January 18-21, 2016
Jan 18 07:23 Hillary Clinton's bad night Jan 18 07:53 Hillary's "too big to jail" mistake Jan 18 10:08 Let's pick this fight Jan 19 12:01 Criminal justice reform...or not Jan 19 15:40 Let's kill the Tech bonding bill Jan 20 05:29 A match made for reality TV Jan 20 07:22 Trump is the new Reagan? Jan 20 20:07 Jeffrey Toobin, Hillary apologist Jan 21 01:21 There he goes again, Thissen edition
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Hillary Clinton's bad night
Chris Cillizza's article certainly isn't the type of review she was hoping for. Cillizza's article put Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley in the debate's winner category. It put Mrs. Clinton into the loser category.
Cillizza highlighted the fact that Sen. Sanders "got tripped up a few times during the debate on his voting record -- especially on guns" before noting that "he was the prime mover in virtually every discussion from Wall Street reform to health care to climate change. He was on offense, accusing rival Hillary Clinton of half-measures and political caution at a moment when boldness is required."
Of O'Malley, Cillizza wrote that Gov. O'Malley started the debate by whining about being ignored but then he "turned the corner on getting ignored and by the end of the debate was downright likable." It's nice that O'Malley came across as likable but it's utterly irrelevant. He's a total non-factor in the Democratic presidential nomination fight. That fight is between Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Sanders.
Here's what Cillizza wrote about Mrs. Clinton:
So, why is she in the loser column? Because she did nothing in the debate to slow the momentum that Sanders is building in Iowa and New Hampshire. Aside from guns, where Clinton scored a clean win against Sanders, she was unable to effectively cast him as a pie-in-the-sky idealist and herself as the only person who could truly fight and win on for Democratic priorities. Time and again, she was boxed into defending a status quo that the American public, Democrats and Republicans alike, is dissatisfied with.
Simply put, Hillary is out of step with voters. At a time when the American people want to grab politicians by the short and curlies, she's preaching the virtues of staying the course and continuity. This, of course, puts a smile on President Obama's face but it isn't what the American people want.
One of the disputable truths about politics is that politicians, generally speaking, aren't leaders. They're mostly followers. Bill Clinton had a vision for America, a destination he wanted to take people to. Hillary Clinton struggles with "the vision thing." She's mostly a check-the-right-boxes candidate. Environmental activists want this. Promise them what they want. Unions want unswerving loyalty. Hillary's response is 'you've got it.' At no point does Mrs. Clinton tell people how all these separate promises create a vision that unifies the nation.
In fact, the only candidate with that type of vision in either party is Sen. Rubio. That's why lots of Democratic strategists have said -- off the record, of course -- that Sen. Rubio frightens them the most.
Posted Monday, January 18, 2016 7:23 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 18-Jan-16 05:56 PM
Bernie rocks.
A Bernie - Trump contest would not be the boring same old same old. It would be energetic, not low energy.
Hillary's "too big to jail" mistake
If ever someone should tread lightly when it comes to criticizing corruption, it's Hillary Clinton. Gabby Morrongiello's article highlights some tweets that Hillary is going to regret. During the debate, Hillary's staff tweeted a quote from Hillary about corruption. During the debate, Hillary said "There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail."
The Twitterverse response wasn't what Mrs. Clinton's staffers were expecting. One tweet said "@HillaryClinton That includes you, Hillary." Another tweet said "Does this include yourself? #possibleindictment" Still another said "'No individual too big to jail' - I can't believe she just tweeted that with a straight face"
To that last tweet, this person must be young. When it comes to chutzpah, Hillary's got more chutzpah than Mr. Trump's got mean-spirited quips. Hillary's tweet originated from a belief that the American people are either stupid, forgetful or both. When she was squashing bimbo eruptions during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, she could get away with statements like that. That doesn't work because the universe has changed by orders of magnitude.
In 1992, the media universe essentially consisted of CNN (which was then nicknamed the Clinton New Network by Rush Limbaugh), NBC, ABC and CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Talk radio was just getting started. Al Gore was just inventing the internet. Social media didn't exist.
Posted Monday, January 18, 2016 7:53 AM
No comments.
Let's pick this fight
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act , with 289 congresscritters voting for the bill. This week, the Senate will attempt to pass the bill. Democrats plan to stop it before it can be debated. If that fails, President Obama intends to veto the bill. Either way, Democrats at one end of Pennsylvania Ave. or the other will stop far short of protecting Americans from ISIS terrorists.
While I know that sounds harsh, it isn't rhetoric. It's the logical outcome. If the federal government doesn't do its job of screening foreigners who want to enter the United States, something that's happened before , terrorists won't have to sneak across the unprotected southern border of the U.S. They'll be able to get in with the federal government's permission. That's the blunt truth of things.
If Democrats want to stop this legislation from becoming law, that's their option. It's the Republicans' option, though, to use the Democrats' obstructionism against them on the campaign trail. Let's see how swing state Democrats get clobbered for being weak on preventing terrorism. Let's see how their constituents react when they're told that Democrats couldn't be bothered with preventing a terrorist from moving in just down the block from them.
Over the past few months, voters' concerns about terrorism have surged and their confidence in the government's ability to defeat IS and other extremist groups has plummeted, according to a national survey conducted in December by the Pew Research Center.
National Security is the most important issue to 41% of likely voters. If Democrats are criticized for not taking substantive steps to prevent terrorist attacks, they'll be committing political suicide.
It isn't a stretch to think that they'll be criticized as weak on national security just like they were in the 1970s.
Posted Monday, January 18, 2016 10:08 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 18-Jan-16 05:49 PM
They said the same thing about the Irish after the influx caused by the potato famine. Use your Netflix to check out Gangs of New York. That was Mr. Cruz's New York values, back then.
And the Germans suffered blind hate in the US during WW I. The federal government interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW II.
Hate is a nasty thing.
LAST: If that bogus bill does not mention screening out Saudi immigrants what's the value? 911 was a Saudi flavor. And then flip the coin, should the Saudis screen everyone during the hajj? Not let any Shia in?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-16 08:20 PM
They haven't found any Saudi passports near the sites of any recent terrorist attacks. Also, there isn't a war in Saudi Arabia which makes it impossible to reference well-maintained databases that keep track of people.
The problem with Syria is that they don't have a well-maintained database, there's a civil war happening there & ISIS is running terrorist operations there. None of that is happening in Saudi Arabia.
Criminal justice reform...or not
Jazz Shaw's post about the murder of a Utah police officer is heartbreaking but important within the context of criminal justice reform. Far too frequently, we've heard stories about "non-violent offenders" being incarcerated after being convicted for a felony.
Jazz's post is about how Cory Lee Henderson murdered a police officer Sunday. Henderson allegedly murdered "Scott Barney, an 18-year veteran of the Unified and Taylorsville police departments and a father of three who worked in the Holladay Precinct." Since then, lots of disturbing information has come out about Henderson. In his post, Shaw wrote that "Henderson was indicted by a federal grand jury on felon in possession of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense" on Nov. 24, 2015.
That's just the most recent incarceration for Mr. Henderson. After being indicted, things take a bizarre twist. On "Dec. 4, 2015, Henderson is arraigned in federal court, pleads not guilty. On Dec. 8, 2015, Henderson is paroled to the Fortitude Treatment Center. Federal court records show U.S. Magistrate Judge Evelyn Furse allowed him to be released from federal custody to go to the treatment center. On Dec. 18, 2015, Henderson is reported as a walkaway from the Fortitude Treatment Center. The Utah Department of Corrections said Henderson checked out in the morning to look for employment but did not return at the end of the day. That night, state dispatch was contacted and notified that he was missing."
What type of nutjob judge paroles a felon with a lengthy history of convictions? This article is must reading:
Henderson's criminal history includes arrests for drugs, weapons, assault and theft. He was convicted of possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia in 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2015. He was imprisoned for possession of a firearm by a restricted person in 2014 and was jailed on parole violations in November and December last year.
Criminal justice activists will surely attempt to tell the public that he never should've been jailed for the drug charges. That's BS. In this and many other instances, drugs are just the tip of the iceberg. Notice that Henderson's record includes arrests for "weapons, assault and theft," too.
Posted Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:01 PM
No comments.
Let's kill the Tech bonding bill
After I wrote this post , I was invited onto Dan Ochsner's Ox in the Afternoon radio program to discuss the alarming disparity between the ISD 742 estimates and the bid that was put together for Sarah Murphy and Claire VanderEyk.
During the campaign to pass the Tech bonding referendum, the ISD 742 school board said it would cost between $85,800,000 and $96,800,000 to temporarily fix Tech for 5-10 years. When Ms. Murphy and Ms. VanderEyk toured the facility, they took notes on what was in disrepair and needed fixing. Since they're both architects, they're qualified to determine what's in need of repair, what's structurally deficient and what's in good repair.
Ms. Murphy and Ms. VanderEyk are both Tech alums so they'd like to preserve the building if that's possible. That's why they took their notes to a contractor to see how much it would actually cost to repair the existing Tech campus. Saying that their estimate came in at less than $97,000,000 is understatement. It came in at $15,696,000, which is approximately $100,000,000 less than the School Board said it would cost to build a brand new Tech High School.
It's worth noting that the new Tech High School would be able to hold 1,800 students, which is significantly more than it needs. It's also worth noting that the School Board wanted $46,500,000 in bonding authority to fix Apollo High School, which is less than 50 years old. (Tech is over 100 years old.)
Considering the fact that the bid put together for Ms. Murphy and Ms. VanderEyk to refurbish and repair a 100-year-old building was less than $16,000,000, it isn't a stretch to think that it wouldn't cost $46,500,000 to repair Apollo. In fact, it isn't a stretch to think that both projects combined could be done for less than what the Apollo renovation would've cost.
As I said in the earlier post, I'm not arguing to do nothing. That ship has sailed. It isn't returning to port. What I'm arguing for is to rethink the entire project and see if we shouldn't adopt a more taxpayer-friendly option that still helps students attend a high school where they can prepare for a college education and a productive working career.
Simply put, I'm arguing to kill last fall's plan once and for all. It isn't needed and it can't be afforded. It's that simple.
Posted Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:40 PM
No comments.
A match made for reality TV
This picture says it all:
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:29 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Jan-16 10:01 AM
Gary, have you had a chance to study Trump's tax returns?
Or Clinton's? Or Ted's?
Yeah, me neither.
And then poor, poor, pitiful Track. Having Obama to blame.
Trump is the new Reagan?
Before Sarah Palin's endorsement of fellow reality TV personality Donald Trump, a series of tweets were posted by an account named TrumpLandslide. I'd hope that this account isn't part of the Trump campaign, though I can't be certain, given the state of Trump's mind and his temperament. One of TrumpLandslide's tweets said "What do libs and DC elites fear more than a conservative politician? One who used to be a liberal and then got smart. Like Reagan or Trump."
First, what proof do we have that Trump is conservative? We've heard his words but that isn't proof. If words were proof, we'd have the most conservative Senate in the history of the Republic. Further, comparing Trump to Reagan is like comparing Milton Friedman, an unabashed champion of capitalism, to Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist. Let's compare President Reagan's character and temperament with Mr. Trump's. This won't be pretty.
President Reagan was a confident man. Mr. Trump is an insecure man. (Anyone who repeatedly tells the world that he's great is insecure.) President Reagan was known for his humility and steadfastness. Mr. Trump is known for his brashness and his constant mood swings. President Reagan was a man who you could count on. Mr. Trump can't be trusted to do now what he said he'd do an hour ago.
Can anyone picture Mr. Trump delivering Reagan's famous Tear Down This Wall Speech?
I can't. I can't because I don't think Mr. Trump puts a high price on confronting evil. Thus far, Mr. Trump has stated repeatedly his eagerness to negotiate with Russia and Iran. By contrast, President Reagan didn't hesitate to criticize the Soviet Union, calling it an "evil empire."
Publicly, Mr. Trump hasn't shown a sense of humor. He's shown himself to be a thin-skinned man unable to poke fun at himself. It that respect, he's the anti-Reagan. Here's a sampling of President Reagan's sense of humor:
Throughout his political life, President Reagan railed against universal health care. As recently as this summer, Mr. Trump still trumpeted the virtues of universal health care for our veterans. It's insulting to hear Mr. Trump's campaign compare him with the greatest president of my lifetime.
Michael Reagan was interviewed in September about the field of GOP presidential candidates. When he was asked who was the least Reaganesque , Reagan replied "Donald Trump."
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2016 7:22 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Jan-16 05:40 PM
Trump is not the new Reagan.
Thank god. That cuts in his favor, big time.
Trump shares a stage with Sarah Palin?
He's staked credibility on appointing/associating with quality people outside of the political cesspool.
Quality and Palin are opposite poles of a major sized spectrum. Trump really hurts Trump. Palin gets life support for her diminished public persona and an ego trip. Trump loses. Palin wins, but wins little.
That was the single dumbest thing Trump has done so far, and it is what will reach back and bite him big time. The rest he has roll away like water off a Teflon duck's back. This will stick. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Jeffrey Toobin, Hillary apologist
It's bad enough when Hillary's campaign spokesman tries spinning his way out of the predicament Hillary created. That's what he's paid to do. It's quite another when the media, in this case CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, start playing the roll of Hillary apologist .
Toobin went straight to the 'the government classifies too many documents' card, saying "She is now suffering from that because people are saying there's all this classified information she's dealing with, but there is not a bright line between classified and unclassified, and you can see, at least to a certain extent, why she was not clear on what was what." Hillary's biggest problem thus far is that the Intelligence Community IG identified multiple emails that had the highest security clearance, that of SAP or special access programs. The only people with a security clearance high enough to read this information other than the President and Vice President are the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the director of the CIA and the director of National Intelligence and their deputies. That's right. Only 10 people have a clearance to read SAPs in the entire government.
That's because this information identifies drone deployments, submarine deployments and spies who have infiltrated terrorist networks and cells. If this information gets into the wrong hands, people will die. That's why it's tightly held information.
There's no doubt that the federal government classifies too many documents. That isn't what's at issue here. What's at issue is this nation's most sensitive information. It isn't unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to guard that information with her life.
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2016 8:07 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Jan-16 05:34 PM
You say Clinton. Gotta say:
Bernie rocks. He'd defeat Trump. He'd defeat Cruz even easier. Rand Paul would be the hardest challenge, but he'd defeat him too.
He'd easily defeat Adelson. Make that Rubio. Same thing.
Adelson's the dog, and wags the tail. No way, the other way.
As to the post, if a Cabinet Secretary cannot alter classification of a document under/within her portfolio, always by her status under her constructive custody and control, who the [blip] can?
Get real. It won't fly. Let it be. Get substantive.
Procedural hair-splitting is unappealing.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Jan-16 11:42 PM
The EO that Hillary's husband wrote (EO12958) & that Obama re-issued (EO13526) say that the originating agency controls the classification. The person reading the intel is prohibited from changing the classification.
Those are the rules governing changing classifications. That's what flies these days. Deal with it.
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Jan-16 03:54 PM
Was it Defense originating? It's not something I spend much time on.
Comment 4 by eric z at 26-Jan-16 07:03 AM
Gary - If your claim is it was a DOD record with an EO barring another department's tampering with a classification designation, what about the law that the two ham sandwiches in Texas were indicted under, tampering with a government record? That sort of statute seems a remnant from the days of burning draft cards, but if there is overcriminalization as it appears, nobody should be above the law. There'd be amusement to accusing Hil' of the identical offense, and without amusement our lives are dreary. Not knowing the loopholes in any such statute, it nonetheless does seem to be great overcriminalization if any such statute is vaguely worded; and that should be tested by Rep. Gowdy, since stupidity in all its forms should be exposed and opposed. Of course, the abuse of having the privilege and power to classify documents to avoid sunshine and public scrutiny is the major worry in all this Hillary stuff, and that seems swept under a carpet.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-16 10:44 AM
Time will show that the TX indictment is a sham. This video explains why it's a sham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa6TXg6cMsI
As for the silliness that the 2 cases are similar, let's get serious a bit. Let's stipulate, for the sake of this discussion, that CMP tampered with government records. There's no chance that those government records contained the identities of covert CIA operatives that have infiltrated a terrorist cell and that are still out in the field.
If CMP tampered with government records, it might expose inconvenient information. If Hillary's server got hacked & the identities of covert operatives who've infiltrated ISIS was exposed, it likely would mean those CIA operatives would die.
There he goes again, Thissen edition
Anyone who's read LFR the last 5 years knows I don't have any respect for Paul Thissen. He's one of the most partisan political hacks in Minnesota. His contact with the truth is tangential on his best days, nonexistent on most days. For years, Thissen has insisted that Republicans are interested in providing "special treatment to big Twin Cities and multinational corporations." That's an outright lie. It isn't inaccurate. It isn't a matter open for discussion.
It's an outright lie. Rep. Thissen knows that it's a lie. Worst, Rep. Thissen doesn't mind telling that outright lie. Last May, I wrote this article about Gov. Dayton's shutdown notice announcement. At the time, Speaker Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Bakk had worked out a compromise budget. Gov. Dayton and Rep. Thissen objected to the bill in an attempt to kill the bipartisan bill.
Gov. Dayton and Rep. Thissen both complained that the Tax Bill would "provide tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." I contacted Greg Davids, the Chairman of the House Taxes Committee, for a statement on those statements. Here's what he said:
My bill does not do that. Eighty percent goes to individuals. Tax relief is for the middle class...My tax bill is tax relief for the poor and middle class.
I read Davids' tax bill. His characterization of the bill is accurate. Rep. Thissen's characterization isn't. Unfortunately for Minnesotans thirsting for the truth, Rep. Thissen's lies don't stop there:
Thissen said the 2015 session was a 'monumental flop for Greater Minnesota' after the House Republican majority failed to tackle important issues for greater Minnesota such as transportation, broadband infrastructure, and rural property tax relief. He said the 'Greater Minnesota for All' agenda is focused on completing the unfinished business of the 2015 session.
First, the DFL played obstructionist with transportation. They said no to the Republicans' transportation bill that would've directed sales tax revenues from rental cars, auto repairs and vehicle leases to a stability fund. That fund would've been used to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges. The DFL didn't want that because they wanted a gas tax increase and additional funding for transit in outstate Minnesota. The need for transit in outstate Minnesota is less than important. It's virtually nonexistent.
Next, the DFL's 'investments' in LGA and education from the 2013 budget when there was a DFL governor and DFL majorities in the House and Senate sent property taxes through the roof. Rep. Thissen bragged about the DFL's "historic investment in education." Despite that historic investment and the paying off of school shifts, school districts across the state enacted huge property tax increases. The most modest increase was St. Cloud's increase of 14.75%. The biggest property tax increase that I heard about was Princeton's 25.16% increase . That's relatively modest considering the fact that Princeton initially wanted to raise property taxes 33.87%.
The truth is that Dayton, Thissen and the DFL love raising taxes. Dayton, Thissen and the DFL love spending those tax increases on education because they know that the vast majority of that money will go to Education Minnesota, then into DFL campaign coffers.
Rep. Thissen, keep your grubby little fingers off the taxpayers' hard-earned money. Robbing the taxpayers to pay off Education Minnesota isn't ok. It's disgusting and it's gotta stop ASAP.
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:21 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Jan-16 05:08 PM
Gary - You could do a "There he goes again," item on Rep. Joe Atkins, DFL, with Strib reporting this time his kids getting "scholarships" from a foundation Atkins runs. That's as raw as Sean Nienow taking the SBA for a ride. Each party should muck its stable. A Republican primary opponent for Nienow since he will not step aside, a DFL opponent for Atkins if he does not step aside. In each instance the other party will be running to win too, but both ways, muck the stable, please.
Presuming, of course, Strib got its facts right, as was done with Nienow's waste of public cash peccadillo.
Do you suppose those were "merit" scholarships, and if so, how do you guess merit would have been measured, if measured at all?
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 25-Jan-16 09:28 PM
The DFL are a middle to low income person's worst nightmare. With a $2 billion dollar "surplus" (over taxation) the jokers still want to raise taxes and the Clown-in-Chief has now walked back his no transportation tax increase. Can't wait to get out of this state.
