January 26-28, 2011
Jan 26 00:39 SOTU Reaction Jan 26 16:56 DFL's Overreaction to Photo ID Jan 26 22:32 Photo ID Clarification Jan 27 11:39 TakeAction's Overreaction Jan 27 12:55 Is Obama A One-Term President? Jan 27 15:11 Henninger's Harsh Critique Jan 27 22:11 Sinner, Repent!!! Jan 28 16:38 Tarryl Gearing Up for Another Uphill Fight? Jan 28 21:22 Krauthammer vs. Shrum: A Definite Mismatch
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SOTU Reaction
Here's John Kline's reaction to tonight's SOTU:
Since the President took office two years ago, he and Congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficit in the history of our nation, driving the national debt to a staggering $14 trillion. While the nation suffers from 20 straight months of unemployment above 9 percent, Washington has been on an unsustainable job-killing spending spree. After listening to the President's remarks, I hope his actions match the rhetoric we heard tonight.
'In the first weeks of the new Congress, House Republicans have demonstrated that they are listening to the American people and leading by example: we have cut our own budgets by 5 percent, repealed ObamaCare, and rolled back non-defense government spending to 2008 levels.
'This needs to be a Congress focused on jobs and the economy. One way my Republican colleagues and I have demonstrated our resolve to restore America's fractured fiscal house is by banning earmarks. I was pleased to hear the President is following our lead in putting an end to wasteful pork-barrel projects.
'As the Chairman of Education and the Workforce Committee, I am pleased the President highlighted education reform as one of his priorities. As I did last week when Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and I visited Crystal Lake Elementary School in Lakeville, I am continuing to seek input from principals, teachers, parents, and students on what is working - and what is not working - at the school level and whether federal policies are supporting or hindering the work schools across the country are doing to ensure students are prepared to succeed.
'Later this year, in its second-largest deployment since World War II, the Minnesota National Guard will send more than 2,400 troops - the famed 'Red Bulls' - to the Middle East. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a veteran of the Marine Corps, I was pleased to hear the President reiterate his commitment to winning the war against Islamist extremists. Through initiatives like 'Beyond the Yellow Ribbon,' we must ensure we take care of our sons and daughters in uniform, and their families.
'I encourage the Administration and Congressional Democrats to join Republicans in showing we are serious about restoring trust between the American people and those elected to represent them. I encourage Washington to heed the calls of the American people to do what we were sent here to do, provide security and freedom for our country, restore economic certainty, and enable America's job creators to put our nation back to work.
Minnesota Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton hit the right note with this statement:
In spite of the soaring rhetoric we heard in tonight's State of the Union address, the fact is the Obama economic agenda just isn't working for the American people. President Obama promised that the 'stimulus' would create or save 3.5 million jobs but in the two years since its passage, 2.1 million jobs have been lost. President Obama promised that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8 percent with the stimulus, but the national employment rate now stands at 9.4 percent. After two years of record deficit spending and with the national debt now topping a staggering $14 trillion, it is past time President Obama and Democrats finally got serious about cutting spending.
'A 'freeze' just won't cut it and it is too little, too late. Unless we roll back the spending now, we will be wandering for a long time in a frozen wasteland of an economy with slow growth, high unemployment and nothing but a mountain of debt to show for it. To that end, President Obama should embrace Republican calls to cut, not just 'freeze' spending, to spur private sector job growth. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less,' said Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Tony Sutton.
After 2 years of reckless spending,NOW Obama wants to freeze spending? It's time for real cuts.
Here's U.S. Sen. John Barrasso's statement:
Americans have grown familiar with the President's regular promises to reduce the debt, cut spending and grow our economy. Yet each year his Administration spends more money, grows Washington and makes it harder for the private sector to create new jobs. Spoken promises have quickly transformed into broken promises.
Tonight, the President promised again to focus on the economy and cut wasteful Washington spending. Americans understand that tomorrow's actions matter more than tonight's speech. If the President is serious about improving our economy, his rhetoric must finally match his record.
To summarize using Clinton War Room terms: It's the actions, Stupid.
Speaking of stupid, this is the most foolish statement of the night , compliments of Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak:
To Rep Bachman: Stop spending money like the billions on the Iraq War you got us into ?
What a blithering idiot. Rep. Bachmann was a state senator when President Bush, with Congress's approval, took us to war. Then again, R.T. Rybak doesn't care about facts.
Here's a key portion of U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter's reaction to President Obama's speech:
As the leader of the party wedded to wealth redistribution and culpable for this massive expansion of government's power and price, the President insists on the oxymoronic goal of a 'smarter' and 'leaner' big government. Beneath the cant, he still contends the solutions to globalization's economic and social challenges are more government, including an increased collusion between big government and big business; and, implicitly, more big government control over our decisions and money.
The recurring thought that kept running through my head was that, after each sentence about America's greatness, President Obama would return with a plea for more government. Those things don't fit together.
Paul Ryan said it best during his response to President Obama's speech when he said that it isn't a coincidence that Congress's approval rating is at its lowest when government is its most intrusive. That nails it spectactularly.
The American people don't want government telling them what to do and when to do it. They want to be masters of their destiny. This president either hasn't figured that out or has figured it out and is proceeding his direction anyway.
Either way, tonight's speech was a lost opportunity of immense proportions. President Obama could've framed the fight for his re-election. Instead, he gave us a conflicted speech that didn't win back independents and gave his 2008 supporters reason for buyers remorse.
Posted Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 26-Jan-11 09:44 AM
Obama's need is not to "win back independents" it is to win back his core of progressive minded people who are highly disappointed with how much of a Republican clone he has been. As bad as Clinton was that way, and it's a charade on both sides to pretend otherwise and that there's much difference between people such as Kline and the GOP and Obama, except which pack divides present spoils and feeds more at the trough.
Obama has been Bush-lite.
That's his problem.
No credibility with progressives.
Different question, is it as appears, too early for any ringing about GOP hopefuls in 2012? You've not said much at all that way and I know you had opinions going into the 2008 selection process.
Is it waiting to see if TP develops a prayer of a chance to get a VP choice, or that the issue of the moment seems more compelling.
I don't see TP as credible for anything but running for VP; and then the question - would he help or hurt the ticket.
Any thoughts about when you would see a more appropriate time to analyze such things? Mid-year after the legislative session ends; fourth quarter, 2011?
Even later? And I recall you had a strong liking for Fred Thompson.
Was Thompson a one hit wonder, getting a nod but no respect while the anti-Bush feelings swept that 2008 election, or might he be seriously in the hunt for 2012?
If you get time to think it over and publish, it would prove interesting to me at least, and probably to other readers.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-11 10:32 AM
If you think you can win without independents, God bless you. You'll get about 42-45 percent of the vote.
It's important to understand that the U.S. isn't a progressive nation. Never has been, never will be. If you want to keep advertising that you're a progressive, then it's best to prepare for 2-3 more bad electoral cycles. PERIOD.
Two years ago, pundits were asking who was THE leader of the Republican Party. I kept saying that I couldn't care less, that I was focusing on 2010. DFL pundits kept questioning my sincerity on the issue. Despite their questioning, I've maintained that focus. Now that we're past the midterms, I'll focus on the next election. If Obama aggressively pursues the agenda he outlined last night, almost any of the GOP candidates will be able to defeat him.
Right now, Americans passionately want spending cut & not by a little bit. President Obama's response was to announce a spending freeze. President Obama's approval ratings have gone up. Within 3 months, that trend will be reversed because people hate O'Care, vehemently disagree with freezing spending & hate seeing him proposing essentially another stimulus program to get the economy going. These things have FAILED MISERABLY!!!
The most recent article I read said that, whoever the GOP presidential nominee is, the GOP nominee starts with 248 electoral votes, with Obama leading slightly & with a handful of votes still up for grabs. After last night's speech, I suspect that's tightened up even further.
Fred Thompson won't run again but I'd love seeing him be the VP nominee because he's a brilliant man. I expect either Mike Pence, Newt or Mitch Daniels to be the GOP nominee, with TPaw having the opportunity to win if he does well in Iowa.
DFL's Overreaction to Photo ID
The DFL and their allies are upset with the GOP's photo ID bill. Ryan Winkler's overreaction is a perfect example of the DFL's hatred of Rep. Kiffmeyer's and Sen. Limmer's bills:
'Spending $40 million for free photo IDs, expensive electronic roster machines, and creating new levels of bureaucracy to combat this voter fraud myth is just silly,' said Rep. Winkler. 'It's like building a multi-million dollar water barrier to stop the Loch Ness Monster from coming up the Mississippi.'
I'll just refer Rep. Winkler to the attempted voter fraud of 2004 as reported by Powerlineblog's Scott Johnson:
In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:
Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls .
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day.
This attempted voter fraud was thwarted but the attempt was VERY REAL. Why would an organization print up "name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information" to people who live in where they say they live? Why would this organization need "to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter"? Shouldn't a real life neighbor be able to vouch for that person?
Rep. Winkler saying that voter fraud is a myth is either spin or he's extremely ill-informed.
Furthermore, Rep. Simon points to the fact that while the bill could cost the state and counties millions of dollars, there is no appropriation line in the bill. Facing a multi-billion dollar deficit, Simon says the legislation is a vivid demonstration of misplaced priorities.
'We have a $6.2 billion deficit, and this bill adds millions in untold spending, not to mention dozens of pages of government regulation and bureaucracy,' Simon said. 'The bill even prescribes when recount officials can go to the bathroom. It forces election judges to act like bouncers, screening IDs and kicking people out who they think don't belong.
'It's time to put our focus back on the budget; we can't afford the time and money this bill will waste.'
Rep. Winkler agrees, calling Kiffmeyer's bill nothing more than a partisan attempt to prevent voters they think will help get Democrats elected.
'The only voter fraud here is that Republican activists claim to care about the integrity of Minnesota elections,' Winkler said.
I don't know where to start with these allegations. I guess I'll first attack Rep. Simon's statement that "we can't afford the time and money this bill will waste." Rep. Simon obviously has a short memory. In 2007, over one-third of the House committees didn't meet until mid-February. In 2009, the first month was spent on policy bills. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) That's after DFL chairmen held hundreds of meetings and hearings in the summer of 2008.
If any legislative session should've started off quick, it should've been 2009. Instead, then-Speaker Kelliher whined when questioned why the DFL hadn't put a budget together in mid-February, 2009:
It happened again Thursday. The Minnesota House was meeting in full session, running through some routine business, when Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, rose, cleared his throat and said to DFLers, 'We've been here a month; why are we still waiting for your budget proposal?'
There were some head shakes, but no response. The House got back to the business at hand.
Emmer's question has become the mantra of state Republicans. In every public forum, at least one or two Republican legislators raise the question: If DFL legislators don't like Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed budget, why don't they come up with one of their own?
'It's strategic,' said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, of the Republican cry. 'It's designed to freak people out on our side, and it takes attention off the governor's budget.'
It's obvious that this GOP legislature has already done more budget work than the DFL did by early Feb., 2009. For Rep. Simon to say that this bill represents a misplaced priority and a waste of time is intellectually dishonest, especially considering the terrible misuse of time the DFL had in 2007 and 2009.
Next, I'll tackle Rep. Winkler's statement that the purpose of this bill is to disenfranchise votes who aren't likely to vote Republican. Rep. Winkler should be reprimanded for making that unsubstantiated statement. It's apparent that he can't prove his accusation. If he could, he would've shared it at this press conference.
As a conservative activist, I'm disgusted with Rep. Winkler's meanspirited accusation. Saying that I don't care about election integrity goes well beyond acceptable behavior for a state legislator. Questioning the need for Photo Id is questioning a policy. Stating that "Republican activists" don't care about election integrity is an assault on my integrity and the integrity of my activist friends.
That's a matter of impugning the character of an entire group of people without even meeting them. That's meanspirited behavior for which Rep. Winkler needs to apologize for.
Posted Wednesday, January 26, 2011 4:56 PM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 26-Jan-11 10:30 PM
Funny how spending $40 million on stopping democrat voter fraud is silly but spending it on education or public union pensions is all fine and dandy.
Comment 2 by Mary at 26-Jan-11 11:17 PM
I totally support this "waste" of money as the Democrats call it. The waste of money I don't support can be found on Sen. Terri Bonoff's web site under Session Recap. In her May, 2010 session recap letter which she emailed around to everyone signed up to hear from her, she states that views and votes on the issues were influenced by the fact that many of us are on the ballot in Nov., 2010. Now that's what I call a HUGE waste of money -- a legislative session full of people who do not vote their principles and those of their constituents. Their salaries are a total waste of tax payer's dollars if that is the belief system they have. Bring on whatever is necessary to give us voter integrity so we can vote people who voted like Sen. Bonoff did in May out in 2012.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-11 11:35 PM
Mary, I couldn't agree more.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 27-Jan-11 10:35 AM
Funny how the DFL, to quote Rep. Winkler, thinks that an honest election will disenfranchise people likely to vote DFL. Doesn't that mean the DFL KNOWS that their voters aren't legal and honest, and that they cheat?
Photo ID Clarification
Earlier today, I wrote about Rep. Kiffmeyer's and Sen. Limmer's introduction of their Photo ID legislation . Included in that post was a list of accusations made by the DFL leads on this legislation, Rep. Ryan Winkler and Rep. Steve Simon. Here's their bullet-point list of flaws in the legislation:
They have concerns about the following provisions:
• The bill would bar disabled persons from voting with the help of a guardian or service provider. So if you're blind, deaf or otherwise disabled, you must have a family member help you vote.
• No provision is made for absentee ballot identification. If you are out of the precinct, you would either need to show an ID or you couldn't vote.
• US passports, military IDs and student IDs would no longer be sufficient to register to vote.
• Free IDs are only available at DVS centers. So if you live beyond a reasonable distance, this bill would create a real barrier to voting.
• Proof of citizenship is required to get a free ID, and it may be impossible for senior citizens to secure a birth certificate, or for many people a birth certificate may not have been created.
Because I didn't trust their bullet points, I contacted Mary Kiffmeyer's office with this list. Rep. Kiffmeyer said that Rep. Winkler's and Rep. Simon's first bullet point is false, saying "The bill allows for election judges to assist voters who are disabled. It does not require a family member."
As for the absentee ballots, Rep. Kiffmeyer said "We will add a way for AB to be included." In other words, legislators will work to correct or add provisions in committees. That's done every day that the legislature is in session. This isn't a big deal.
Next, Reps. Winkler and Simon claim that "US passports, military IDs and student IDs would no longer be sufficient to register to vote." Rep. Kiffmeyer said that "US passports, military IDs WILL work to register. Students need to use other state ID, MN ID with student housing list. A student ID has no ability to be swiped on the card reader. They get a free Minnesota ID. They should be like anyone else in voting."
Because a student ID can't be used in the card reader, another remedy had to be found. Issuing a free Minnesota ID to these students seems like a very reasonable remedy to this potential problem.
Essentially, the DFL's list of complaints can be resolved through the amendment process. The DFL's list is intended to kill the Photo ID bill. In some instances, their complaints aren't accurate. The rest of their issues can be solved through the amendment process.
What's more is that election officials like the legislation :
Kiffmeyer said there are few drawbacks to using an electronic system. She said it is a 'cost-neutral' system. While there is an upfront cost for the equipment, it is offset by money saved by counties in postal verification and data entry costs.
The city of Minnetonka used this kind of system in the 2010 election in a pilot program that was hailed as success.
'Election workers at all levels responded favorably. It truly made everyone's job easier and it resulted in improved voter satisfaction,' said David Maeda, city clerk for Minnetonka, said at the time. 'This pilot proved to us that we can process voters easily and accurately on Election Day.'
What a terrible thing. A pilot Photo ID program resulted in "improved voter satisfaction." Plus it will save the counties money in "postal verification and data entry costs." Mr. Maeda's statements alone make passing this legislation worthwhile. The fact that the DFL's list of complaints is either inaccurate or easily solved through the amendment process indicates that this legislation should be passed and signed into law.
I'd like to address something else that Rep. Winkler said questioning the existence of voter fraud in Minnesota. Mitch Berg wrote a series of scathing posts on the Crow Wing County scandal, starting with this post :
On Friday, October 30, 2010, a member of the Minnesota Freedom Council witnessed apparent voter fraud occurring at the Crow Wing County Courthouse in Brainerd, Minnesota. Upwards of 100 residents from a local group home for mentally disadvantaged individuals were brought into the County Courthouse to cast absentee ballots. The witness reported that supervisors were telling voters to cast a straight Democratic ticket. There was even a report of a voter prematurely leaving the voting both and a supervisor casting the ballot for the voter. Essentially, the people in-charge were taking advantage of the mentally disabled in order to bolster the vote for their candidates of choice. These individuals involved can be charged with a felony under Minnesota election laws.
Mitch followed that post with this one :
The weekend before election day, Monty Jensen of Brainerd took his girlfriend to the Crow Wing County courthouse to vote in person with an absentee ballot. He had to take a partial day of vacation to do it; he commutes from Brainerd to the Twin Cities every day to work. His girlfriend commutes with him; she's in pharmacy school at the U of M in Minneapolis. 'I'm on the road fifteen hours a day', he points out. So taking the time out to vote was a bit of an effort.
A little after 4:30 on Friday, October 29, Jensen and his girlfriend walked into the Crow Wing County Courthouse, and went upstairs to the Auditor's office. 'It was full of people', Jensen recalls. They submitted their applications to the auditor, and took a seat to wait their turn to vote. .
'We waited for about fifteen minutes', Jensen said, 'and I noticed there were a lot of people there who seemed to have issues'; they were disabled. 'I didn't think anything of that', Jensen added.
We'll come back to that later in the story.
There appeared to be a dozen, maybe fifteen handicapped people, and perhaps three supervisors.
'But what alarmed me', said Jensen, 'was, I'm looking across at a poll booth, and I see a staffer walk over with an individual who's mentally handicapped, put down ballot w/pen. The guy walked away from the booth. She called him back over; you could tell by her body language she was getting impatient, and the guy wouldn't come back. So she filled out his ballot. Then she retrieved him, and had him turn in his ballot.'
Jensen continued 'So I went 'what the hell?' I couldn't [believe she filled out the guy's ballot!"
"As I'm voting, the woman was 2 booths down with another invividual. She was talking like he's a child. Telling him who he should vote for. I think "This isn't right". Going right down line, candidate by candidate. I look over; her hand was on the pencil." Jensen told me he overheard him instructing the man to vote a straight DFL ticket; "it was DFL candiates; Dayton, Oberstar, Taylor Stevens, Ward, right down the ballot, every candidate."
There's no questioning that Mitch highlighted voter fraud in Crow Wing County. If Rep. Winkler wants to argue that voter fraud doesn't exist in Minnesota, I'm confident that Mitch is willing to debate the issue with him.
If Winkler accepts Mitch's invitation, my money is on Mitch.
Posted Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-Jan-11 07:13 AM
The DFL is naturally riled about the student ID provisions in (as I recall) section 137. This provision of law actually ENCOURAGES double-voting by students, a mostly-reliable DFL block. That has to end.
Comment 2 by Chad A Quigley at 27-Jan-11 09:47 AM
A way to solve the absentee voting issue is to eliminate absentee voting all together. Voting is a privledge and not a right. If you are going to be gone on election day, tough hop. Wipe out same day registration at the same time too.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 28-Jan-11 10:17 AM
Gary:
I'm wondering do these two people know anything. In 2001 after 9-11 Minnesota's system was changed despite obejections that you had to show proof you're legally in Minnesota to get a drivers license or ID card. Have we crashed?
Furthermore the system includes a procedue where you can ask the state of Minnesota to waive the rules if you can't meet the document rules.
They complain that you can't show a US Passport to offer proof of who you are. Um in Minnesota to get a DL or ID card that counts as your primary document. Furthermore if you have a US Passport it means you had alrady shown some type of US citizenship to get that passport.
It sounds like you have two lawmakers who don't know or care what's going on here.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
TakeAction's Overreaction
If there's anything that the left is good at, it's repeating their phony chanting points. In this instance, the repeater offender is TakeAction MN. TAM issued this statement to whine about Rep. Kiffmeyer's Photo ID legislation:
TakeAction Minnesota's Executive Director, Dan McGrath, released the following statement in response to this morning's introduction of a new voter photo I.D. bill by Republican legislators Senator Warren Limmer and Representative Mary Kiffmeyer:
'At the expense of focusing on creating jobs and getting Minnesota's economy moving, Republican legislators have chosen to focus on making sure fewer Minnesotans have the ability to vote. Only three weeks into session, and Republican legislators have already boomeranged back to a partisan agenda of restricting access to voting for eligible voters, disenfranchising seniors, people of color, and students. Introducing one of the most restrictive voting laws in the country will only hamper democracy, not move it forward.'
TAM shouldn't be mistaken as a centrist organization. Their political director, Ryan Greenwood , also served as the secretary of ABM . TAM is part of a coalition of organizations advocating for social, racial and economic justice.
Their criticism of the GOP legislature rings hollow, considering their belief that oversized stimulus bills, known at the state level as bonding bills, are their jobs bills.
There's a difference between creating temporary construction jobs and putting in place policies that create prosperity and wealth. What's needed for creating temporary construction jobs is taxpayers' money and willing contractors. Anyone can create those jobs. (I'd further argue that those jobs aren't the type of jobs you build a real economy on.)
To build a real economy, you need to let people do the things that interest them, whatever that is.
TAM is whining because the GOP legislature is refusing to debate the $1,000,000,000 bonding bill. Instead of spending tons of the next generation's prosperity on the DFL's special interest allies' wishlists, the GOP is installing the building blocks that will create a dynamic economy that sustains itself for a generation.
From what I've read in my research, TAM isn't very literate when it comes to economics. Its only expertise is with repeating the DFL's chanting points. TAM is also an expert in racial, social and economic justice, which are code for central-planning economics.
I'll take the messiness inherent with capitalism over central-planning economies without hesitation. BTW, another term for central-planning economics is control-freak economics. NO THANKS.
Posted Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:39 AM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 27-Jan-11 04:12 PM
Republican legislators want fewer voters? Didn't voter participation increase in Indiana when they instituted photo ID? Why is no one throwing that in the libs face? If photo ID stops just one fraudulent voter it is worth it.
Is Obama A One-Term President?
Predictably, Democrats are praising President Obama's SOTU speech. The latest to praise him is Gov. Dayton :
'It was a terrific speech. Under President Obama's leadership, our country is on its way to a new era in which we will lead the world into the 21st century through public-private partnerships in innovation, research, education and infrastructure.
'My goal is for all of us in Minnesota to work together so that our state will once again lead our country into this new era.'
gov. Dayton's statement is beyond silly. He's obviously spinning because nobody is foolish enough to think that 20 straight months of having the unemployment rate topping 9 percent will "lead the world into the 21st century." Not even Gov. Dayton thinks that.
One person who isn't impressed with President Obama's SOTU speech is Dick Morris:
MORRIS: When President Obama finished his speech, I heaved a sigh of relief, Bill, because I became certain that he will be defeated in 2012.
I'd be dishonest if I walked away from the speech thinking President Obama had just doomed his re-election bid. That said, I said that he'd missed a great opportunity by giving a lackluster speech. It didn't resonate with people to hear 'the American people are great' in one sentence, then hear 'but the government must lead the way' seemingly in the next sentence.
Those thoughts don't fit together. In that respect, President Obama's speech was disjointed.
Morris's opinion has legs, especially if Republicans don't nominate a lackluster candidate like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. The 2012 campaign will be a fight between whether we as a nation prefers President Obama's continued spending spree or whether we'd prefer Paul Ryan's vision of limited government. Based on November's elections, I don't think that's that close of a fight.
While President Obama tried his best to sound optimistic and confident, the truth is that the American people know that his policies have failed and that his actions don't tell them that he's abandoning his failed policies.
The nation went into Tuesday night's speech knowing that we have to dramatically cut spending. While President Obama paid momentary notice to deficit reduction, he spent the first half of the speech preaching about the need to "invest" in the same things that littered his failed stimulus bill.
Rather than putting himself in a perfect position heading into 2012, he teed things up perfectly for the Republicans. By not talking seriously about the need to cut spending, he ceded that field to the Republicans. That's a terrible tactical mistake because that's where most Americans are.
Ceding the biggest, most important, battlefield to your opponent is political suicide. Here's how Morris highlights President Obama's dilemma :
A president's major power is his ability to set the national agenda. But Obama's State of the Union agenda was so boring, mundane, conventional and recycled that it will not capture either the national imagination or even center stage. It cannot drown out the drama of Republican efforts to slash spending, repeal ObamaCare, roll back federal regulations, block carbon taxes, kill union card-check and free community banks from regulatory paralysis. The ball is now in the Republicans' court.
I've said from the outset that President Obama is experiencing a bump in the polls. That's because they haven't talked about policy in a meaningful way since befor the election. Yes, he got some things accomplished during the lame duck session but, other than extending the Bush tax rates, they weren't high priority items to the people.
When congressional Republicans start talking about what's in their repeal legislation and they investigate the executive branch's overreach via overregulation, President Obama will be in a vulnerable position. When Ryan's committee passes a budget with tens of billions of dollars of cuts, President Obama will have to fight against it. The minute that he does, people will see that he isn't serious about cutting spending or balancing the budget.
That isn't operating from a position of strength. Good luck with that.
Posted Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:55 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-Jan-11 03:37 PM
Hmmm. It seems to me you are suggesting that the GOP needs a "fresh new face" for President in 2012. Pawlenty, Bachmann, John Kasich, maybe?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-11 10:29 PM
Daniels, Gingrich & TPaw will b the finalists...Get out the butter cuz Romney & Huckster are toast.
Henninger's Harsh Critique
WSJ assistant editor Daniel Henninger's critique of President Obama's SOTU speech has a nasty bite to it. Here's an example:
For a while Tuesday night, it appeared Mr. Obama would replicate Bill Clinton's almost sci-fi ability to absorb his opposition's best ideas, such as welfare reform, and re-infuse them into the body politic as his own. But no. We got high-speed rail and solar shingles.
What makes Henninger's critique powerful is that he praised President Obama when he agreed with him:
The speech's prelude could have been delivered by Ronald Reagan or written by the conservative entrepreneurial Utopian George Gilder.
In a single generation, "the rules have changed," he said, propelled by technology. "The naysayers predicting our decline" are wrong. When moments later Mr. Obama said, "We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea," one felt the ghost of the Gipper hovering nearby. The president called forth more of those spirits, praising "the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That's why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here."
And: "We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world." Yes!
And: "Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation." Oh, yes!
Even an Obama naysayer was thinking, Go for it, Mr. President. Unleash our nation of pioneer entrepreneurs with incentives to work, save and invest.
One thing added to President Obama's call for greater entrepreneurial activity was citing green jobs and fancy trains. Presidents truly committed to entrepreneurial activism don't try picking winners and losers.
If you reread President Obama's speech, you'll notice how many times he seems to pick winners and losers. That's either an indicator of how President Obama doesn't understand capitalism or his disdain for capitalism. Fighting from either position is fighting from a position of weakness.
Once past the Reagan moment, the Obama policy menu had three entrees: clean energy, education and infrastructure. This was lifted, almost verbatim, from the Obama budget message two months into his presidency: "Our budget will make long overdue investments in priorities - like clean energy, education, health care, and new infrastructure." He extolled "new jobs that pay well" such as "installing solar energy panels and wind turbines."
President Obama is who he is. He isn't shifting to the center. He's just letting his willing accomplices in the Agenda Media tell America that he's moved to the center. That won't work because they'll see his resistance to spending cuts, his insistance on picking private sector winners and losers and his love of green jobs.
People will notice that he's touting the same things after absorbing a shellacking as he did pre-shellacking. In 2008, people bought the notion that he'd be a competent president. They don't think he's competent anymore.
Henninger stops short of Dick Morris's prediction that President Obama will be defeated in 2012 but Mr. Henninger's opinion of President Obama's agenda certainly isn't an optimistic one.
President Obama will have lots of money to win people over during the campaign. I don't know that that'll help him win re-election, though, because he isn't connecting with independents like he did in 2008. If he doesn't change that, President Obama will have a difficult 2012.
Posted Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:11 PM
No comments.
Sinner, Repent!!!
Recently, Sen. Dave Thompson introduced legislation to freeze teachers' salaries for the next 2 years . Since then, a plethora of unions have criticized Sen. Thompson, portraying him as a villain.
What the Twin Cities media hasn't reported about is Sen. Thompson's letter to teachers to find out about their concerns. Here's the text of Sen. Thompson's letter to the teachers:
Dear Educator,
I recently sent you a survey requesting your opinions on various issues relating to education. I sent the questions for pre-approval to your union representative, Mr. Don Sinner, in an attempt to work cooperatively. I had also hoped to use his "blast" e-mail list in order to save work for my Legislative Assistant. He refused to allow me to use the list, but gave me no indication he intended to sabotage the survey. We did the work necessary to send the survey to each of your e-mail addresses individually.
It has come to my attention that Mr. Sinner sent you scripted responses, so that I will be unable to gain the information I seek. You do not need to send Mr. Sinner's remarks, but I would very much like to hear from you.
As you may know, I am on the Senate Education Committee, and recently presented a significant piece of legislation to the Committee. I sent the survey to you because I have a sincere desire to understand the viewpoints of educators in my district. I value your judgment, and am frankly shocked that Mr. Sinner does not believe you should have the right to communicate directly with the people who represent you at the Capitol. He obviously does not have the confidence in your judgment and professionalism that I do.
Please don't hesitate to contact me at sen.david.thompson@senate.mn or 651-296-5252.
Sincerely,
Dave Thompson
Senator Dave Thompson
Assistant Majority Leader
Senate District 36
Sen. Thompson noted that "Mr. Sinner [had]sent...scripted responses" and that the teachers didn't "need to send Mr. Sinner's remarks", he made clear that he wanted to talk with the teachers and get their opinions. Here's the text of Mr. Sinner's email to the teachers:
The EML Executive Council on Monday Evening respectfully declined to forward this survey from Sen. Thompson to our members. They did however direct me to provide Sen. Thompson with the appropriate information which addresses each of his questions.
If Senator Thompson now chooses to send this survey directly to you, we would ask that you use this information to reply.
Stay Positive, Stay Professional, Stay United.
Sincerely,
Don Sinner
EM-Lakeville President
1) Do school teachers and administrators currently have the authority to effectively manage classroom behavior and expectations?
Yes, there are no statutory issues here. The real problem is adequate, equitable, sustainable, and predictable funding which can provide the conditions necessary for teachers to effectively provide a quality education for all students.
2) Do you believe the current incentive system focusing only on 'step and lanes' is the best option for school districts and teachers?
Research shows, and most teachers agree, that as a teacher develops over time with effective professional development, they are more effective in the classroom and deserving of a commensurate pay increase. Research also shows that completion of relevant graduate degrees and/or National Board Certification also leads to higher student achievement.
3) Do you think that entry-level teachers in different subject areas should all earn the same salary?
Yes. There is best-practice research that shows the value of fine arts areas in improving not only the talents of the whole child, but also increasing achievement in the "core" subjects as well. This indicates that all teachers in all fields should be compensated on an equitable basis.
4) Do you believe that the current two-variable approach (education and years teaching) to teacher salaries is a fair measure of the teacher's value?
The two-variable approach to compensating teachers is just one piece of a multifaceted approach to fairly compensating teachers. There should also be recognition for those who take on increased responsibilities in leadership roles, mentoring, and National Board Certification to name a few.
5) Have students in your school benefited from the implementation of the 'No Child Left Behind' law with its statewide standards, testing, and reporting?
Yes and No. Yes in that we are now focused on individual student data in making instructional decisions to meet their educational needs. No, because it has caused an unnecessary narrowing of curriculum which ignores the needs of the whole child. It has also caused a higher focus to be placed on facts rather than critical thinking skills and creative thinking. It has also caused an unnecessary diversion of limited resources into simply administering the mountain of testing that is required.
6) Is the current 'needs based' funding formula equitable?
Yes, there is a proper place for "needs based" funding. We must recognize the fact that not all students arrive at school ready to learn. We must provide the added resources to level the playing field for those students who come form a disadvantaged background such as poverty, no access to early childhood education, or english language learners.
7) Is there too much, too little, or the correct amount of federal government involvement in Minnesota's education system?
Too little in the fact that there is not full-funding of IDEA mandates. Too much in the area of NCLB and its' punitive actions towards schools attempting to improve or in its' model of measuring student growth.
8) Do you support an increase in the compulsory school attendance age from 16 to 18?
Yes, as long as there are options for students who progress quickly through the system to access PSEO, early graduation and options in a post-secondary institution.
9) Should Early Childhood programs be given more attention, less attention, or be eliminated?
Early Childhood needs to be funded equitably across the entire state to ensure all students enter school ready to learn. A plethora of research shows that the groundwork of early childhood and primary education (K-2) is necessary if children are to achieve at high levels throughout their academic careers. This research also shows that most students are unlikely to overcome a poor start.
10) Should Early Childhood programs be given more attention, even if it means K-12 education funding grows at a decreased rate?
The question is not whether ECFE funding should have a higher priority than K-12, it should be how can the state adequately fund both of these areas as well as Higher Ed. in order to support a vibrant economy and allow Minn. to compete in a 21st century global economy.
11) Is teaching in Minnesota public schools a better or worse career than it was five years ago?
Working with children is as rewarding as it always has been. However, due to the financial conditions and the "blame game", teachers are no longer provided the necessary resources to effectively accomplish their goals, nor are they rewarded for positive outcomes. Can schools do better, yes, are they a categorical failure, no. Without adequate support of public education, we will lose our best and brightest teachers to other fields and ultimately our students will suffer.
12) In an average Minnesota public school classroom, what should be an appropriate number of students?
Best-practice research shows:
15 in primary grades (K-2)
18 in intermediate grades (3-5)
20-25 at the secondary level (6-12)
with no more than 28 before student achievement begins to decline.
Several things jumped out at me while reading Sinner's answers. Here's one thing that I noticed:
Q: Should Early Childhood programs be given more attention, even if it means K-12 education funding grows at a decreased rate?
A: The question is not whether ECFE funding should have a higher priority than K-12, it should be how can the state adequately fund both of these areas as well as Higher Ed. in order to support a vibrant economy and allow Minn. to compete in a 21st century global economy.
In other words, Sinner is telling teachers to tell the legislature that education funding, from Kindergarten through post-graduate degrees, shouldn't get cut.
It's disgusting that Sinner felt the need to tell his automatons teachers what they should say. Aren't they allowed to have their own opinions? Was Sinner afraid they might say things that Sen. Thompson agreed with?
It's a sign of desperation or fear that Sinner instructed his troops on how they should answer. Why else would he issue these talking points? If they all agreed with his agenda, there wouldn't be a need for that email. Methinks that it's proof of Sinner's failed leadership.
Posted Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:11 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Jan-11 12:06 AM
The problem is that the Devil has a thousand tools but the lie is the key to all of them, and this Sinner is doing the Devil's work. It is an outright lie that class size is determinant of educational outcome, and putting specific (and ridiculously low) numbers on it is proof positive that what matters is lots of dues-paying members, not education.
It also seems a lie to say that steps-and-lanes conformity recognizes (or actually leads to) individual teacher excellence, it's simply an oxymoron. You're a union drone or you're a professional, them's your choices.
I find it particularly interesting the support for extending mandatory attendance until age 18. It would seem that this is the simple solution to the fact that 10% of our schools-- and far more in the urban areas-- are "dropout factories" where 40% or more of students do NOT stay in school until age 18 or graduation. Yea, keep 'em locked up in a school that isn't teaching them anything, that's the ticket.
On NCLB, it's a good thing that "we" (teachers) are now focused on educating every individual child's progress, but "we" find NCLB too punitive to schools that don't make progress. So, are you making progress in these failing schools, and educating these individual children, or not? If not, why should that failure continue to be overlooked and why do you think you should keep your job?
He's lying again when he talks about ECFE. Some research-- mostly by those with a vested financial stake in it-- shows ECFE helpful. Other more independent studies say it is a class A boondoggle with no redeeming educational value, and that private early education is far more effective. If the public schools were doing their jobs, they wouldn't be casting about for these excuses, like a lack of funding (it has tripled, above inflation, in just 40 years).
There's more.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 29-Jan-11 10:08 AM
So, a union head has to tell these teachers what to think, and then these teachers are going to teach "critical thinking" to our kids?
This guy wants "stable funding." What is more stable than a freeze? While all the rest of this so-called "research" is being sorted out-- wheat from the fertilizer sort of thing-- let's concentrate on having teachers actually teach, rather than having the excuse of just needing more money.
Beside, the research shows that money doesn't matter much, and what little it does actually detracts from educational achievement, so if we wanted to follow what research tells us, we would cut education by 20% and see achievement go up. It makes as much sense as what he is proposing, perhaps more.
A little independent anybody-can-do-it research also shows that class sizes in many cases are near his ideal when you divide the number of teachers into the number of pupils, yet the average class size numbers quoted by district administrations tend to be about 50% higher. Why is that? Good grief, if we have 50% more teachers than we need, couldn't we save a few bucks, rather than Sen. Thompson's generous proposal to keep them all employed?
Tarryl Gearing Up for Another Uphill Fight?
Based on what I've heard inside the district and based on this post , it's apparent that Tarryl isn't ready to return to her former life as a lobbyist:
Minnesota Democrat Tarryl Clark continues to show signs of preparing for another run against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).
In an e-mail to supporters Wednesday, Clark criticized Bachmann's recent trip to Iowa and her response to President Obama's State of the Union address.
"Even with Bachmann working harder than ever to increase her own fame, and push the agenda of her wealthiest supporters, last night's speech was more than a little strange," Clark wrote.
In her speech Tuesday Bachmann criticized the president for overspending and credited the Tea Party movement for shifting the balance of power in Washington.
"She repeated many of her usual false claims," said Clark, citing Bachmann's mention of the federal government hiring 16,500 new IRS agent as one example.
"Michele Bachmann is wrong on the facts, and wrong on the issues," Clark continued. "We need honest debate, and civil discourse. We need to speak up. We need to get active, and stay active."
If O'Care isn't ruled unconstitutional, the IRS will have to find out if everyone is insured in compliance with the individual mandate. Does Tarryl think that the IRS will just accept on good faith the fact that everyone is complying or is it likely that they'll need additional IRS agents to verify compliance? These people aren't going to just pop out of thin air.
This is Tarryl's fatal flaw: she's fond of telling whoppers while accusing others of telling whoppers. This isn't the first time I've noticed this trait. It's just the first time I've written about it.
As for civil discourse, it's rather difficult when your opponent is telling whoppers. Nonetheless, that's what Michele did during their St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce debate . Tarryl attacked Michele relentlessly to no avail. Talking with a variety of journalists afterwards, they told me that the biggest thing to them was how Michele stayed composed while Tarryl attacked.
It wasn't that Michele was a shrinking violet in responding to Tarryl's attacks. It's just that she responded sharply but under control. Tarryl left the Civic Center that day a very frustrated lady.
What's worse for Tarryl was that people throughout the audience didn't believe her wild accusations. She argued that Michele's vote against the stimulus was "a vote to raise taxes". It would've been credible if Tarryl had said that voting for the stimulus would've provided a tax cut. That's an accurate, albeit incomplete, statement.
Tarryl insisted, after accepting a plethora of union endorsements and contributions from their PACs, that she wouldn't have voted for Card Check. Again, Tarryl was exposed as just another whopper-teller pleading for votes.
If Tarryl runs again, her agenda of raising taxes & spending will crucify her. Her credibility is shot, too. Yes, she'll have a robust fundraising operation but so will Michele.
Barring a major change in the nation's mood, which isn't likely, Tarryl will be running in another anti-Democrat cycle again against a superior candidate who fits the district infinitely better.
That said, I pray that Tarryl runs again. She'll suck up tons of contributions that might otherwise be used to win races that are actually competitive. If Tarryl thinks that she'll be competitive after getting defeated by 13 points, that's her right. It's just that she's delusional if she thinks it'll be a close race.
Posted Friday, January 28, 2011 4:38 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 28-Jan-11 09:41 PM
Gary:
You're forgetting that Tarryl is lying to herself. She believes:
One, that Obama will carry her to victory like Al Franken was.
Two, she thinks that 2012 will be a big Democrat year.
Three, she thinks that the District will be changed so that Michelle can lose.
Four, she believes that she's telling the truth.
And five, she believes that Democrats will think that she is the Goddess that will defeat Michelle and get their support.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jan-11 11:03 AM
No she isn't...it's just that she loves the limelight...she's praying that redistricting takes Michele out of play.
Next, she knows that BHO has lost his luster & will be defeated in 2012.
Next, no sane-thinking person thinks 2012 will be anything but a disaster for the DFL locally & the Democrats nationally.
Next, she knows she's lying...she just thinks nobody will notice she's lying.
Next, she's PRAYING that Michele isn't part of the picture because she knows she'll get her backside kicked if it's a rematch...the bottom line is that she's a terrible fit for the district.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 29-Jan-11 09:52 AM
So what happens if, as I hope, that Michelle lines up to defeat Minnesota's second biggest US Senate fool? Do we have anybody ELSE that can defeat Taxin' Tarryl?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jan-11 10:57 AM
Let me count the people...Let's get past this myth that Tarryl is formidable...She isn't. That said, expect Michele to run for re-election. Right now, she's running for a higher position in House GOP leadership.
PS- Forget the talk about Michele running for president or being someone's running mate...She's made too many verbal gaffes to be viable...they'd crucify her worse than they did with Palin.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 30-Jan-11 07:48 AM
I would agree with everything except that Tarryl "knows she's lying." Leftists have this amazing capacity to believe two completely contrary things simultaneously, when at most one of them bears a resemblance to reality. You can't lie if there is no objective truth.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-11 11:36 AM
Trust me, she knows. She's got her tells just like anyone else.
Krauthammer vs. Shrum: A Definite Mismatch
Comparing Bob Shrum's column with Charles Krauthammer's op-ed is a comparison between someone playing tiddly winks (Shrum) vs. someone playing grand master's chess (Krauthammer). Here's part of Shrum's article:
In his speech, the President, who for his first two years was the great legislator, was, as he had been in 2008 and again in Tucson, the great communicator. He articulated a powerful narrative, rooted in America's instinctive view of itself as a nation and a people who "do big things." The call to "win the future" was aspirational and challenging, an appeal beyond partisanship that echoed JFK and Ronald Reagan. The Kennedy comparisons were inevitable; but there was also a striking parallel with Reagan's summons in his first inaugural to "believe in ourselves and in our capacity to perform great deeds... And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans."
Shrum is so far off base it's silly. After each time President Obama spoke about American exceptionalism and how we're a nation that does great things, he'd seemingly follow it up by saying how much we need government to get those great things done.
President Obama's expansion of government to unprecedented, unimaginable levels has kept unemployment high, the economy struggling while exploding the deficits. President Obama's claims that he had to do this to clean up the mess left by the Bush administration are rejected for their silliness.
Next, let's compare Shrum's babble with Charles' wisdom:
The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address , he doesn't believe a word of it. The people say they want cuts? Sure they do - in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his reelection.
No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech that didn't even address the debt issue until 35 minutes in. And then what did he offer? A freeze on domestic discretionary spending that he himself admitted would affect a mere one-eighth of the budget.
Obama seemed impressed, however, that it would produce $400 billion in savings over 10 years. That's an average of $40 billion a year. The deficit for last year alone was more than 30 times as much. And total federal spending was more than 85 times that amount. A $40 billion annual savings for a government that just racked up $3 trillion in new debt over the past two years is deeply unserious. It's spillage, a rounding error.
President Obama's speech was uplifting if you don't care about the details. If you think policies matter, President Obama's speech was utterly unimpressive. It was 'Hope and Change' redux. Except that this time, we've seen the effectiveness of his policies. We're no longer dazzled by his soaring rhetoric.
We're now a nation demanding results. Instead of giving us a blueprint for a new America, President Obama gave us a polished-up version of more-of-the-same.
President Obama's worshipers, of which Shrum is certainly one, swooned and undoubtedly said that he'd gotten his mojo back. Rational people asked "Where's the beef"? A healthy majority of the American people know we have to seriously cut spending. Obama's supporters understand that in the abstract but don't seem to grasp it
To his supporters, President Obama offered a set of unserious budget cuts. To the American people, he offered them unseriousness at a time of crisis.
I've been voting for presidents since 1976. I've never seen a president who's seemingly this out of touch with the American people, not even Jimmy Carter. I don't think he's actually out of touch. It's that I think he's confident he can keep implementing his ideological agenda, then win the American people back for re-election.
Twenty-five years from now, President Obama will be rated as the worst president of that half-century. His is an administration that is driven by ideology, fueled by his over-sized ego and that's failed miserably, especially economically.
This paragraph from Charles's op-ed sums President Obama's silliness up perfectly:
It's as if Obama is daring the voters, and the Republicans, to prove they really want smaller government. He's manning the barricades for Obamacare, and he's here with yet another spending, excuse me, investment, spree. To face down those overachieving Asians, Obama wants to sink yet more monies into yet more road and bridge repair, more federally subsidized teachers, with a bit of high-speed rail tossed in for style. That will show the Chinese.
Why should anyone take President Obama's administration seriously? His deficits are sucking all the capital out of the economy. His solution: higher deficits that suck even more capital from the system. Health care is a mess. His solution: implement hundreds of rules, policies that drive costs up, not down, and that takes away options while eliminating or stifling competition.
Those aren't solutions.
Back when the Twins were terrible, they had a closer named Ron Davis. One year, he had a great year and came close to winning the Fireman of the Year award as the best closer in the game. It didn't take long before he snapped & started giving up lots of runs in the ninth inning. He became known for "starting more fires than he put out" in the words of one Twin Cities sportswriter.
President Obama is to federal governance what Ron Davis was to late inning relief: he's the guy who's started more fires than he puts out.
How that's inspiring in anyone's mind, even Bob Shrum's mind, is beyond me.
Posted Friday, January 28, 2011 9:22 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 28-Jan-11 09:36 PM
Gary:
What Shrum didn't take into account any President can be a great legislator when you have 60 votes in the Senate and over 250 in the House. The reason why he struggled to get the votes he needed was because many of the votes got knew it was political suicide. How Bush being a great legislator in 2001-2003 when he got his tax cuts passed, No Child Left Behind(hey it was bi-partisan), two authorizations for the war with a Senate that for just a couple of months was at best 50-50 for his policies.
The fact that Shrum doesn't see it shows how out of touch he is.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
