January 16-18, 2012
Jan 16 02:41 DCCC's dishonest attacks against Chip Cravaack are predictable Jan 16 02:49 Restoring Excellence in Education summary, K-12 edition Jan 17 02:42 Vin the Lobbyist cautions patriotic TEA Party activists Jan 17 03:51 Newt's Night Jan 17 17:23 Is the Romney campaign wimping out? Jan 18 06:07 Gov. Dayton, Photo ID and the Constitution Jan 18 07:51 'Stable Mitt' vs. 'Unreliable Newt' Jan 18 10:17 Molinari's, Talent's 10-minute hit job Jan 18 12:58 Mitt denies tax policies create jobs
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
DCCC's dishonest attacks against Chip Cravaack are predictable
Since the night that Chip Cravaack defeated Jim Oberstar, the DCCC has had a target on Chip's back. That's why the DCCC's latest cheapshot against Chip is predictable, pathetic and dishonest.
"Congressman Chip Cravaack is eligible to vote in the New Hampshire primary so why shouldn't he vote in his new home state?" asked Haley Morris of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Granite Staters, Republican presidential candidates, and especially Minnesotans would all love to know whether Congressman Chip Cravaack is voting today.
The powers-that-be at the DCCC should've let Morris know that they'd planned on exposing his lie in the same email they printed his lie:
On July 16, Cravaack announced he was setting up his reelection campaign for the eighth congressional district of Minnesota sooner than expected and that his wife and children would be moving to New Hampshire, 'where they'll purchase a home, though he'll continue to live in the 8th Congressional District and move to North Branch.'
What part of "he'll continue to live in the 8th Congressional District" doesn't Mr. Morris understand? I'm willing to give Mr. Morris the benefit of the doubt because New Hampshire Democrats apparently don't reject dead people at their polling stations .
Since defeating Rep. Oberstar, Chip's met quarterly with the MPCA and the EPA to iron out any differences that might delay PolyMet becoming a reality. I wrote here that Jim Oberstar didn't lift a finger to make PolyMet a reality until he noticed that Chip was a serious candidate.
The last thing the DCCC wants is a serious, honest discussion of Chip's accomplishments or their candidates' shortcomings. That's why they're resorting to these dishonest, dim-witted attacks against Chip Cravaack.
Tags: DCCC , Jim Oberstar , High Speed Rail , Pork , DFL , Chip Cravaack , PolyMet , Jobs , MPCA , EPA , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 16, 2012 2:41 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 16-Jan-12 01:40 PM
Jimmy Bikeshorts didn't even live in the 8th CD for the majority of his term. Funny how the DCCC 'forgets' little tidbits like that. The price of glass houses must be tanking just like the rest of the O-conomy for all the stones being thrown.
Restoring Excellence in Education summary, K-12 edition
This past Saturday, parents, researchers and concerned taxpayers got together in Brown Hall on the St. Cloud State campus to talk about worrisome issues regarding the P-12 and the Higher Education systems.
As the first speaker of the day, former school board candidate AJ Kern started things with a study about teacher quality. During her presentation, AJ highlighted the fact that Finland's teacher recruitment standards are higher than America's. The first hurdle in Finland's teacher recruitment is to finish in the top 10% of their class. If the student doesn't pass that hurdle, their process is finished. After that they're given additional tests to find the best of the best.
It isn't that the United States' process is less rigorous. It's that that process doesn't exist in the United States.
Erin Haust's presentation focused primarily on the intensity of indoctrination at the grade and middle school levels, though it also touched on the fact that high school students will see Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth 3-4 times in high school before graduating.
Erin also talked about the union's hypocrisy. Over the years, Education Minnesota hasn't signed off on alternative teacher licensure reforms, saying that retired engineers, chemists and architects weren't qualified to teach classes. Erin highlighted the fact that EdMinn didn't have a problem with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, videos being played once or twice a month. Erin noted that Nye isn't an accredited teacher but he is an environmental activist.
Follow this link to read the rest of the article.
Posted Monday, January 16, 2012 2:49 AM
No comments.
Vin the Lobbyist cautions patriotic TEA Party activists
?The last thing TEA Party activists need is for a DC-based lobbyist to lecture them on being extremists. Still, that's precisely what Vin Weber did :
The other Minnesotan deeply tied to the the Congressional Leadership Fund is former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber, who sits on the super PAC's board. Both Weber and Coleman are backing Mitt Romney for president and both also work as lobbyists.
At a time when the tea party has energized the conservative base of the party, Weber cautions that Republicans need to avoid ideological extremes.
"It's important to also maintain some breadth to the Republican message because there are places in the country where a very conservative Republican simply can't compete and a truly national party has to be able to be at least somewhat competitive everywhere," Weber said.
It's apparent that Vin's spent too much time in DC. It's apparent that he didn't notice that the TEA Party's conservatism was so mainstream that it triggered the biggest congressional landslide in over half a century.
It's foolish to say that the TEA Party's appeal is to extremists. It's impossible to characterize the policies advocated as extremist considering the fact that those policies triggered a landslide that produced the landslide that netted a net gain of 63 congressional seats all across the nation.
What's more is that this wasn't just about Congress. The GOP won 4 net governorships, flipped 14 majorities in state legislative chambers and gained a net of 680 state legislative seats :
Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Legislative Seats
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
November 4, 2010 | 11:30 AM
While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.
Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.
The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control, meaning both chambers, of 26 state legislatures.
That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.
Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta", both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship, in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina, probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats, Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.
Could a group of extremists win that widespread a victory on that many levels? I didn't think so.
Tags: SuperPAC , Vin Weber , Lobbyist , Washington, DC , GOP , TEA Party , Activists , Conservatism , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, January 17, 2012 2:42 AM
Comment 1 by Don Evanson at 17-Jan-12 04:25 PM
Rubber-checking Vin Weber, forfeiting his Congressional seat after the Hosue bank controversy, now lobbyist, CFR activist, and establishmentarian extraordinaire doesn't like the Tea Party's conservatives.
His promotion of a fellow establishmentarian as Emmer's running mate for the Minnesota governorship likely cost Emmer the narrowly decided election.
Comment 2 by eric z at 17-Jan-12 04:29 PM
When is the propaganda machine to be ramped up for this election? The machine leadership must be satisfied with Obama and not in the position of wanting any boat rocking chances until Romney has been installed as a certainty for the GOP nomination. It seems the puppeteers shut things down last time as soon as the election was over, in a we don't need you now mode, and the press picked up the cue.
Comment 3 by ARay at 17-Jan-12 11:27 PM
Vin Weber and Jon Huntsman are Republicans of a stripe that want to ingratiate themselves to the cutthroat progressive democrats. Obama's party's hubris made it tone deaf and blind to the backlash brought upon itself. Now instead of letting go of the 'inevitability' of Obama/Pelosi/Reid's failed policies and their extremism we get warnings of...our extremism. If a burglar is robbing your house and filling up his idling van with your belongings in your driveway in broad daylight, it isn't 'extreme' to stop him by taking the keys from ignition and calling the police to arrest him.
Weber and Huntsman are the bystanders that watch and warn you "don't make the burglar mad, he might hurt you" and don't want to "get involved". Sheesh where's the perspective? Instead of capitulating, just work to defeat Obama/Reid one tyrant at a time. Pelosi is minority leader now, Reid is next and Obama should be one and done. That's not extreme..it's necessary.
Newt's Night
There's only one way to summarize Monday night's GOP presidential debate from South Carolina: This was Newt's night. Everone's been posting this video:
With good reason. This is how conservatives should explain to the nation that the work ethic is a positive thing while highlighting the fact that this administration's policies have failed in South Carolina and across the nation.
More importantly, Newt's destruction of Juan Williams' premise was proof that there's only one man on that debating stage with the gravitas and the nerve to defeat President Obama in a debate. His name is Newt Gingrich.
During his interview with FNC's Sean Hannity, Frank Luntz highlighted the standing ovation Newt received for his smackdown of Juan Williams' question, saying that it was unprecedented in debate history. Indeed it was.
Here's the partial transcript of Newt's answer to Juan's initial question:
NEWT: I ran into a young man who started a doughnut company when he was 11. He's now 16. He has several restaurants that take his doughnuts. His dad is thrilled because he can now deliver his own doughnuts.
What I tried to say, and I think it's fascinating because Joe Klein reminded me that this started with an article he wrote 20 years ago. New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the unions. You could take one janitor and hire 30 some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor. And those kids would be alot less likely to drop out. They'd actually have money in their pocket. They'd actually learn how to show up for work each day.
They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They'd be getting money, which is a good thing if you're poor. Only the elites despise making money.
STANDING OVATION
JUAN WILLIAMS: You saw a little of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as the "food stamp president." It sounds as if you're seeking to belittle people.
BOOING
NEWT: Well, first of all Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any other president in American history. Now, I know that among the politically correct that you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.
Seoond, you were the one who raised a key point. The area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in the last 3 years? No. They haven't built the road. They haven't helped the people. They haven't done anything.
One last point. Here's my point. I believe that every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness and if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm gonna continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and finally learn how to own the job.
It's worth noting that some of Mitt's fiercest allies in the media are still praising him but many thought he didn't have a good night.
It's apparent that he got rocked by Rick Santorum on felons having a right to vote. Sen. Santorum said that the pro-Mitt superPAC had accused him of voting to give felons the right to vote. Then Sen. Santorum asked whether he thought it would be ok to restore a felon's right to vote if they'd served their sentence, served their parole and had fully paid their price to society. Mitt intially tried dodging the question but Sen. Santorum refused to let him get away with that ploy.
Here's what CBS reported about the exchange:
Romney, in response, attempted to address the more general question about the role of super PACs in politics. But Santorum was not having it.
"I'm looking for a question -- an answer to the question first," Santorum said, cutting Romney off.
"We have plenty of time," Romney responded. "I'll get there. I'll do it in the order I want to do."
Santorum pointed out that he had yielded Romney his own time in order to ask him the question, and reiterated his demand: "I'm asking you to answer the question, because that's how you got the time. It's actually my time."
The former Pennsylvania repeated his question, noting that "This is Martin Luther King Day. This is a huge deal in the African-American community, because we have very high rates of incarceration, disproportionately high rates, particularly with drug crimes, in the African-American community."
"The bill I voted on was the Martin Luther King Voting Rights bill," he continued. "And this was a provision that said, particularly targeted African-Americans. And I voted to allow -- to allow them to have their voting rights back once they completed their sentence. Do you agree with that?" he prompted.
"I don't think people who have committed violent crimes should be allowed to vote again. That's my own view," Romney answered.
Santorum was ready with a cross-examination-style response.
"You know, it's very interesting you should say that, Governor Romney, because in the state of Massachusetts, when you were governor, the law was that not only could violent felons vote after they exhausted their sentences, but they could vote while they were on probation and parole, which was a more liberal position than I took when I voted for the bill in the Congress."
Several times after that, when Gov. Romney was getting attacked, he tried painting a smile on his face to look like he was staying calm, cool and collected. It didn't work, in my opinion. This is a mechanism he's using to looking as bad as he did when Rick Perry attacked him for hiring illegal immigrants.
Mitt wasn't the picture of calm. He wasn't poised. He had the look of a candidate who'd prepped for smiling after his opponents had gotten under his skin.
If tonight's Newt is the Newt South Carolinians see now through Saturday's primary, it's quite possible, Newt will defeat Mitt in South Carolina. If that happens, the dynamics of the race change for Florida and possibly beyond.
Tags: South Carolina Primary , Debates , Newt Gingrich , Mitt Romney , Rick Santorum , GOTV , GOP , Juan Williams , Food Stamps , President Obama , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:51 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Jan-12 04:45 PM
He can throw raw meat to the animals, but can he win a state? It's hard to understand South Carolina except that the GOP is strongly rooted there, Strom Thurmond Dixicrat history and all, to expect marching orders to be taken. That leaves Florida where Newt has to be strong or gone. And the media has set him up with the claim he and Santorum are dog-fighting for the same votes and Santorum's been stonger longer on Jesus/fetus stuff.
Is the Romney campaign wimping out?
It isn't a secret that a candidate's press secretary's job is to be the candidate's main advocate in public. When the somewhat conservative press was giving Mitt impressive marks in the debates, Eric Fehrnstrom had the best job on the campaign trail. Now that Mitt's getting dinged up, suddenly Fehrnstrom is talking about how the other candidates are being mean beating his candidate up at the debates.
Perhaps that's why Fehrnstrom is hinting that the debates just aren't all that they're cracked up to be :
His strategy seems to be to run out the lock with his answers often sounding like a filibuster. Team Romney believes there have been far too many debate. Romney has been very strong in most of them and they want them curtailed now that he's ahead. "There's been a lot of them," said Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom afterwards, adding that they had degenerated into "bash Mitt exercises".
When the not-Mitt candidates were beating each other up, Fehrnstrom wore a big smile. Now that Mitt's getting exposed, Fehrnstrom is there to whine about how it's turned into a real campaign. What a wimp. Mr. Ferhnstrom, if you, or your candidate, can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
He said: "When Mitt Romney can come out of that type of environment unscathed it's a big victory for him...their game plan was to attack Mitt and keep attacking him until he's beaten and blooodied on the floor and at that they failed."
First, it's important to note that Mitt isn't emerging from "that type of environment unscathed." Rick Santorum's interrogation of Mitt on voting rights for criminals will hurt Mitt as people figure out what's happening.
I wrote here that Sen. Santorum caught Mitt:
The former Pennsylvania [senator] repeated his question, noting that 'This is Martin Luther King Day. This is a huge deal in the African-American community, because we have very high rates of incarceration, disproportionately high rates, particularly with drug crimes, in the African-American community.'
'The bill I voted on was the Martin Luther King Voting Rights bill,' he continued. 'And this was a provision that said, particularly targeted African-Americans. And I voted to allow - to allow them to have their voting rights back once they completed their sentence. Do you agree with that?' he prompted.
'I don't think people who have committed violent crimes should be allowed to vote again. That's my own view,' Romney answered.
Santorum was ready with a cross-examination-style response.
'You know, it's very interesting you should say that, Governor Romney, because in the state of Massachusetts, when you were governor, the law was that not only could violent felons vote after they exhausted their sentences, but they could vote while they were on probation and parole, which was a more liberal position than I took when I voted for the bill in the Congress.'
That's telling. When Mitt was caught off guard on this, his initial instinct was to sound like a pillar of conservatism. That's what he always does, especially when the reality is that he did nothing to act on his supposed beliefs.
Mitt didn't fight to prevent violent felons from ever voting again. He went along rather than fighting Democrats. This plays into the storyline that Mitt's never quite what he makes himself out to be. It simply makes it more difficult for him to close the deal.
It's painfully obvious that there's a substantial gravitas gap between Mitt on his A game and Newt on his A game. Mitt's best is pretty solid. Newt's best is as good as it gets.
Mitt can' afford to have people asking which debater they'd want across from President Obama next September. Mitt's semi-feisty debating style won't translate as well against President Obama as Newt's brilliance and feistiness will.
UPDATE: WOW. It's one thing for Fehrnstrom to be a wimp. It's another for the Romney campaign to suggest that they're going into full wimp mode. Ed's post is about Team Mitt hinting that he won't participate in the Florida debates:
After a debate in which Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney faced attacks from all sides, the Romney campaign says it has not yet accepted invitations to participate in two high-profile debates leading up to the January 31 Florida primary, and a key Romney adviser is expressing fatigue and frustration over what he sees as a never-ending series of GOP debates.
'There are too many of these,' Romney strategist Stuart Stevens said after Monday night's Fox News debate at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center. 'We have to bring some order to it. We haven't accepted Florida: It's kind of like a cruise that's gone on too long.'
I won't take Mr. Stevens' comments seriously. Mitt will participate because to not participate will make him look like a wimp. Substantive accusations would fly that Mitt couldn't stand the heat so he's abandoned the kitchen.
It's easy picturing Winning the Future buying ad time in Florida for an ad showing an empty podium with Mitt's name on it, followed by video of a beaming Mitt talking about having broad shoulders. That type of ad would be devastating. Mitt's inevitability factor would instantly plummet.
I don't doubt that Mitt doesn't like being the pinata at these debates. I'm certain that it's getting under his skin because he's an elitist who doesn't like getting challenged.
It's time for the other candidates to a) tell him to get out of the kitchen if he can't take the heat and b) tell Mitt that he needs to get toughened up.
Tags: Debates , Florida , Mitt Romney , Eric Fehrnstrom , Press Secretary , Stuart Stevens , Rick Santorum , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:23 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton, Photo ID and the Constitution
If there's anything we know, it's that the DFL is philosophically opposed to Photo ID's as the method to insure election integrity. We know that because the LWV-MN held an ani-Photo ID protest in St. Cloud last week.
Last year, Gov. Dayton vetoed a photo ID bill. Tim Pugmire's article left out an important qualifier:
Gov. Mark Dayton rejected a Republican-backed bill last spring that would have required Minnesotans to show photo identification to vote. In his veto letter, Dayton noted that the measure would have forced local governments to spend money and that it did not have broad bipartisan support.
Gov. Dayton's veto letter didn't say that the Photo ID legislation didn't have broad bipartisan support. Gov. Dayton's letter said that Photo ID "didn't have broad bipartisan legislative support." That's a significant difference.
Polls consistently show that 75% of Minnesota voters support Photo ID. Less than 20% of Minnesota's voters wouldn't vote for it.
More importantly, the DFL's claims are myths , not facts. Predictably, some of the dimmest bulbs in the DFL's chandelier is repeating the DFL's chanting points:
Rep. Winkler can't verify his statement. We know this because of something that Sherri Kuth, the Public Policy Coordinator and lobbyist for the Minnesota chapter of the League of Women Voters, said at a Photo ID protest event in St. Cloud :
But critics say the requirement would have many negative consequences. State Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, said he fears voting would be more difficult for senior citizens, college students and other Minnesotans who might not have a photo ID with their current address.
'It creates a burden for voting on people, makes it more difficult, and is just an unnecessary expense and unnecessary hassle for voters,' he said.
Late in the forum, Sherri Knuth admitted 'Right now, we don't know how many people would be affected if Photo ID was enacted.'
That isn't the only information to base an opinion on. There's also this information from the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board lawsuit:
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.'
The DFL has worshiped at the altar of eliminating as many restrictions to voting as possible for years. The truth is that the things that the DFL calls restrictions are often called safeguards by the average voter.
Gov. Dayton, the LWV-MN and politicians like Rep. Winkler are playing partisan politics with election integrity. That's why the Minnesota legislature will put this important election integrity safeguard in the hands of voter, not dishonest politicians.
Tags: Photo ID , Constitution , Election 2012 , MNGOP , Mark Dayton , Ryan Winkler , League of Women Voters-MN , Sherri Knuth , Voter Fraud , DFL
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:13 AM
No comments.
'Stable Mitt' vs. 'Unreliable Newt'
Mitt Romney's troops in the media, starting with Charles Krauthammer, have warned Newt Gingrich about attacking Mitt's time at Bain Capital, saying that they're just giving Team Obama ammunition. Thankfully, Newt's figured out a better way to defeat Mitt: put him on defense on his policies vs. his statements.
Newt's strategy must be working because Mitt's returning to his Newt's-too-unstable-to-be-president strategy :
Here's details about the event:
Boston, MA - On Wednesday, Romney adviser and former Missouri Senator Jim Talent and former Congresswoman Susan Molinari will hold a press conference call to discuss Speaker Newt Gingrich's record as an unreliable leader. Details are as follows:
Wednesday, January 18, 2012:
Event: Sen. Jim Talent And Rep. Susan Molinari Hold A Press Conference Call On Speaker Gingrich's Record As An Unreliable Leader
When: 10:00 AM EST
Call-In Number: (866) 578-1005
Call Name: Unreliable Leader
I plan on calling in and asking Mitt's hacks this simple question: If Newt was such an unreliable leader, how did he get so many things done that people thought were impossible?
If Talent and Molinari want to attack Newt for ruffling feathers, I'll join their chorus because he certainly ruffled feathers. That's how so many revolutionary accomplishments happened during his tenure. Accomplishments like:
- Welfare Reform
- balancing the budget
- Congress living by the rules they pass
- creating 11,000,000 jobs in 4 years
- devising a plan that created the first GOP majority in 40 years
Here's what's contained in the Contract With America :
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family. Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves. On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.
Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.
While Newt was proposing these measures, 'Stable' Mitt Romney was distancing himself from Ronald Reagan and Newt's Contract with America:
The key words from this video are stunning:
MITT ROMNEY: If you want to get things done in Washington, you don't end up picking teams, with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other, and entering into a contract, saying "We're all going to do this" and if that works, then the other side feels like they're the loser...I don't like winners and losers in Washington. I'd rather just say 'Let's get things done.'
Mitt was too busy distancing himself from Newt's Contract With America to read the sensible things in Newt's Contract With America. There wasn't a single thing in the Contract With America that didn't enjoy 70% support across America. That's why 8 of the 10 legislative items from the Contract were signed into law.
The 2 items that didn't pass were the term limits and balanced budget constitutional amendments. The key question this election is whether we want someone timid like Mitt, caving on every great idea conservatives come up with or if we want someone who's a visionary, a leader with a spine and the willingness to ruffle feathers in DC.
Right now, DC needs its feathers ruffled and then some. Timid half-measures won't change things in DC. They'll just change the hand on the rudder of the sinking ship known as our nation's capital. 'Stable Mitt Romney' is more likely to fight conservatives than progressives. No thanks. I'll pick 'Unreliable Newt' and his lengthy and impressive conservative accomplishments over Mitt's timidity every time.
Tag: Conference Call , Jim Talent , Susan Molinari , Mitt Romney , Liberalism , Newt Gingrich , Leadership , Contract With America , DC , Reforms , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:51 AM
Comment 1 by Jack at 18-Jan-12 12:17 PM
Is this 1994?? In 1994 Newt was more conservative than Mitt. In 2012 there's absolutely no evidence that's the case. Mitt was as conservative as possible in Mass, while Gingrich supported cap-and-trade, health care mandates, and took millions from Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. He's more liberal than Romney and he'd undoubtedly be a more liberal president.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-12 12:27 PM
Here we go again. Mitt talks conservative but governed liberal throughout his term in office. Newt's lengthy list of conservative accomplishments speak for themselves. As for Newt supporting Cap & Trade, the reality is that Newt testified to Congress that he didn't support Cap & Trade. Meanwhile, Mitt approved of expensive CO2 emission regulations while governor. Then Mitt approved regulations implementing price controls on power plants so they a) were first stuck with expensive regulations based on junk science & b) were stuck with eating the cost of those expensive regulations that were based on junk science.
It's apparent that you haven't learned a thing from the past 3 years. Pay attention to the politicians' actions, not their words.
Molinari's, Talent's 10-minute hit job
I just finished participating in a
Rep. Molinari characterized Newt's leadership style as "leadership by chaos." Later in her remarks, she blamed Newt for Bob Dole's defeat in 1996 and for House Republicans losing 5 seats in 1998.
When the NYTimes' Ashley Parker asked if Rep. Molinari was actually blaming Newt for Dole's defeat, Rep. Molinari quickly backpedaled, saying that turnout should've been better than it was. It's interesting that she blamed that on Newt, not the utterly unexciting Bob Dole.
It's interesting that they blamed the 1998 defeat on Newt, not on the fact that Congress, House and Senate both, didn't get much accomplished that term.
When a reporter said that the last they'd heard from Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent was when Newt was riding high in the polls, Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent tried explaining that it's just coincidence. When the reporter asked if their reappearance wasn't an admission that Mitt's losing ground in South Carolina, Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent insisted that they were just worried that Republicans would lose on all levels if Newt became the nominee.
Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent insisted, too, that Newt wasn't the right person for the job of leading the Republican Party and "the conservative movement." I've got a good memory and I don't recall either Jim Talent's name or Susan Molinari's name being tied to the conservative movement.
Rep. Molinari and Sen. Talent refused to say even one complimentary thing about Newt during the entire conference call. Within 15 minutes of the call starting, it was over.
The talking points were clear: Newt's unreliable, Mitt's a steady leader with lots of conservative accomplishments and Mitt's the only one prepared to lead the Republican Party.
The reality doesn't match Mitt's chanting points. Mitt doesn't have "lots of conservative accomplishments." The TEA Party isn't interested in being led back to the pre-TEA Party go-along-to-get-along GOP.
The question that's lingering about the conference call is simple: If Mitt's a superior leader, why isn't he highlighting his conservative accomplishments while in public office? If he's that superior, he should ignore Newt and just stay positive, reminding people of his accomplishments.
That isn't what happened. Mitt trotted out his attack dogs to attack Newt, quite possibly because he's worried about losing South Carolina.
One thing that isn't in question is this: Mitt's on the defensive. He tried dealing with the hits in Monday's debate but didn't handle it well. Now, Mitt's hinting that he might skip a debate or two in Florida. I wrote here that that won't happen because the image of the supposed inevitable frontrunner hightailing it from the debate stage while his opponents turn up the heat would be devastating.
Tags: Negative Campaign , Susan Molinari , Jim Talent , Mitt , Hatchet Job , Bob Dole , Elections , Establishment , Ashley Parker , New York Times , Newt Gingrich , Conservative Movement , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:17 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 18-Jan-12 04:05 PM
I have a question for Senator Talent. If it was Newt's fault that Dole lost in 1996 can we now blame Senator Talent for losing the Missouri senate seat in 2006 and allow us to have Obamacare?
It seems that if Talent is an expert on what it takes to win an election he will be a current senator not a former senator.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Mitt denies tax policies create jobs
In a thoroughly bizarre moment in South Carolina, Mitt Romney attacked Newt Gingrich for claiming partial credit for passing the Kemp-Roth tax cuts. Mitt said that for Newt, "who'd only been in Congress 2 years at the time", to claim credit for creating jobs is like Al Gore claiming credit for inventing the Internet."
Mitt later said that "government doesn't create jobs. Businesses create jobs."
Mitt's goal from the outset was to sell the notion that federal tax and regulatory policy doesn't matter, that brilliant businesspeople are all that's required to create a great economy. Mitt knows that there's more to creating jobs than just risk-taking entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are important but passing wise public policy is a key component, too.
The Kemp-Roth tax cuts cut capital gains and income tax rates. As a result, Detroit, which was getting its butt kicked by Japan, was able to modernize their manufacturing plants. Within a short period of time, Detroit's Big 3 automakers were competitve again.
Is Mitt really foolish enough to argue that the Reagan Tax Cuts didn't affect his ability to create wealth and jobs through Bain Capital? Or is he arguing that Newt didn't team with Larry Kudlow, Art Laffer and Jack Kemp in pushing the Reagan Tax Cut through Tip O'Neill's House of Representatives?
If Mitt's arguing the latter, here's an exchange between Newt Gingrich and Larry Kudlow :
GINGRICH: I'm for abolishing the death tax. I'm for 100 percent expensing for all new equipment. I'm for a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate. I'm for an optional 15 percent flat tax on the - on the Hong Kong model. So I'm happy to match; you know, I was with you and Wanniski and Laffer and Kemp when this game started.
KUDLOW: Mm-hmm. That's :
GINGRICH: But, politically, psychologically, middle-class Americans sitting out here going, 'OK, you don't want - you don't want to repeal the Bush tax cuts. You want to keep all those tax cuts. You say don't, don't let them go back up. But now we're going to let taxes go back up on every single working American.' I don't think psychologically you can make that case.
KUDLOW: All right.
The reality is that Newt was preaching from the outset that Republicans could take over the majority in the House, that Republicans could actually balance the budget and could institute major, badly needed reforms. Why shouldn't we believe that Newt played an instrumental role in getting the Reagan tax cuts passed?
If Mitt wants to argue that public policies don't matter, that all it takes to build a great economy is a bunch of great entrepreneurs. I'd love hearing Mitt explain how the economy flourished during the Reagan administration but not during Bush the Elder's administration.
Surely, Mitt can't argue that there was a dramatic dropoff of outstanding entrepreneurs after 1989.
At best, Mitt's argument is foolish. BTW, if policies don't matter, why is the Obama economy struggling?
Mitt won't do this but he should admit that 2 presidents that didn't have extensive private sector experience were the most prolific job-creating administrations of the last century.
I'd be remiss if I didn't include this exchange:
GINGRICH: But you're a witness to this. I was part of Kemp's little cabal of supply-siders who, I think, largely by helping convince Reagan and then working with Reagan, profoundly changed the entire trajectory of the American economy in the 1980s. You can make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get to be rich because I helped pass the legislations that...
KUDLOW: Not a bad argument. Have you ever made that argument to him?
GINGRICH: I am as of right this minute. Just occurred to me.
Larry Kudlow is a smart economist. He was also part of the team that thought of, then got the Reagan tax cuts passed.
It isn't a stretch to think that Mitt made alot more money thanks to the public policy that initial team of supply siders thought of, then implemented.
Tags: Jack Kemp , Art Laffer , Larry Kudlow , Newt Gingrich , Ronald Reagan , Reagan Tax Cuts , Capital Gains Tax Cuts , Big Three Automakers , Detroit , International Competitiveness , Conservatism , Mitt Romney , Bush the Elder , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment 1 by Kevin at 18-Jan-12 03:36 PM
???? this post does not follow logically from what Mitt said.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-12 08:46 PM
Perhaps that's because I told the truth whereas Mitt was laying the BS on thick. How much private sector experience did Bill Clinton have? How many jobs were created during his administration?
Mitt's contention from the outset has been that only CEO's know how to create jobs, which is BS. My report on Mitt's schtick exposed that flaw in Mitt's argument.
