana, Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, North Dakota, West Virginia and Ohio.
Visits to those states will be to remind voters that their Democratic senators aren't standing up to their obstructionist leadership. Those visits will remind people that these marshmallows aren't part of the solution. They're part of the toxic environment in DC that Trump's trying to clean up.
Democrats argue that some of the president-elect's more controversial Cabinet picks - such as Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Steven Mnuchin for treasury secretary - demand a thorough public airing.
"They've been rewarded for stealing a Supreme Court justice. We're going to help them confirm their nominees, many of whom are disqualified?" fumed Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). "It's not obstruction, it's not partisan, it's just a duty to find out what they'd do in these jobs."
Don't be surprised if Republicans don't utilize that quote from Sherrod Brown against him during his 2018 re-election campaign. It'd make him look petty.
This won't make Democrats look like they're playing fair:
"There should be recorded votes, in my view, on every one of the president's Cabinet nominees," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). "Having all of these hearings before the inaugural in a thorough and fair fashion seems very difficult to do."
One of Candidate Trump's campaign themes was 'Drain the swamp'. If Democrats play sore losers, which they're apparently planning, it might be appropriate for Republicans to run on draining the Senate Democrats' swamp in 2018.
Posted Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:49 AM
No comments.
Democrats' anti-democratic tactics
Sen. Dan Sullivan's op-ed highlights many of the Democrats' anti-democratic tactics. Sen. Sullivan's op-ed frequently highlights how environmental activists use weaponized government to kill infrastructure and energy projects. For instance, environmental activists used anti-democratic tactics, noting that the "Pentagon was built in 16 months. The 1,500-mile Alaska-Canadian Highway, which passes through some of the world's most rugged terrain, took about eight months. Today, infrastructure projects across America often require several years simply to get through the federal government's pre-build permitting process."
Next, Sen. Sullivan notes that new "U.S. highway construction projects usually take between nine and 19 years from initial planning and permitting to completion of construction, according to a 2002 Government Accountability Office study. It will have taken 14 years to permit an expansion of Gross Reservoir in Colorado, and it took almost 20 years to permit the Kensington gold mine in Alaska. It took four years to construct a new runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, but it took 15 years to get the permits."
Those aren't the only examples Sen. Sullivan, (R-AK), cites. Here's another pair of examples:
It took Shell seven years and $7 billion to get White House permission to drill a single oil-exploration well off the coast of Alaska. Never mind that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires that resources in those waters "be made available for expeditious and orderly development." This capricious permitting was part of why Shell halted its operations in Alaska, stranding enormous oil and gas resources and killing thousands of potential jobs.
The Keystone XL pipeline languished in permitting purgatory for almost the entire two terms of the Obama administration before the president finally killed it in 2015. Terry O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers' International Union of North America, called the president's actions a "cynical manipulation of the approval process." President Obama also recently halted the Dakota Access pipeline, though in September a federal court determined that the project complied with arduous permitting, legal and consultation requirements.
Gov. Dayton's first MPCA commissioner, Paul Aasen, bragged in an op-ed about litigating the Big Stone II power plant in South Dakota into quitting .
Though then-Candidate Trump didn't say this during the campaign, when he talked about America's crumbling infrastructure, he should've said that it's crumbling because environmental activists have virtually litigated these projects to death. Rarely do you hear about light rail projects coming under scrutiny. I've never heard of a wind farm getting subjected to this type of scrutiny. Why haven't we?
This is the solution:
Mr. Trump is set to reverse the Obama administration's abysmal permitting record, but Congress also has a responsibility. Last year I introduced the Regulations Endanger Democracy Act, or RED Tape Act, which would cap federal regulations with a simple one-in-one-out rule. When an agency issues a new regulation, it must repeal an old one. (Mr. Trump has suggested removing two for every one that is added.) Even though the idea has been successfully implemented in Canada and the United Kingdom, not a single Senate Democrat voted for it , and the legislation died.
Another bill I wrote would expedite federal permitting to repair or rebuild thousands of crumbling bridges across our country, but it received only three Democratic votes on the Senate floor . Once again my colleagues across the aisle prevented this reform from being implemented.
It's time to tell Democrats that we won't let them get away with these anti-progress tactics without them getting scrutinized in public. Let's instruct them that each time they use these tactics, they should expect political attacks that demand Democrats to defend their votes against streamlining government. Let's hear them explain why they're standing in the way of major infrastructure projects.
Democrats haven't lifted a finger to streamline the permitting process. Why haven't they? I think it's clear that they're sitting silent because that's what their environmental activist allies want. It's time to start doing what's right for all Americans rather than doing what's right for the special interests.
Posted Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:00 AM
No comments.
Democrats' DefSec dilemma
When Democrats blew up the filibuster for cabinet positions, I, along with a lengthy list of others, predicted that they'd regret that decision. That time has arrived. Now Democrats face a dilemma with Trump's pick of James Mattis to be Secretary of Defense. That's because, according to this CNN article , "Congress needs to approve a waiver allowing him to serve in that capacity since his 2013 retirement from the Marines is within a seven-year waiting period required for active duty personnel from taking the top civilian post."
Democrats can filibuster that waiver but that won't look good. The majority opinion is that Mattis is extremely qualified for the position. Filibustering that waiver will be rightly be seen as Democrats filibustering a highly qualified cabinet pick. Not just that but this isn't just any cabinet post. This is the Secretary of Defense post. Playing petty politics with that pick is political suicide.
If Democrats filibustered Trump's pick for Commerce or the Interior, the public wouldn't pay attention. The Secretary of Defense is an entirely different matter. That's the military, the guys that keep us safe. If he's qualified in the public's eye, which he is, he should get confirmed without a hitch. If Democrats want to come across as sore loser obstructionists, filibuster Gen. Mattis.
Posted Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:24 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Dec-16 06:00 PM
Mattis may, if anything, be a better pick than others. The worry is a revolving door, generals retire to run the Pentagon; and the notion of civilian preeminence and control of the military will suffer. Is that a precedent you believe wise? Not for today's point score balance, one party jockeying against the other; but long term? If you like that idea, do you know the history of how that exception came into place, barring that revolving door as an exception to the revolving door being DC business as usual, warts and all.
This is not any Gotcha attempt. I do not know the history, beyond it squaring with the Posse Comitatas Act, which has sense behind it too.
The question is not about Mattis; it is about a precedent which might be unwise; which libertarians might find unwise.
Ask Rand Paul whether it's a good idea to start carving exceptions to civilian preeminent control of the military.
Or would you contend Rand Paul's opinion is irrelevant when it disagrees with yours? For myself, I want coups less likely, and it seems the legislation is in accord with such a worry.
I believe Constitutionalist thought would concur.
Yes, the Commander in Chief will be a civilian, one his entire life, and again, this is apart from any question of whether Mattis would be good for the job. It is: Would such a step be a good precedent?
For myself, I'd be happier if the seven-year hiatus were to apply to all revolving doors; since the revolving door has been a taint on the system since 1789.
BMS, PCAs vs. the SEIU
In the fight between home-based PCAs and the SEIU, the Bureau of Mediation Services, aka BMS, " has ordered the suspension of contract talks between the Service Employees International Union representing personal care attendants and state negotiators to avoid interfering with a union decertification campaign underway."
This is a major victory for the PCAs because it protects against the SEIU negotiating a CBA with the state. The whole purpose of the PCA's decertification drive is to prevent them from dealing with the SEIU.
The system has been rigged against the PCAs from the start. The Dayton administration has repeatedly refused to turn over an updated list of PCAs to the PCAs seeking decertification. Carol Clifford, a BMS Representation Specialist, wrote "This Order is issued to preserve existing conditions and promote a free and fair environment for the resolution of this question of representation. It shall remain in full force and effect until an investigation and/or hearing has been conducted and the matter is disposed of by a determination issued by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services."
"This is significant because if the SEIU and Dayton administration sign a new contract, it's possible our petition for a new union election would be defeated," said Kim Crockett, Vice-President at Center of the American Experiment, a supporter of the decertification drive. "Everything we've done might be thrown out and we wouldn't be able to start a new campaign for two years."
If there is a decertification vote, it won't be close. The decertify PCAs will win in a landslide. With that, the SEIU will lose out on approximately $4,700,000 worth of dues each year.
The only reason why the SEIU wants the PCAs in their union is to play a larger role in DFL campaigns. This doesn't have anything to do with making life better for the PCAs or the people they care for. It's totally about political power.
Posted Wednesday, December 7, 2016 10:26 AM
No comments.
DAPL fundamentals
Kevin Cramer's WSJ op-ed on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is must reading if you want the truth about what's happening in North Dakota. Predictably, what's happening isn't getting reported by the so-called MSM.
In the opening paragraph of his op-ed, Rep. Cramer said "[a] little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the 'prayerful' and 'peaceful' protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline."
It's important to know that the Democrats that are trying to prevent the pipeline from getting built are either eco-terrorists or they're anarchists. This doesn't have anything to do with protecting the environment. (More on that later.) This has to do with pushing their mean-spirited anti-civilization agenda.
Later, Rep. Cramer writes " This isn't about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources . The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government."
As for protecting the environment, that's a myth:
This isn't about the climate . The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.
Hardline Democrats that support this protest include President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders. This isn't something that only the Democrats' far left fringe supports. This is pretty much 'mainstream' within the Democratic Party.
Here's the other thing that we shouldn't forget about DAPL:
Other pipelines carrying oil, gas and refined products already cross the Missouri River at least a dozen times upstream of the tribe's intake. The corridor where the Dakota Access Pipeline will run is directly adjacent to another pipeline, which carries natural gas under the riverbed, as well as an overhead electric transmission line. This site was chosen because it is largely a brownfield area that was disturbed long ago by previous infrastructure.
That's a detailed way of saying that the ecoterrorists' riots are a total sham. As I said earlier, this doesn't have anything to do with tribal rights. This doesn't have anything to do with the environment.
Originally posted Wednesday, December 7, 2016, revised 08-Dec 12:30 PM
No comments.
