February 12-14, 2012
Feb 12 07:02 Fearless Newt Feb 12 08:09 Gov. Dayton, Who's the extremist? Feb 12 13:48 Mitt hit again on conservative question Feb 12 16:08 Obama administration's impossible contraception fight Feb 13 06:26 Real America beyond the spin zone Feb 13 19:57 Sperling: Let's kill the economy Feb 14 02:33 Trust Fund plutocrats for global warming Feb 14 14:25 The high price of ignorance?
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Fearless Newt
In this Washington Times interview, Newt makes the case for why his policies are the right policies for America. It also offers him the opportunity to explain why he doesn't fear other candidates:
Here's Newt's opening reply in the interview:
NEWT: There's an Establishment over here and they get to change musical chairs but they don't really change policies.
This is quintessential Newt. It's Newt at his finest. The first step is defining the situation/problem. In this instance, the problem is that the DC Establishments of both parties are so entrenched that they refuse to change.
After that opening, Newt gets rolling. This portion of the interview is especially compelling:
NEWT: Look at my tax policy, which the WSJ said was the most aggressive job-creating policy of any candidate and look at Romney's, which the WSJ said was so timid, it could be Obama's. It's that big a difference.
Look at my position on the EPA and then look at the other guys. Then look at my position on Social Security, which is real change, leading young people to have a real chance to have a real savings account. And then look at the other guys.
Over there, you have timidity and the old order. And over here, Reagan, Goldwater, a genuine move towards applying conservative principles without regard to the Establishment's dictates.This is the defining difference in the race.
This past Friday, Mitt repeatedly told the CPAC audience that he's conservative, that he's really one of them, without explaining what his conservative credentials are. That's because he doesn't have a list of conservative credentials.
In the first 44 seconds of this interview, Newt laid out conservative policy initiative after conservative policy initiative. Most importantly, Newt's plan includes a timetable for implementing these conservative policy initiatives.
In his CPAC speech that won rave reviews, Newt talked about how, if he's elected president, he'd meet with the new Congress and ask them to stay in session and repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley so that he could sign those repeals hours after his inauguration.
Newt then said he'd sign a series of Executive orders so that "by the time Obama's plane touches down in Chicago, we will have eliminated 40% of the things he's done."
The difference between Newt and Mitt is that we get a detailed action plan with Newt; we get a lengthy list of rosy-sounding, focus group-tested platitudes with Mitt.
Personally, I'll take the substantive plan over focus group-tested platitudes without hesitation.
It's worth noting that Mitt's criticisms of Newt don't focus on the policies he's advocating for. Mitt's criticisms focus on Newt's odd behavior in the past.
Why won't Mitt man up and tell us why his policies on taxes, the EPA, Social Security and health care are better than Newt's? Is it because he knows he'd get his butt kicked in that matchup?
The reality is that Newt's the only candidate on the debate stage with gravitas. Mitt doesn't have it. He's the plastic, molded candidate who was injected with nice sounding platitudes.
This country needs solutions, not platitudes. Newt has the solutions, Mitt has the platitudes and the clueless DC GOP Establishment. Isn't this really an easy decision?
Tags: Washington Times , Interview , Newt Gingrich , Social Security , EPA , Taxes , Reagan , Goldwater , Conservatism , Solutions , Mitt Romney , Focus Groups , Platitudes , Establishment , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:02 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 12-Feb-12 08:19 AM
You are correct, sir! Wouldn't it be nice if the media, and thus the electorate, would quit focusing on WHOM we should elect, and focus on WHAT they can, will and should do if elected?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Feb-12 12:29 PM
Thanks Jerry. I get it that campaigns matter but the measurables (money & organization) shouldn't count for as much as who's the right man for the job. Winning an election is nice but changing the direction of our nation is important, imperative. That isn't Mitt. He'd be slightly better than President Obama but I don't trust him that much with the economy & I don't trust him with judicial picks, which we both know is of utmost importance.
On judges, I'd trust Michele, Santorum, Perry or Newt miles ahead of Mitt.
Gov. Dayton, Who's the extremist?
Former CPAC blogger of the year Ed Morrissey spent this weekend at CPAC in Washington, DC. While there, Ed was a panelist to a discussion titled From Reacting to Breaking News: Flexing the Muscles of the Conservative New Media . He also found time, along with the LATimes' Andrew Malcolm and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft, to interview Rick Perry .
Suffice it to say that Ed's had alot on his plate. Nonetheless, Ed found time to notice this SurveyUSA poll , which shows how popular a right to work amendment to Minnesota's Constitution is:
The survey of 542 registered voters showed a margin of more than 2:1, at 55/24. It wins majorities of both men and women, and wins all age demographics by majorities except seniors, which have a near-majority supporting it at 49/35. Independents support the idea by a wider margin than overall, 57/27, and even a plurality of Democrats support it at 40/32. In fact, even a slight plurality of liberals support the measure, 35/32, with moderates near a 2:1 ratio of support at 53/28. All income levels have wide pluralities or majorities supporting the measure, as do all regions of the state; the only region where it doesn't get a majority, northeastern Minnesota (where Iron Range mining makes union support stronger) approves of the measure 49/30.
First, I'll eat crow for writing this post . I said in that post that right to work is a great policy but that this year might not be a great time for pushing this initiative.
Before diving into the poll, it's important that we highlight the fact that SurveyUSA's polling in Minnesota is exceptionally accurate . Now that that's established, let's dig into the poll's results. I'm astonished that the overall margin is that big. With Minnesota's liberal reputation, I thought this would be, at best, a 50-50 proposition.
That still doesn't mean that a right to work constitutional amendment will be ratified by Minnesota's voters. That's what I'd hope for but it isn't a done deal at this point.
What's stunning to me is that independents support the constitutional amendment ballot question by a 57-27 margin. If the Iron Range is the only geographic area that supports defeating the right to work constitutional amendment ballot question, then Big Labor will have its work cut out for itself.
This especially places a premium on recruiting GOP election judges in Ramsey and Hennepin counties. It places a premium on recruiting GOP election judges across the state, too, with particular emphasis on St. Louis County and the city of Duluth.
The reason why that's important is because ballots that don't fill in the constitutional amendment ballot questions get counted as voting against ratifying constitutional amendments.
With Scott County workers unknowingly admitting that voter fraud exists in Minnesota , rest assured that voter fraud exists in Ramsey and Hennepin counties.
If you want to ensure election integrity in Minnesota, volunteer to be an election judge or to be a pollwatcher. Follow this link to learn how to volunteer for those important responsibilities.
This is our best shot at passing this important constitutional amendment. Let's make the most of that opportunity.
Tags: Constitutional Amendments , Ballot Questions , Poll , SurveyUSA , Right To Work , Voter Fraud , Election Judges , Hennepin County , Scott County , Ramsey County , Election 2012 , Elections
Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:09 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 12-Feb-12 03:22 PM
I bet Romney opposes photo ID. For a faceless shell of a living human like him, probably the ID would only show an empty suit. Or a Bain corporate logo.
Newt's problem, two-faced, so which to show on an ID.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Feb-12 04:13 PM
Newt's problem, two-faced, so which to show on an ID.It must be nice to be perfect. It must be nice to never have had to ask for forgiveness. So much for the party of tolerance being tolerant.
Mitt hit again on conservative question
When Mitt spoke to the CPAC crowd, he told them that he was "severely conservative." This Hill article quotes Sarah Palin saying that she isn't sure about Mitt's conservatism:
In a blow to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Sarah Palin said Sunday that she's "not convinced" the former Massachusetts governor is conservative enough to do Republicans' bidding in the White House.
Palin, the former governor of Alaska, said the GOP presidential field remains wide open because Romney's past positions on healthcare, abortion and other issues have been moderate-to-liberal, leaving Republicans confused about what he'd do as commander-in-chief.
"Most voters in the GOP, and Independents, we will want to see that candidate who we can trust will just inherently, instinctively turn right, always err on the side of conservatism," Palin said on Fox News Sunday. "I am not convinced [Romney is that person]. And I don't think that the majority of GOP and Independent voters are convinced, and that is why you don't see Romney get over that hump."
Despite Mitt's winning CPAC's straw poll, Mitt's trouble is still with conservatives. Despite Mitt's description of being "severely conservative", the reality is that he's got a lengthier list of liberal 'accomplishments' than conservative accomplishments.
When thinking Mitt's liberal 'accomplishments, think harsh, expensive CO2 emission limits regulations on power plants . Think O'Romneycare. Think of his not understanding the Second Amendment .
Mitt's inability to talk fluently about these things creates alot of anxiety with conservatives. With more liberal accomplishments than conservative accomplishments on Mitt's record, why wouldn't conservatives, especially TEA Party activists, question Mitt's conservative credentials?
It's worth asking this simple question: Did Ronald Reagan ever need to highlight his conservative credentials? Did Milton Friedman? Thomas Sowell? Mark Levin? They didn't because it was apparent that they were staunchly conservative.
If a presidential candidate feels the need to describe himself as "severely conservative", it's likely that he realizes that a) he isn't a conservative and b) he needs conservatives' votes this November.
It's different, too, in that Mitt wasn't attacked by Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. Mitt was attacked by Sarah Palin, the woman with the most conservative credibility in America, even more than Michele Bachmann.
If Mitt doesn't fix his conservative problem ASAP, he'll be badly damaged. There's no sugarcoating this problem.
Tags: CPAC , Mitt Romney , Romneycare , CO2 Emissions , Regulations , Sarah Palin , TEA Party , Conservatism , Newt Gingrich , GOP , Elections 2012
Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:48 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 12-Feb-12 03:18 PM
Whatever it takes to close the deal.
The GOP is one of those faltering takeover targets he seems to uncannily find, as if having a special built in radar to go with the willingness to pose as a chameleon's chameleon. Almost a liquid, of a fixed volume but taking the shape of its container. Conservative enough for me.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 13-Feb-12 11:25 AM
Myth Romney: "Severely conservatlve" since February 2012.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-12 02:13 PM
Unilaterally imposing expensive CO2 emissions on power plants in the name of global warming isn't "severely conservative." Unilaterally imposing price controls on the power plants that he imposed those expensive CO2 emissions on isn't "severely conservative" either.
These aren't things that the liberal legislature shoved down Mitt's throat. They're things liberal Mitt did unilaterally.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 14-Feb-12 10:12 AM
I hear Myth's floating a new campaign slogan:
"I Am Because I Said So."
Obama administration's impossible contraception fight
During the first part of FNS's Sunday panel, Democratic apologist Mara Liasson, (D-NPR), attempted to spin things in the Obama administration's favor on whether they'd stopped the bleeding. It was a painful thing to watch for people who care about the truth.
Liasson said "If they can keep the argument about contraception, not about religious liberty and government mandates, then they're on strong grounds. Just prior to that, Liasson hinted that the White House's biggest mistake was being slow to spin the policy, not the policy itself.
Those few things show the absurdity of the liberal mindset. First, Liasson argued that this administration should control what's beyond their control. Doesn't she grasp the fact that the conservative blogosphere and twittersphere, not to mention conservative talk radio, isn't about to let this go?
More importantly, does she think Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will let go of this issue? Most importantly, does anyone think that Catholics, whether they're devout or not, like the idea of this administration telling Catholic Charities and the Catholic hospitals what they must do?
This isn't going away. In fact, it's going to get worse when EWTN's lawsuit is litigated. In fact, I'd argue that the only way it'll go away is if this administration capitulates quickly.
If they don't, they'll lose this election.
At the start of his interview with Greta van Susteren, Karl Rove laid out the history of losing the Catholic vote. Here's the video:
Here's the transcript of the most important part of the interview:
ROVE: It's a big issue. Look, the biggest group of swing voters are Catholics. They represent roughly 25% of the electorate. In any presidential election in the modern era, Catholics tended to go with the winner. Bush won them in 2000 and 2004. Obama won them in 2008. It's been thus for decades.
This isn't good news for the White House. They've just created the conditions for losing the determinitive Catholic vote. They're getting sued by EWTN, an institution of the Catholic church. That guarantees this story isn't going away. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum certainly aren't letting go of this issue, both from a religious liberty standpoint and from a government mandate standpoint.
If that isn't bad enough, EWTN's lawsuit has the potential of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Ms. Liasson thinks that the White House can spin away a powderkeg issue like that away, then she's delusional.
Either that or she's a hopeless Democratic apologist. (Think the Democrat version of Jennifer Rubin.)
The Obama administration can't control the narrative. They can't stop EWTN's lawsuit without capitulating. They can't even limit the damage. If that doesn't sound like LBJ's Texas hail storm , then nothing does. Here's LBJ's famous quote:
I feel like a hitchhiker in a Texas hail storm...I can't run, I can't hide and I can't make it go away.
If that doesn't articulate exactly where the Obama administration is on the Catholic contraception fight, nothing does. I'd wish them luck but I'd rather see them take a long, protracted stumble.
Tags: Catholic Church , First Amendment , Contraception , Religious Liberty , President Obama , Democrats , Rick Santorum , EWTN , Newt Gingrich , Lawsuit , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012 4:08 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Feb-12 08:07 AM
There is a lot of time between now and November, for us to see the full dimensions of a contraception stand that took courage, given the ferocity of those opposed to family freedoms of choice. We have to wait and see. I do not think the choice-haters can win on contraception choice, independent of abortion choice. They may hate it, but the question is have they enough votes to defeat it. We will see. However, November's hot-button issue might be something different. Time has a way of redefining things.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-12 09:02 AM
Eric, This isn't just about contraception choice. It's about the trampling of the First Amendment.
Real America beyond the spin zone
If any of my readers aren't big fans of Salena Zito by now, they should be ashamed of themselves. Ms. Zito has a great touch writing stories from beyond the spin zone, aka the DC Beltway. Ms. Zito's latest installment is devoid of the spin you'd get from DC spinmeisters. Here's a sample of Ms. Zito's latest article:
During a drive between the Mon Valley towns of McKeesport and Elizabeth, a man named Ray was overheard calling into a local radio station to talk about the subject of the hour: November's presidential election.
The first thing he said is that he is a Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Pressed by the talk-show host, he said he would not vote for Obama this time.
The rest of Ray's answer was not unique or remarkable: Yes, he is a union member. Yes, he wanted Obama to succeed. And, yes, he is very disappointed after giving the president more than enough chances to prove he can lead.
Ray said he had finally given up.
It is a story heard over and over across the country, one that began not long after Obama took office in 2009 and followed a series of heavy-handed moves such as appointing policy "czars" to avoid Senate confirmation fights and a lack of transparency with the press and the public (a list too long to elaborate) despite vows to the contrary.
The term buyers remorse crept into the American political lexicon fairly quickly after President Obama's stimulus passed. It sounds like Ray caught on quickly.
This paragraph affirms what I wrote here :
Obama needs Pennsylvania to win re-election. Yet his Electoral College calculus is complicated by his failure to poll well among Jacksonian voters (mostly rural or blue-collar whites) and worsened by his mandate that religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals, whose objections he sought to mollify on Friday, provide contraception to employees.
Such government intervention does not sit well with many voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other critical, Catholic-rich Midwestern states. Catholic Democrats may lean left on social-justice issues, but don't try to tell their priests, parishes or hospitals what to do about contraception and abortion.
I've said for over a year that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (67 EVs) would be tough states for Obama to carry. If President Obama loses those states, plus Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina (39 EVs), President Obama won't win re-election. That's 106 electoral votes from his 2008 total of 338. That's before factoring in the 4 EV gain in Texas, the 2 EV loss in NY, the 1 EV losses in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Massachusetts. That's another 10 EV swing.
That brings President Obama's EV path to victory to 222. How he makes up those 48 EVs is anyone's guess, including the White House's. Even with Pennsylvania, that only brings President Obama's total to 242 EVs. That's if he holds Wisconsin, which isn't a lock by any stretch of the imagination.
For Obama to win here, his coalition will need to maximize the minority vote, keep single women and the youth vote firmly in his corner, eke out a win with gentry whites, split the independent vote and hold down the losses among Jacksonian whites.
Blue collar Democrats grudgingly came home for President Obama in 2008. That won't happen again in 2012. The Rays of Pennsylvania won't be forgiving this time. This time, they're most likely to cling to the guns and Reagan Democrat ways, at least if the GOP doesn't pick Mitt as their nominee.
Mitt's just as unlikely to turn off blue collar workers as President Obama. If turnout in Pennsylvania is down, President Obama's strength with the minority communities will help push him across the finish line in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Tags: President Obama , Pennsylvania , Catholics , Contraception , Stimulus , Florida , Ohio , Virginia , Indiana , Illinois , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 6:26 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Feb-12 08:02 AM
Is the GOP planning on stealing Florida as in 2000, stealing Ohio as in 2004. It was a strategy that worked, short term, and look what we are now facing because of those 8 years of W. Given that, perhaps Romney is correct viewing the GOP as a ripe takeover target.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-12 09:07 AM
Eric, Enough with the lies. In 2001, notorious right wing hack journalists from the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post as well as the major networks sent reporters to Florida to pour through each ballot cast. They affirmed Bush's victory.
In Ohio, accusations of voter fraud were made by a far left bombthrower. No proof was ever found. Allegations & accusations aren't proof. They're just people shooting their mouth off.
Comment 2 by eric z at 14-Feb-12 06:29 AM
Gary, now what about the eight years of W? You neglected to respond defensively to that. The good old days? His tax cuts for the "job creators" kept us from evil? His wars were just, well fought, and soundly financed? His treasury secretary was always a step ahead of any disaster, real or potential? He left office with things running like a well oiled Swiss clock? Not a Coo-coo clock, not W?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Feb-12 08:13 AM
Eric, just what is your specific complaint against the Bush administration? Did he protect us from the terrorist attacks that were planned during the Clinton administration? Yes. Did Enron accounting start during his administration? Fraid not. They started during the Clinton administration. What was the annual unemployment rate during the Bush administration? Somewhere in the 4.5-6% range. Deficits? The biggest deficit during the Bush administration-GOP House & Senate was $450,000,000,000.
Under this administration, annual unemployment has been 8.5-9.5%. Annual deficits have been $1,300,000,000,000 or more. Thanks to the draconian levels of regulations, companies have sped up their move out of the United States. Election Day can't get here soon enough. I've had enough of this administration's destructive economic policies. He's got to go. He's an abject failure. Just ask the 46,000,000 people on food stamps. Just ask the 1.2 million people who quit looking for work last month. Just ask the people who want full time work but can only find part time work at low wages.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 14-Feb-12 04:53 PM
Eric Z:
Um it was the Democrats who tried to steal Florida in 2000. You know by not counting ballots of the military, demanding selective recount after selective recount, etc. In 2004 all the votes for Ohio were counted and Bush won by something over 80,000 votes (don't have time to check the figure).
Since you have shown you don't know your facts go and post where they don't care about facts like the Huffington post.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Sperling: Let's kill the economy
This video, in which Gene Sperling speaks for President Obama on tax reform, is stunning:
Here's a partial transcript of Sperling's statement:
SPERLING: He supports corporate tax reform that would reduce expenditures and loopholes, lower rates for people investing and creating jobs in the U.S., due so further for manufacturing, and that we need to, as we have the Buffett Rule and the individual tax reform, we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens.
This is stunning. Why would other nations agree to this knowing that they're in the business of stealing companies from the United States? Is President that naive?
There's a reason why the U.S. economy isn't flourishing. There's a reason why companies aren't hiring. There's a reason why prosperity seems like a distant thing with this administration. There's a reason why people think that fairness, not prosperity, is the primary goal of this administration.
That reason is because of statements like this. It's also because of thinking like this from his debate against Hillary in April, 2008:
MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
It isn't in President Obama's nature to cut taxes. It's part of his DNA to raise taxes. It's in his DNA to "spread the wealth around", like he told Joe the Plumber.
President Obama, left to his own policies, would demolish the U.S. economy. His education reform package is known as Race to the Top. Unfortunately for Americans, the appropriate name for his economic blueprint is Race to the Bottom.
It's immaterial to me whether he's that evil, as some suggest, or whether he's that clueless. I'm only concerned with the fact that he's awful when it comes to putting policies in place that creates wealth and prosperity. I'm only concerned with firing him this November.
Tags: President Obama , Global Minimum Tax , Buffett Rule , Gene Sperling , Taxes , Capital Gains , ABC Debate , Recession , Democrats , Prosperity , Tax Reform , GOP
Posted Monday, February 13, 2012 7:57 PM
No comments.
Trust Fund plutocrats for global warming
Thanks to the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota's research , we now know that guilt-ridden plutocrats want to shove their ill-researched agenda down our throats.
A Freedom Foundation of Minnesota (FFM) investigation reveals that nine national foundations have steered $48 million in funding to more than 40 non-profits and local governments since 2003 in an aggressive campaign to radically rewrite Minnesota environmental policy. Based on an examination of foundation records, tax filings, other public data and conversations with key foundations and advocacy groups, FFM found that Minnesota-focused non-profits received at least 285 grants in the last eight years. It is likely that the total amount of grants distributed in Minnesota is much higher, because of 're-granting' between foundations and other practices that serve to obscure the money flow.
These foundations have cost Minnesota its prosperity. These foundations' grants helped then-MCEA Executive Director Paul Aasen pursue an attrition through litigation strategy that killed the Big Stone II power plant project. Here's what their website says about their agenda:
Since 1974, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy has been protecting our water, air, land and people.
MCEA works with government agencies, the Legislature, and the courts to set sound environmental policy, to ensure good laws are enacted, and to enforce the law when needed. We are committed to working across all sectors, private and public, profit and nonprofit, political and academic, to form the partnerships needed to succeed. Real environmental issues are complex and real environmental progress takes time. MCEA is in it for the long haul.
This webpage offers a glimpse into who MCEA is (spin provided at no extra charge):
MCEA's legal advocacy team defends the rights of Minnesota's environment and its citizens by ensuring environmental laws are enforced. The extraordinary organizational expertise of more than a dozen attorneys on MCEA's staff and board is unmatched by any other environmental group in Minnesota.
MCEA's professional expertise and strategically chosen efforts have made us the leading legal guardian of Minnesota's environment. MCEA carefully selects cases to provoke changes in public policy and private behavior. We engage in courtroom litigation, administrative rulemaking, case hearings before administrative law judges, and permit proceedings conducted by state and federal agencies.
Here's what the foundations' funding allowed the MCEA to do :
We kept losing, but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.
That's part of an op-ed co-written by Mike Nobles and Paul Aasen. They bragged that they kept on losing in court but that they kept filing their lawsuits. They couldn't have afforded to keep litigating Big Stone II without the assistance of deep-pocketed philanthropists like this:
The following foundations disbursed the largest amoung of grant funding in Minnesota from 2003-2011.
McKnight Foundation- Minnesota $16,991,727
Energy Foundation of San Francisco- California $12,515,709
Joyce Foundation- Illinois $ 5,236,723
Kendeda Fund - Pennsylvania $ 5,100,000
Garfield Foundation- Massachusetts $ 3,614,050
These militant environmentalists have killed more middle class jobs in Minnesota than all other factors combined. Here's what these foundations' money is buying them:
Beyond setting policy priorities, these foundations have been extraordinarily successful in placing key staff in positions of political power in matters concerning energy and the environment. In 2011, Governor Mark Dayton appointed two alumni of these green nonprofits to head the Pollution Control Agency and the state's Energy Resources Division. Others were appointed to the Metropolitan Council and advisory boards.
Paul Aasen is one of those appointed alumni. Aasen should be rejected by the Senate because the MPCA shouldn't employ militant environmentalist activists. The MPCA Commissioner should be professional and bias free. That isn't Paul Aasen.
Tags: McKnight Foundation , Joyce Foundation , Militant Environmentalists , Big Stone II , Paul Aasen , MCEA , Mike Nobles , Special Interests , DFL
Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 2:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Feb-12 06:24 AM
"These foundations have cost Minnesota its prosperity."
Such a fragile thing, the prosperity of a State.
Banks cannot bring down a State. Wealth imbalance, not a factor. Fortune 500 firms moving to headquarter elsewhere, we can take it. Lack of the Bakken oil-shale formation to extend here, no matter. It is the foundations.
Knawing at our foundations, these foundations.
If only Ayn Rand could ride again, unbridled. All would be gold standard good.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Feb-12 08:00 AM
Such a fragile thing, the prosperity of a State.When a wrecking crew like these militant environmentalists start taking hacks at the people who would've created jobs, the economy can only stand so much. These Foundations don't care about prosperity. If they did, they would've allowed the people in western Minnesota build the powerlines. These foundations are also behind the lawsuits that would employ union miners in the Arrowhead at PolyMet & other smaller nonferrous mines in the area.
For what? I want those foundations to travel to northern Minnesota & tell those families that would be employed right now that they're being sacrificed for the greater good or whatever it is these foundations are talking about.
Yes, I take it personally that a bunch of heartless people who've never visited Minnesota & who've never worked a day in their lives, like Gov. Dayton, tell Minnesotans that they're going to wreck Minnesota's economy, stealthily, then go on with their day.
The DFL used to be the party of the people. When I was younger, they listened to the people. I once was a Democrat. Then they stopped listening to the people. They stopped producing innovative ideas. Now they're a decaying party run by plutocrats who've never gotten dirt under their manicured fingernails. What a shame.
The high price of ignorance?
The Pew Center for the States did a study on how to modernize election systems across the United States. The thing that jumps out from the first pages of this study is what might best be called the high price of ignorance. Here's what's written in the Pew Center for the States' report:
To complicate matters, many voters do not understand how the registration process works. The CCES report States indicates that more than one in four respondents either do not know how to change their registration information or think that the postal service or election office automatically updates it for them when they move. Furthermore, almost half of all voters are unaware that they can register or update their registration at motor vehicles offices.
This might be called the high price of ignorance. It might be proof that these potential voters weren't paying attention in Social Studies class in high school. It's possible that Social Studies didn't teach these basics, choosing instead to talk about peripheral subjects rather than teaching soon-to-be-voting-age students the basics of things like registering and voting.
What's certain is that this isn't a systemic problem. Registering to vote has been done the same way for decades. It's more likely that this is a societal problem, a symptom of people not being aware of the basics. It isn't like someone suddenly switched the system. It isn't like the system is complicated.
When Pew says "more than one in four respondents either do not know how to change their registration information", that tells me that one in four respondents aren't taking responsibility for knowing how to vote. When the study says that people "think that the postal service or election office automatically updates it for them when they move", that tells me that there are apathetic people out there that didn't bother learning how to vote.
Unfortunately, that isn't the nation's biggest problem. This article is startling:
A new report says about 24 million voter registrations in the United States contain significant errors, showing the system is in shambles.
The study released Tuesday by the Pew Center on the States found that about 1.8 million dead people are still on the rolls and 2.5 million can vote in more than one state.
What this tells me is that secretaries of state aren't doing their jobs. HAVA requires them to update their states' SVRS system in a timely fashion. As in ASAP.
Photo ID doesn't solve all of the election integrity issues, though it's an important first step. Putting public pressure on secretaries of state to update that state's SVRS is important, too. Putting election judge training into law would be a positive step, too. Flagging the names of the 2,500,000 people who are registered to vote in multiple states is essential, too.
People don't have faith that this nation's election system functions properly. It's imperative that the nation's election systems work properly.
Tags: Election Integrity , Photo ID , Secretaries of State , SVRS , NCOA , HAVA , Pew Center , Elections
Posted Tuesday, February 14, 2012 2:25 PM
No comments.
