January 2-5, 2012
Jan 02 09:11 2011: A look back Jan 03 01:13 Paranoid progressives criticize things they know nothing about Jan 03 15:06 Who indeed? Jan 04 14:10 It's Official: Michele drops presidential bid Jan 04 20:56 Union-Leader blasts Romney, calls him timid Jan 04 22:03 President Obama ignores Constitution, sets up Constitutional Crisis Jan 05 03:59 What a difference a day makes Jan 05 09:10 What's in a word (conservative)?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2011: A look back
2011 was possibly best known as a year where both political parties lost the respect of voters. On the presidential election front, it was a year of great turbulance, with conervatives first courting Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich. After a brief dalliance with liberal Ron Paul, it looks like they're finally giving Rick Santorum a look.
Clearly, people don't trust the supposed prohibitive frontrunner, Mitt Romney. Despite his protestations, people have noticed that he's still defending the indefensible, which is the individual mandate and Romneycare. People haven't noticed that Mitt went further on climate control than this administration's EPA has gone .
Though it wasn't a great year for Republicans, it was a worse year for Democrats. While it's true that polling doesn't reflect that yet, they were rocked by scandals galore. They spent alot of political capital they didn't have defending Operation Fast and Furious, MF Global, Solyndra and the NLRB's attempted overreach.
When the ads start flying, people will find out that the U.S. Senate didn't do anything, including passing a budget or passing any bills that helped the American people. In addition to not passing a budget, the Democrat Senate attempted to prevent the start of the Keystone XL Pipeline to appease their political allies in the militant environmentalist movement.
Minnesota politics mirrored some of the messes of the national stage, though we didn't have any scandals that actually killed people like Operation Fast and Furious did.
Obviously, the last month have hurt the Republican Party of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Senate. Tony Sutton, Michael Brodkorb and David Sturrock resigned their positions as chair, vice-chair and secretary-treasurer of the party after allegedly piling up $2,000,000 in financial obligations.
The Amy Koch scandal rocked the Capitol like nothing else in recent political history.
With that said, the DFL had an ugly year, too, starting with Gov. Dayton needlessly laying 23,000 state employees off for most of July. It isn't fair to heap all the blame on Gov. Dayton, though he's certainly deserving of the title of being Minnesota's unemployment governor.
Minority Leaders Paul Thissen and Tom Bakk sabotaged a budget deal on the last day of the 2010-2011 biennium that would've kept government open. Though I admit that sabotage is a provocative word, it's entirely fitting in this instance, especially considering the fact that Gov. Dayton had agreed to a deal without tax increases before Mssrs. Bakk and Thissen sabotaged it.
The DFL legislature certainly could be described as a do-nothing bunch except when they were sabotaging budget deals or supporting the forced unionization of small businesses. They didn't lift a finger to drawing a set of redistricting maps. That's disgusting since almost $200,000 was allocated to the House DFL and Senate DFL for redistricting software, the specialized workstations, the plotters, the printers and the redistricting specialists.
Meanwhile, MMB Commissioner Jim Showalter, one of the political hatchetmen in Dayton's cabinet, put together a document insructing Gov. Dayton's commissioners that the House GOP budget included a 9% across-the-board spending cut. That same document said that the Senate GOP budget included an 8% across-the-board spending cut.
With hatchetmen like Jim Showalter and saboteurs like Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk, the DFL certainly didn't do anything to earn the public's trus.
Tags: 2011 , Mitt Romney , Anti-Romneys , GOP , Tony Sutton , Michael Brodkorb , David Sturrock , Corruption , Amy Koch , Scandal , Mark Dayton , Unemployment Governor , Layoffs , Paul Thissen , Tom Bakk , Government Shutdown , Forced Unionization , DFL , Reforms , Small Businesses , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 2, 2012 9:11 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Jan-12 10:08 AM
Different people look back and see things differently.
For example, I don't get into blame gaming Dayton, except for not being strong enough on taxing the Rich.
It is the same with looking forward, anticipating different things, or if anticipating the same thing, weighing them as good or bad, or on a continuum between those polar extremes.
E.g., Romney being the GOP candidate, looking forward.
We each probably weigh that one the same, at this point. You'd rather see Gingrich as the GOP presidential challenger. Obama likely prefers anyone of the present pack besides Romney. I'd like a Santorum-Bachmann ticket, simple because it would be unelectable, and any other GOP combination I see not having Ron Paul at the top, is something I view as waaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaaaay inferior to more of Obama-Biden, as flawed as it's been.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-12 01:47 PM
I'm perfectly willing to blame Gov. Dayton, Rep. Thissen, Sen. Bakk & the public employee unions for the shutdown because there's documentation to prove that they could've prevented the shutdown. In the end, the budget he signed was almost identical to the budget that the GOP leadership proposed the morning of June 30,2011.
Slice it any way you want. It's still Gov. Dayton listening to Rep. Thissen & Sen. Bakk, then going back on the deal he'd negotiated with GOP leadership.
I admire your consistency on taxing the rich even though you're wrong. There's nothing right about taking more money away from the people than what the gov't needs. No, wish list items aren't needs.
Comment 2 by Nick at 02-Jan-12 12:11 PM
Ron Paul is a libertarian technically, not a liberal. He doesn't want the government to interfere with people's personal lives and wants to cut multiple departments if he becomes president. He ran for the Libertarian Party back in 1988.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jan-12 01:31 PM
Technically, RP is a libertarian. He's also a liberal.
Comment 3 by True North Fan at 02-Jan-12 05:47 PM
Absolutely Dayton and the public unions could have prevented the shutdown. But they wanted to show the private sector they couldn't survive without the public sector. Wrong. Nothing was accomplished other than losing gazillions of dollars in revenue and making us look extremely foolish to the rest of the nation. Oh, the public employees I talked to (both essential and non-essential) could have cared less about the shutdown. Just another day in their insulated world.
Comment 4 by Eric Heins at 02-Jan-12 11:41 PM
Ron Paul is liberal, yes, in the classical (pre-1900) sense. He wants people to have more liberty, which will result from reducing government's taking and control.
A choice of Paul vs Obama would, indeed, not a choice of Left vs Right. It would be a choice of Statism vs Liberty or Individualism.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 03-Jan-12 06:23 AM
Rep. Ron Paul is a man who is wrong on a lot of things, but for all the right reasons. Gov. Dayton is wrong on a lot of things, for all the wrong reasons. Pres. Obama has NOT been a disappointment. I assumed from day One that everything he did or said would be wrong.
Congratulations, Gary, for giving me the first big laugh of the New Year. I'm a techie and know what you mean, but I can only imagine the confusion of your readers, wondering why the DFL needs more "plotters," when they have so many already. :-)
Paranoid progressives criticize things they know nothing about
On Saturday, January 14, St. Cloud State's Brown Hall will host the first ever " Restoring Excellence in Education Forum ." When that word got out on the St. Cloud Times message board, some progressives got more than a little paranoid.
Former St. Cloud Mayor John Ellenbecker declared that he couldn't "imagine a less qualified panel" to discuss K-12 education issues. The panel consists of Rep. Pam Myhra, a former school teacher and Rep. Sondra Erickson, a retired school teacher. RiShawn Biddle is "Editor and Publisher of Dropout Nation, the leading commentary Web site on education reform."
Does that sound like a panel that's lacking in educational credentials?
Chris Erickson, a union negotiator in St. Cloud, let his paranoia show with this statement:
It's interesting that a union negotiator would read the website for this event, then conclude that "the goal is the destruction of public education." Mr. Erickson apparently wasn't aware that there were 2 teachers on the K-12 panel.
Where is the balance in this panel and speakers? Education reform cannot be done in isolation by any one party or group.
If you were going to reform the medical field I think you would include a few doctors. Same would be true for any field. If this group or any group really wants reform then they should be prepared to work with others.
I don't think the goal is for reforming public education. If groups like this are meeting then the goal is the destruction of public education . This is especially true if you are not including public school teachers in the discussion.
Eric Austin is a Social Studies teacher at Becker High School. Here's what he said in response to a comment I made:
"The K-12 panel is loaded, too." Loaded? If you mean loaded with a collection of non-educators who know little about education, then I agree.
Again, 2 of the panelists are former educators.What makes Austin's statements all the more foolish is the fact that Rep. Erickson chairs the House Education Reform Committee. Rep. Myhra serves on that committee.
Might it be that Mr. Austin thinks that Rep. Erickson and Rep. Myhra "know little about education" because Education Minnesota doesn't like the fact that they're Republicans? Might it be that Mr. Austin criticized the forum without first checking out the panelists' credentials?
If it's the latter, isn't it appropriate to say that that isn't the scholarly thing to do?
Take a hard look, people. That's what paranoid reactionary progressivism looks like. It isn't a pretty sight. Are these the type of people you'd trust your children's education with?
Tags: Restoring Excellence in Education , RiShawn Biddle , Sondra Erickson , Pam Myhra , House Reform Committee , MNGOP , Chris Erickson , Union Negotiator , Progressives , EdMinn , DFL
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 1:13 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 03-Jan-12 07:00 AM
Credentials matter. What degrees do these individuals hold? That some electorate put them into a legislative psoition is not popularly viewed as credentials. With Congress having 19% approval rating, and that being the big fish in the big lake, saying "former teachers" means jack, or adds jack to saying Republican legislators, which means jack. Saying DFL legislators, were you to be boosting them, also would mean jack. Credentials matter.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Jan-12 07:24 AM
Really now? So only progressive teachers currently in the classroom have the right credentials? Get serious.
EdMinn has fought for years to be the sole voice for education. The results haven't been great. EdMinn has whined that parents get more involved in education. Now that they're getting involved, they're arguing that parents aren't qualified. Which line of BS will they stick with, Eric?
Besides, we've been told that teachers can't be criticized because they're the ones who know what's going on in the schools, that they're the solution.
That's what the union thug just argued.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 03-Jan-12 11:55 AM
GG, MB - The Holy Grail, union busting?
Get real.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 03-Jan-12 12:03 PM
Eric, Damn straight I'll bust unions if they're failing students. That's one sacred cow I'll slaughter, figuratively speaking, without hesitation.
Comment 5 by LadyLogician at 04-Jan-12 07:34 AM
The only "credentials" parents of school children should care about is if the teacher can teach the kids. In my case, MN Public schools FAILED MY CHILD. All the money in the world will not save a system that is grounded in failure. I had to move out of state in order to find teachers who could engage my child and stimulate his intellectual curiosity.
All the credentials in the world are not going to help if you are a world class failure at your job.
LL
Who indeed?
Earlier this morning, I wrote a post titled " Paranoid progressives criticize things they know nothing about " that highlighted some of the absurd things that progressives said about the upcoming Restoring Excellence in Education Forum . Here's a sampling:
Where is the balance in this panel and speakers? Education reform cannot be done in isolation by any one party or group.
If you were going to reform the medical field I think you would include a few doctors. Same would be true for any field. If this group or any group really wants reform then they should be prepared to work with others.
I don't think the goal is for reforming public education. If groups like this are meeting then the goal is the destruction of public education. This is especially true if you are not including public school teachers in the discussion.
Erickson spoke out the last time the Restoring Excellence in Education Forum was mentioned on the Times' message board . First, here's AJ Kern's reply to Erickson's first snotty comment:
Oh...You mean like the 'Teachers union hosting event in Bloomington, will focus on 2012 election' St Cloud times Nov 14. "The political conference will feature sessions on how to be a successful community organizer, how to lobby for educators effectively and how to create and win an operating levy campaign..."
Or...the 'White Privilege Conference' held in Minneapolis 2010...being held in New Mexico for 2012. Many MN school districts sent teachers. SRR sent three teachers (on taxpayer dime). The St Cloud district...sent zero teachers, as well as other surrounding districts, who get a thumbs up!
I'm sure those events had well rounded panel members and speakers...right Chris???
Erickson talked about reform in this comment:
I am being open and honest. The political conference was funded by Education Minnesota. The goal was to get educators involved in the political process. Our members - both Republican and Democrat need to be more involved. We as teachers need to be active in the reform process. The message was that we cannot sit on our hands and do nothing. Who are the best experts in the education reform movement, but teachers? We know what works. The conference was not about reform. It was about getting members more active. There were sessions for those from all parties. Why does this need to be an us vs them issue? That was my original point. If we, as people interested in making education better, work together we can do so much more.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the sloppy punctuation. This clown is an educator? Oh wait. He negotiates for teachers.
This part deserves ridicule:
Who are the best experts in the education reform movement, but teachers? We know what works.
First, based on the punctuation, I wouldn't want children anywhere near this clown. If you're arguing that teachers are great reformers, the first qualification that must be met is that they have a basic understanding of the English language. Mr. Erickson falls far short of that.
More importantly, since alot of the reforms that will be discussed at the Restoring Excellence in Education Forum will deal with transparency at the administrative level, I'd argue that teachers wouldn't have a stake in the matter.
The unfortunate part is that school districts don't put a high priority on making budget and staffing information part of their websites.
I've written repeatedly about the Minneapolis Public Schools are hiding the documentation on why the Minneapolis Public Schools terminated 52 teachers , then gave administrators a retroactive pay raise of $270,000.
How does that have anything to do with teachers? That's something that the taxpayers have to put their foot down about and demand answers. It doesn't require writing legislation. It's a matter of requiring administrators to spend the taxpayers' money wisely.
Have things gotten so bad that we need legislation to require that?
Tags: Unions , Chris Erickson , Education Reform , Progressives , DFL , Sondra Erickson , Pam Myhra , House Education Reform Committee , Reform , Transparency , MNGOP
Posted Tuesday, January 3, 2012 3:06 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 04-Jan-12 09:58 AM
What seems a coordinated effort at union busting should be sold for what it is, not with deceit. Chris Christy was honest when recorded at the Koch Brothers' Colorado retreat in setting the theme of busting the teachers' union. Why can such things be honestly discussed for what they are in closed Republican-invitee only session, but lied about otherwise, in public commentary. Koch Brothers, ALEC, the local ALEC affiliates with Kiffmeyer coming first to mind. It all seems shabby to me. Gutter politics. Redux. It reminds me of Nixon.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Jan-12 10:27 AM
The Restoring Excellence in Education is open to the public. If you want your voice heard, show up. Your Koch paranoia is getting sickening, frankly. The public employee unions are vastly more nefarious &, at times, evil.
When did the Koch brothers threaten to use their wealth as a weapon? The president of AFSCME's Michigan chapter did. When did the Koch brothers threaten to shut businesses down with a boycott? AFSCME Wisconsin did.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 04-Jan-12 02:02 PM
Great argument, Gary.
Purely in the spirit of constructive criticism, though, before someone else points it out I will simply say from your copy that "a lot" is two words. Sorry about that.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 04-Jan-12 02:11 PM
Actually, a lot is a piece of real estate. Alot means a bunch of something.
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 07-Jan-12 01:52 PM
Wish I could attend this event, have a lunch with friends already postponed once.
It's Official: Michele drops presidential bid
It's official. Michele Bachmann ended her presidential bid with an announcement in West Des Moines, IA this morning:
Rep. Michele Bachmann suspended her presidential campaign after placing sixth in Tuesday's Iowa Republican caucuses, she announced today.
'Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, so I have decided to stand aside,' Bachmann said at a news conference, flanked by her parents, husband and five children. 'I have no regrets, none whatsoever. We never compromised our principles and we can leave this race knowing we ran it with the utmost integrity.'
Bachmann said she will continue to fight the policies of President Obama, particularly his health care legislation, calling the 2012 election 'the last chance to turn our country around, before we go down the road of socialism.'
This wasn't unexpected. Still, Michele's speech last night didn't sound like she'd be calling it quits this soon. Many of Michele's supporters hope that she'll return to Congress to fight for many of the things she's fought against during her presidential campaign.
It's still undetermined as to whether she'll run for re-election to Minnesota's 6th Congressional District. If Michele runs for re-election in the 6th, she'll win going away.
I can' picture Michele making an official announcement on running for re-election until after the new redistricting maps are made public in late February.
That's the path that I'd recommend to her. With Republicans likely to still control the House of Representatives, it's highly likely that she'll get a chairman's gavel, most likely in one of the financial committees. That will give Michele alot of influence in an important post.
While I've been critical of some of the things she said after the debates, I haven't made it a secret that I think she's a true expert on banking issues.
A few minutes ago, Republican Party Chairman Pat Shortridge issued this statement:
St. Paul - Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Pat Shortridge issued the following statement thanking Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for her presidential race and the role she has played in raising awareness about today's important issues.
'On behalf of the Republican Party of Minnesota, I'd like to offer our heartfelt thank you to Congresswoman Bachmann for waging a strong and aggressive run for the Republican nomination. Though her run didn't end as she and her supporters had hoped, she was a passionate and articulate advocate for many, many Republicans who believe in limited, Constitutional government, personal freedom, traditional values, and a strong and secure America,' said Chairman Shortridge. 'I wish her the best as she moves forward with whatever the future holds.'
I'm certain that Chairman Shortridge's statement reflects the thinking of 10's of thousands of Minnesotans in the 6th District as well as other conservative activists in Minnesota.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , Presidential Campaign , Iowa Caucuses , TEA Party , Pat Shortridge , Republican Party of Minnesota , Activists , Election 2012
Cross-posted at Examiner.com
Posted Wednesday, January 4, 2012 2:10 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 04-Jan-12 03:55 PM
Gary:
Maybe US Senate to kick Amy K out of that seat.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Jan-12 06:35 PM
Walter, I hope Michele doesn't try that. She's a better fit in the House.
Comment 2 by Alan at 04-Jan-12 05:42 PM
One thing I really like about Bachmann . . . politics have not changed her . . . she has changed politics. She never compromised her core principles. All things considered, she did a great job and I wish her well.
Union-Leader blasts Romney, calls him timid
With the first election test behind us, it's on to New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney enjoys a dominant lead. With the spotlight now on New Hampshire, though, will come intensified scrutiny and criticism. The NH Union-Leader's endorsement of Newt will sting Mitt. Witness this editorial :
Mitt Romney's entire pitch for the White House is based on one premise: He spent his career in business, and therefore he can turn around the economy and create jobs. Romney had a successful business career, but his economic plan would be far less successful than the one offered by Newt Gingrich.
Romney's plan is, like the candidate, cautious and reserved. It does not go far enough to reduce federal tax and regulatory burdens, or to reform Washington. Economist Paul Hoffmeister, writing in Forbes magazine this week, reached this conclusion about Romney's plan: 'his economic platform reflects a man who is devoutly Keynesian, and who, as president, would not be able to reinvigorate the U.S. economy.'
By contrast, Newt Gingrich's plan is remarkably bold and reform-oriented. Not only would Gingrich be more aggressive than Romney in cutting taxes that harm business and job growth, he would be more aggressive in rethinking Washington's entire regulatory culture. It's a major reason why he was endorsed by economist Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics, and famed conservative economist Thomas Sowell. If you want a President who will actually do what's necessary to spark a swift and broad recovery, it's not Romney; it's Gingrich.
Mitt, by his very nature, is timid. The reality is that Mitt's economic plan looks like George H.W. Bush's economic plan. Newt's plan looks strikingly similar to President Reagan's plan.
Why would people settle for George H.W. Bush's plan when they could have President Reagan's plan?
The Union-Leader cited Art Laffer's and Thomas Sowell's endorsement of Newt's plan, which I wrote about here . The question, at least for thoughtful people who care about what's best for this nation, is simple: why would you pick a former hedge fund manager's timid economic plan over a plan that created 20,000,000 jobs and that's been touted by 2 of the economic heavyweights of the conservative movement?
That isn't saying Mitt's plan is awful. It's definitely better than Obamanomics. It's just that you don't pick a Pontiac when you can pick a Cadillac for the same price.
Let's also debunk the myth that Mitt's still a great businessman. I wrote here that Mitt's been more than a little tied up in governing and campaigning to pay attention to Bain Capital:
Prior to Mitt running for governor, he was hired to run the Olympic Games in February, 1999. He hasn't been in the private sector since. After running the Winter Games, he ran for governor in Massachusetts and getting elected. After Mitt announced that he wasn't seeking a second term in 2006, he essentially started running for president. Now it's late 2011 and Mitt's still running for president.
In short, he hasn't worked in the private sector in almost 13 years.
Mitt Romney is settling for too little. He isn't a bold reformer. Mitt isn't the guy who'll try to fight Washington at a time when Washington needs to be fought against. Mitt Romney is from the go-along-to-get-along school of governance.
That's better than Obama's administration but why settle on topping such a low hurdle?
Then again, Mitt's gone further on greenhouse gas emissions than this administration's EPA has gone:
Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation.
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.
Mitt Romney imposed expensive regulations on power plants, then initiated price controls on those power plants to stick them with the cost of his expensive regulations.
Combine those things with Mitt's timid economic plan and you're looking at a mediocre presidential candidate. It's like picking George H.W. Bush when you could've had President Reagan.
No disrespect to George H.W. Bush but that isn't too bright, is it?
Tags: Reforms , Tax Reform , Newt Gingrich , Art Laffer , Thomas Sowell , Reaganomics , Job Growth , Mitt Romney , Romneycare , CO2 Emissions , Price Controls , Global Warming , Progressive , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:56 PM
Comment 1 by Backflip Romney at 05-Jan-12 12:03 AM
Speaking of unions...and Romney...
Backflip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhyMplwY6HY
President Obama ignores Constitution, sets up Constitutional Crisis
President Obama's reckless disregard for the U.S. Constitution is indicative of his spoiled brat attitude:
SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio (AP) - A defiant President Barack Obama, tired of Senate Republicans stalling his nominee to lead a new consumer protection agency, put him in charge Wednesday over their opposition.
"I refuse to take `no' for an answer," the president said.
Outraged GOP leaders in Congress immediately suggested that courts would determine whether Richard Cordray's appointment was illegal.
With a director in place, Obama said the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can start overseeing the mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial operations often blamed for practices that helped undermine the economy.
Obama announced the move with Cordray by his side before a cheering crowd in Ohio, a politically vital state where Cordray once was attorney general.
"Every day that we waited was another day when millions of Americans are left unprotected," Obama.
President Obama's recess appointment will get shot down by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in less than a NY minute. Here's what the Constitution says about recess appointments :
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
President Obama's decision to appoint Cordray doesn't comply with the Constitution's provisions. Recess appointments can' be made when Congress is in session. That's why they're called recess appointments.
I'd be surprised if this didn't get shot down with a unanimous vote. At minimum, it'll be a near unanimous vote.
This isn't reporting. It's pandering to the president:
In reality, Obama had little choice to get the consumer agency fully running after months of stalemate.
In reality, Obama had the opportunity to obey the Constitution. He chose to ignore it. It's amazing that a constitutional law scholar would have such little respect for the greatest founding document in the history of the world.
It's amazing because he's shown the temperament of a spoiled brat. Spoiled brats want what they want when they want it. That's what President Obama's attitude is. He cared about playing politics more than he cared about respecting the Constitution.
That's why we must elect a Constitution-respecting conservative. We can't let this spoiled brat disrespect the laws of the land or ignore the Constitution beyond noon, January 20,2013.
Tags: President Obama , Recess Appointment , Constitutional Crisis , Bailouts , Chrysler , Fiat , GM , Thugs , Lawlessness , Corruption , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, January 4, 2012 10:03 PM
Comment 1 by Conservalidity chris at 05-Jan-12 02:01 AM
Obama is as egregious a tyrant as they come - who must be defeated. Good job brother
CA
Comment 2 by eric z. at 05-Jan-12 07:01 AM
Conservative chris - Yeah, you tell 'em. The man's a Stalin.
Get real.
He's Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan all rolled into one ongoing globalist outsourcing continuum. But at least he's not a Nixon or a Ford-stooge.
Ron Paul is the only chance you guys have to win, but he's not part of the establishment crony-net, and hence the GOP will not run him. They will run Romney, who fits the above mentioned continuum so that it will matter little who wins except for which band of cronies exploit the spoils.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 05-Jan-12 07:17 AM
Gary, and Cc - Obama signed the NDAA, with a signing statement. Any thoughts about that? About signing statements being allowed/outside of Constitutional contemplation? About detainee status and detainment powers given the government within the NDAA, and how all that squares with the Constitution?
Just wondering.
WWRPHD? What would Ron Paul have done?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-12 08:55 AM
Eric, Thanks for dodging the question of why President Obama ignored the Constitution in such a disgusting way.
Dodging the truth & dodging the law don't cut it around here. If you want to play those games, use those tactics elsewhere.
At LFR, the standard is to engage in thoughtful debate that gets beyond the BS.
Comment 5 by Sam at 05-Jan-12 10:13 AM
"That's why we must elect a Constitution-respecting conservative. We can't let this spoiled brat disrespect the laws of the land or ignore the Constitution beyond noon, January 20,2013."
I'll take that as your endorsement of Ron Paul, as he is the only one running that would follow the Constitution.
I'm glad you want to follow the Constitution, to bad it is only when your attacking Obama for not.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-12 11:39 AM
Sam, RP doesn't walk on water when it comes to the Constitution. He's perfectly willing to ignore his responsibilities as commander-in-chief. He's said that he'd ignore Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Isn't it strange that a nation with a plentiful supply of people willing to strap on a bomb, then walk into a library, a bus or a restaurant would be willing to launch a missile at the United States? What would RP do if those nuclear missiles were sold to Venezuela or Cuba? Suddenly, they're a threat to the east coast & most of Gulf Coast.
It's time RP's supporters got over their arrogance. They aren't the only people who love & follow the Constitution. They just think they are.
Comment 6 by Sam at 05-Jan-12 01:09 PM
Gary, your facts are so wrong you should be ashamed. Following the Constitution is not ignoring your responsibilities as commander-in-chief. Only going to war when declared and not making war a la Libya is. RP has said that he doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. He just doesn't think that we need to police the world.
You should meet some Iranians. Not all want to kill themselves. There certainly are many that do, and a majority of the population has to live under there thumb.
If Iran sold nukes to terrorists that were in Venezuela or Cuba, they could be dealt with without invading every country in the world as RP has stated before.
RP is the only candidate that would follow the Constitution. If you actually read it, 90% of what the Federal government does and most of what the rest of the candidates want to do is unconstitutional. The rest are just power hungry or tools of the status quo.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-12 04:21 PM
Sam, RP has stated repeatedly that he doesn't think it's a big deal if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. As for Libya, nobody except President Obama was for that. Third, I know that most of the Iranian people don't want to blow themselves up. They're actually a relatively modern country. Unfortunately, there's a substantial number who believe in exporting terrorism. Their aim is to destabilize governments & eventually install a worldwide Muslim caliphate.
As for saying that RP is the only candidate who'd follow the Constitution, you've got to deal with your reality deficit disorder. It's disgustingly arrogant.
Comment 7 by Sam at 06-Jan-12 01:13 AM
RP has repeatedly stated that they are a world away and not an immediate threat, acting rationally when their neighbors have nukes, and that Israel can take of itself and would be better at it if the US quit stopping them. Not to mention that there is no proof that they are enriching uranium. That is considerably different than "doesn't think it's a big deal".
Um, Newt was for Libya. At least at first until he realized that he had the same position as Obama. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/newt-attacks-obama-for-bombing-libya-weeks-after-demanding-obama-bomb-libya.php?ref=fpblg
As for destabilizing governments, you should look into US history for the last hundred years and look at all of the governments that the US toppled and destabilized. Start with Iran in 1953.
Look at the records and rhetoric of the other candidates and then try to find where in the Constitution the Federal government is authorized to do what they voted for or said to do. Its not there on most all issues. So the one with a reality deficit disorder is someone that thinks that Newt, Mitt, or Rick would follow the Constitution.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 06-Jan-12 04:36 AM
Actually, Newt wasn't for Libya. He was once asked what he'd do after President Obama said that Khadaffi had to go. He responded by saying that he'd send in the forces to finish the job. He then said that that wouldn't have been his option.
There's a difference. Please notice the difference next time.
Comment 9 by ARay at 09-Jan-12 09:18 PM
Now the disaster-in-chief can add usurper to his resume' with all the other imperial-czarist actions. Congress should be outraged and saying so in the GOP caucus. The candidates should also be issuing statements condemning the president's illegal and illegitimate actions.
What a difference a day makes
Don't be surprised if Rick Santorum's campaign has a new slogan Thursday. If they change their slogan, I'd recommend they go with 'What a difference a day makes'.
Twenty-eight hours ago, Sen. Santorum hadn't finished 9 votes short of defeating the supposedly prohibitive frontrunner. As impressive as that miraculous comeback was in the short-term, what's happened since then has changed the political landscape :
Rick Santorum has raised just over $1 million since his eight-vote loss in Iowa last night , his top strategist tells POLITICO.
John Brabender, who revealed that their server briefly went down under the crush last night, said almost all of the cash came online.
This is the kind of fund-raising, coming less than 24 hours since the caucuses began, that Santorum will need to ramp up his TV presence and organization.
Sen. Santorum has a strong organization in New Hampshire so he won't need much money there. The money will be important in South Carolina, where Mitt Romney and his PAC will go negative to distract attention from Mitt's timid economic package .
The last thing Mitt wants is true scrutiny of his record as Massachusetts' governor. The next-to-last thing Mitt wants examined is his 59-point plan for strengthening America's economy.
I said here that Mitt's carpet-bombing of Newt with negative ads was an admission that he couldn't defeat Newt on the battlefield of ideas. It's true that negative ads are part of politics. I accept that they're part of presidential campaigns.
I've got the right, though, to highlight the fact that Mitt's using those negative attacks to distract people from noticing the fact that Mitt's economic plan is timid.
Each time Mitt's campaign goes negative, I'll respond with a substantive critique of Mitt's policies. I'll humiliate him by reminding people that Mitt's governed as a liberal :
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation.
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers.
Sen. Santorum has a real chance at a strong finish in New Hampshire. Both Sen. Santorum and Speaker Gingrich stand a good shot at winning the South Carolina primary.
Likewise, Sen. Santorum and Speaker Gingrich stand a good shot at winning the Ohio primary. Sen. Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have joined Gov. Perry's lawsuit to get on Virginia's ballot, too. If they're admitted to the ballot, things get fairly dicey fairly quickly for Gov. Romney.
The other thing that Sen. Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have going for them is the fact that they'll eat Mitt's lunch in midwestern and blue collar states.
If Sen. Santorum's fundraising continues, he'll be a formidable opponent for Mitt.
Tags: Rick Santorum , Fundraising , New Hampshire , Iowa , South Carolina , Newt Gingrich , Blue Collar States , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:59 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Jan-12 06:51 AM
Santorum's past will come out, and his present will be scrutinized by people besides Iowans. Things will catch up with him and undo him.
Were the GOP to run him instead of Romney I do not think the Obama people would be displeased.
McCain endorsed Romney, is the latest. Santorum gets his fifteen minutes of fame, Romney rolls on. I am neither for nor against that, it is all far, far, far to right wing for my liking, but it is what's happening. Obama is Bush, only with a different set of cronies, and the GOP (or a part of it) seems so ashamed of Bush it is acting irrationally.
Keep it up. It ultimately will be best for the nation. Not good, but best in a bad set of awful alternatives.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Jan-12 07:54 AM
Slogan 101. You were close enough. "Iowa was just the beginning."
On the splashscreen give-me-money intercept before entering the insides of the actual ricksantorum.com website.
Perhaps he wanted to use "Dancing in the Streets" as an audio theme, but Jerry G. spun too much in his grave and the surviving Dead would have been emphatic too.
I think the use of that splashscreen demonstrates Romney's biggest advantage over Santorum, along with few knowing much about Santorum besides his not being Romney. As people get to know him it will become like Bachmann, more than like Cain or Gingrich.
Comment 3 by eric z at 06-Jan-12 08:17 AM
"The other thing that Sen. Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have going for them is the fact that they'll eat Mitt's lunch in midwestern and blue collar states."
I understand the figure of speech.
But if I understand Mitt's status and elitism, neither Santorum nor Gingrich could get into the private clubs where Mitt has lunch. Even midwestern private clubs. The auto baron enclaves around Detroit, etc.
Romney's circles are truly that far distanced from everyone else, from the 99.99 percent. Even Gingrich lobbying based wealth pales by comparison.
What's in a word (conservative)?
Many is the time that Sean Hannity has reminded viewers and listeners alike that he isn't a registered Republican. Hannity's reminded them that he's a registered conservative in New York.
Wednesday night, Hannity interviewed Sarah Palin. Though he didn't say it in this interview, Hannity has repeatedly said that Mitt's a conservative. Shame on him for pulling his punches with Mitt. It's intellectually reprehensible for him to criticize the mediaa for not digging into President Obama's past, then do a half-assed job of scrutinizing Mitt.
If the gutless media, Hannity included, did their jobs, charlatans like Mitt Romney wouldn't gain traction in a GOP presidential campaign. At minimum, they wouldn't be allowed to call themselves conservatives. They could mouth the words but they'd be ridiculed mercilessly.
Thankfully, Paul Hoffmeister wrote this article to emphasize some important points. Here's the first noteworthy point:
According to the polls summarized by RealClearPolitics, Mitt Romney has been unable to win more than 25% of the Republican vote for the party's presidential nomination for more than a year. This is because the former Massachusetts governor is not a pro-growth Republican. Instead, his economic platform reflects a man who is devoutly Keynesian, and who, as president, would not be able to reinvigorate the U.S. economy.
That's the unvarnished truth spoken by the chief economist "at Bretton Woods Research, LLC." Hoffmeister's goal isn't to curry favor with politicians. It's apparent that Hoffmeister's goal is to tell the truth even if it hurts a presidential candidate. There's more to Hoffmeister's column:
Eliminating the death tax is certainly positive because it would unleash more capital into the economy. A 25% corporate tax rate would only cause the U.S. rate to be equivalent to the average rate for OECD countries. As a result, U.S. corporations would not gain a meaningful competitive advantage. And only extending current income tax rates and limiting the tax exemption on capital gains, dividends, and interest are unacceptable. But Romney's defense of not completely eliminating the tax on capital gains, dividends, and interest is shocking.
In an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace on December 18, Romney said: 'I'm saying don't raise taxes on anyone. I want to make sure that with the precious dollars we have, if we can provide the tax relief, that those dollars go to middle-income Americans. The people that have been hurt in the Obama economy are not the wealthy. The wealthy are doing just fine. The people that have been hurt are people in the middle class. And so I focus the, those precious dollars that we have, I focus that on the middle class.' In other words, let's only cut taxes for the middle class because they have been hurt the most by the recession.
Based on the supply-side economic model, Mitt Romney and his tax platform will hurt the very people that he is trying to help. His plan will scarcely benefit middle and lower income Americans, effectively delivering four more years of the current economic stagnation. The wages and livelihoods of middle and lower income Americans will only begin to improve when investable capital becomes abundant, and what Mitt Romney is proposing will not make investable capital abundant. If Mitt Romney understood the supply-side model and specifically how capital formation increased real wages, he would never make such a defense.
I wrote in this post that that was the equivalent of Mitt playing the class warfare card:
The only thing I can think of for Mitt's playing the class warfare card is to appeal to the most liberal parts of the GOP. That's his right but it's a stupid move, strategically speaking.
He'll get their votes but he's essentially telling conservatives that they aren't a priority for his campaign. This shows that his saying he's the ' ideal [TEA Party] candidate ' isn't serious because 'Mitt, the conservative' isn't real.
The point of all this is simple. Journalists like Sean Hannity and phony politicians like Mitt Romney shouldn't get away with perverting the English language.
Another pet peeve of mine is intellectual laziness. Hannity said that it's important to pay attention to President Obama's actions, not his words. I agree with that. What's true with President Obama is true with Mitt. Mitt's actions scream liberal.
Mitt signed Romneycare into law. Mitt imposed expensive CO2 emissions regulations on power plants in the name of climate change. Mitt imposed price controls on those power plants so 'the middle class' wouldn't get hurt.
What part of that sounds like something that President Reagan would do? Right. It doesn't. It's time that conservative pretenders like Hannity and Ann Coulter got called out for just being airheads that like tax cuts.
What's worse than Hannity and Coulter pretending to be conservatives is having Mitt pretend to be a conservative.
Thoughtful conservatives have the responsibiliy to call out pretenders. It's time we got started with that.
Posted Thursday, January 5, 2012 11:43 AM
Comment 1 by Kevin at 05-Jan-12 01:51 PM
I loved the Rasmussen poll today. Nationally, Romney 29% and leading over Santorum by 8 points. 26% in Gallup. Lots of tea party and evanglicals voted for him in Iowa. For people who actually listen to and evaluate Romney, he is plenty conservative. e.g. Well documented as siginificanatly to the right of Gingrich and Santorum on Illegal Immigration. BTW: I am also dissapointed that he isn't more aggressive in the supply side area, but I know why he is doing that. He wants to win. So all you brilliant pundits who carp endlessly on the 25% ceiling are going to have to revise your punditry up to 30%. And keep it there until it goes to 35%. You can stop revising when he gets the nomination.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-12 04:34 PM
Kevin, Saying that you're a conservative isn't the same as being conservative. Look at the long laundry list of Mitt's liberalism. Mitt didn't lift a finger to deal with the Massachusetts sanctuary cities until the last 3 weeks of his administration. The other 205 weeks of his administration, the sanctuary cities flourished without getting punished. That isn't tough on immigration.
That's shapeshifting into tough guy mode right before announcing a presidential bid. Mitt's timing on that is amazing. I'm sure it's just coincidental.
Mitt's done more as governor on climate change than President Obama's EPA. He approved expensive regulations limiting CO2 emissions on Massachusetts power plants. Mitt also approved the price controls that shoved those expensive regulatory costs down the power plants' throats.
That's anti-capitalist whether you admit it or not.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 05-Jan-12 02:12 PM
Couldn't agree more. Hannity's soft-touch of Myth Romney is almost as embarrassing as Romney himself.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 05-Jan-12 02:16 PM
Kevin, Santorum made up most of that ground on your uber-liberal in just the last few weeks.
You need to realize: the base detests Obamacare, and Romney helped write it. Romney has no chance to defeat Obama because the base will not support him or any other John McCain/Bob Dole clone.
Governor Flip-Flop can be on whatever side of an issue he thinks is convenient. We see right through him.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-12 04:37 PM
Simply put, Mitt is as timid as Bob Dole & John McCain. The biggest differences between Mitt, McCain & Dole is that McCain & Dole is that McCain & Dole aren't flip-floppers & Mitt hasn't achieved war hero status.
Comment 4 by eric z at 06-Jan-12 07:43 AM
If Romney gets the nomination, will he still be a "charletan?" Or is that, like "conservative" an elastic word that can be stretched or contracted to fit convenience?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Jan-12 12:28 PM
My definitions don't change. They come from the dictionary.
PS- It's spelled charlatan.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 06-Jan-12 08:20 AM
The trouble with definitions is that everybody has one. In this case, it needs to be a relative term. I would argue that which Republican is MOST conservative would depend on how you rank the various issues. And every last one of them is more conservative than the current aspiring tinpot dictator in the WH.
Comment 6 by eric z at 06-Jan-12 02:28 PM
Thanks Gary, and Mitt's spelled with two t's, I got that one. And you did answer the question, Gary.
Stassen-Berger at Strib reports in one Sunday in New Hampshire, Pawlenty will be with Romney in the morning, Chris Christy in the afternoon.
It sounds like a Veep beauty contest to me. Will there be a swimsuit competition? Talent presentations?
Does chasing after the front runner and tugging on his sleeve that way make TP a charlatan (thanks again on the sp.)? To me, it's pure plain old TP consistency, however YOU might answer the question.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 06-Jan-12 02:28 PM
Gary:
This is now the fourth time I've tried to make this post. Maybe you should talk to your website person or for the record do you have some effort to block me from posting?
Sean Hannity not objective. Um he was the person who was raising Rev Wright and Bill Ayers months before the main stream media ever did and then they tried to ignore it.
Today on the radio in just his opening mono he was quick to point out how there are millions of people not even being counted and how we could have lower energy prices if we drilled for oil. Sounds like he's doing his job.
And if you want to say Gary Gross is objective and Sean Hannity is not objective I want to challenge that. On a post a while ago where I challenged you and you were saying I was out of my mind and didn't know my facts you finally acknowledged the point which I had made loud and clear more than once which is Newt blew the answer to the question about the Ryan budget plan on meet the press.
Maybe the reason you're so mad is that you don't think that Romney deserves to be president and Newt does and as of today it looks like Romeny has a much better chance to be President than Newt does.
I don't like Romney and will come to him if I'm forced to like in 2008, but Romney isn't the front runner because Sean Hannity went easy on him.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 8 by Thorley Winston at 06-Jan-12 05:50 PM
Mitt signed Romneycare into law.
So what? We knew this in 2008 when he was the favorite of many conservatives and while it was far from perfect, it was probably a net improvement over what Massachusetts already had in place and given that he had a Democratic-controlled legislature with veto-proof majorities (who overrode his veto on some of the more onerous provisions) working with them probably let to a better outcome than otherwise would have happened. Unless you think that he's really secreting planning to implement a mandate at the federal level (despite it being the single most unpopular feature of Obamacare which Romney has consistently pledged to repeal and replace with market-oriented reforms), why is this relevant?
Mitt imposed expensive CO2 emissions regulations on power plants in the name of climate change.
I'm not so sure that's entirely true. While it was true that restrictions on CO2 emissions were largely based about concerns about their possible contribution to climate change, they were part of a package of emission restrictions on pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury so the additional compliance costs from more sophisticated scrubbing technology than would have had to be implanted to reduce these pollutants was probably not that much greater.
Also Romney made it clear that he was doubtful about the role of CO2 in relation to climate change but according the conservative Heartland Institute, he agreed to this as an 'insurance policy' (in case he was wrong) based mostly on voluntary initiatives. The original proposal (remember he was dealing with veto-proof Democratic majorities in the legislature) was to reduce emissions by 75-80 percent but he managed to get them to agree to a 10 percent reduction below 1990 instead. Considering the likelihood of what would have been implimented had he refused to participate in the negotiations, I'd say he got them a damn good deal.
Mitt imposed price controls on those power plants so 'the middle class' wouldn't get hurt.
Power plants in most States operate as public utilities because of their monopoly status to a captive market which limits their ability to increase rates. How is this meaningfully different?
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-12 11:12 AM
It's worth noting that Mitt initiated the CO2 emission limits. It's important to note that Mitt was still saying that AGW was real this June. It's worth noting that most rate regulation is based on cost to generate electicity. Mitt's regulations significantly changed that formula.
Comment 9 by Rex Newman at 07-Jan-12 01:47 PM
I don't bother listening to Hannity - radio or TV. Too shrill, all about confrontation, seldom actually listens to his guests. I come away learning nothing. I therefore can't say or care whether Mitt Romney is overly praised or criticized on his programs.
Comment 10 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-12 06:23 PM
Rumor has it that KNSI here in St. Cloud is dropping Hannity. FNC would be 100 times better off with Fred Thompson as the host.
