January 30-31, 2012
Jan 30 01:57 Mitt exposed: I'll cut defense spending to pay for Obamacare Jan 30 03:45 EXCLUSIVE: Bruce Hentges' plagiarism exposed Jan 30 06:34 Newt News 1.30.12 Jan 30 12:26 Intellectual heft, integrity missing from Romney's attacks Jan 31 00:40 Why do Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter and Jennifer Rubin support an Alinsky progressive? Jan 31 13:02 Senate says no to Gov. Dayton's anti-energy PUC Commissioner
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mitt exposed: I'll cut defense spending to pay for Obamacare
Thanks to Mitt's speech in Panama City, we now know that Mitt isn't interested in repealing Obamacare:
H/T Lady Logician
A little over a minute into this video, Mitt said something extra revealing. Here's what he said:
MITT: There's alot of waste in our Department of Defense like there is in the rest of government. I'm gonna go after that waste. And I'm gonna take that waste and go pay for Obamacare.
So much for Mitt repealing Obamacare. I've always thought that Mitt wasn't committed to it. Now we have him in his own words making a specific proposal that he'll eliminate wasteful spending in the Department of Defense and use it to pay for Obamacare.
That's a very specific proposal , one that can't be taken as an accident or a slip of the tongue.
Let's remember that Mitt's surrogates have said as much this past week. Norm Coleman said that we couldn't expect to repeal Obamacare in total. Within minutes of his statement, Romney's campaign distanced themselves from Sen. Coleman's statement.
Later, Pam Bondi said that she'd be on Mitt's Health Care Advisory Team when he's president :
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who's fighting to repeal ObamaCare appeared on Greta, tonight, defending RomneyCare. She says Romney's health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney's plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she is all for it.
Mitt's senior advisor admitted that O'Care couldn't be repealed outright. Mitt's top health care surrogate told Greta van Susteren that Mitt wants the states to follow the federal government's lead in creating health insurance laws that include individual mandates.
Mitt could've explained those away by saying that they don't speak for him. He can't explain away his statements that he'll cut defense spending to pay for Obamacare. That's his words. That's his specific proposal.
Considering the fact that Mitt's consistently defended Romneycare in debates and interviews, considering the fact that his top health care surrogate said Mitt wants to impose Romneycare on the states, isn't it painfully obvious that Mitt's committed to keeping O'Romneycare in place forever?
The ironic part of this is delicious. Mitt exposed himself obliquely during the debates. Sunday in Florida, Mitt outed himself directly. It's time Mitt was annihilated at the ballot box. We can't have an Alinsky-loving progressive who wants to cut defense spending to pay for Obamacare as the GOP presidential nominee.
Tags: Spending , Military , Obamacare , Romneycare , Mitt Romney , Saul Alinsky , President Obama , Norm Coleman , Pam Bondi , Progressives , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 1:57 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Jan-12 09:15 AM
Amazing! If he doesn't walk that back in the next 24 hours, he's toast, right?
Comment 2 by Toni at 30-Jan-12 10:35 AM
It seems to me, he says he's NOT going to take that waste to pay for Obama care. Clearly, the follow up to that statement he says what he WILL do with that waste. Just sayin.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-12 10:48 AM
I've had a bunch of people listen to that part. A few would agree with you. Most wouldn't. Pam Bondi's statement that Mitt wants to push Romneycare on the states suggests he isn't committed to repealing O'Care. Norm Coleman, one of Mitt's key surrogates, said that you can't repeal O'Care all at once. Given those statements, I think it's likely that Mitt's half-hearted at best about repealing O'Care
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 30-Jan-12 06:35 PM
I keep hearing him promise that he will give "all 50 states" an exemption by executive order, but those are only good for a year and don't apply to the thousands and thousands of employer or private plans, so I would second the doubts being raised. Also, he has never renounced the "failed" parts of Romneycare or even told us what they are or IF they are. You have to go back 3 years or so to hear that admission, that it was "badly flawed" in Mass. Again, this looks like a solid pine cudgel for the primary season.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-12 09:27 PM
Jerry, you're right about the exemptions only being useful for a year. What Mitt hasn't talked about is that the exemptions don't prevent the $700,000,000,000 in tax increase included in O'Romneycare.
Comment 5 by eric z at 31-Jan-12 08:03 AM
In a big GOP segment in Florida, if he does not dink with Social Security or Medicare he will do okay. In Pensacola, perhaps not as well. Presuming chain of command tells lower ranks how to vote.
Comment 6 by Rebekah at 22-Feb-12 03:45 PM
I can not stand Romney but this page is just dishonest. Totally taken out of context and misused. Romney has so many issues to attack. The guy likes mandates, he likes taxes he likes bailouts and has taken a few himself. Why does he want to spread the American empire across the globe should be the real question here.
EXCLUSIVE: Bruce Hentges' plagiarism exposed
Bruce Hentges is in hot water. In Hentges' St. Cloud Times op-ed , he made this statement:
According to Sahlberg, education in Finland, a country with virtually no private schools and a very low poverty rate, has been seen first and foremost; not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.
Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling and individualized student guidance. In other words, by focusing on equity of opportunity for all students, Finland has produced academic excellence.
Hentges references Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education's Center for International Mobility in the first paragraph. In that first paragraph, Hentges attributes to Sahlberg that education in Finland...has been seen...as an instrument to even out social inequality.
Hentges' second paragraph looks like a personal observation but it isn't. Here's what was written in the Atlantic :
In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.
Here's the last sentence in the Atlantic's paragraph:
Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.
Here's the first sentence in Hentges' second paragraph:
Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling and individualized student guidance.
After that, Hentges says this:
In other words, by focusing on equity of opportunity for all students, Finland has produced academic excellence.
Here's the next paragraph from the article in the Atlantic:
In fact, since academic excellence wasn't a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, when Finland's students scored so high on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland, unlike, say, very similar countries such as Norway, was producing academic excellence through its particular policy focus on equity.
It's clear that Hentges' op-ed didn't give attribution to the Atlantic's article. It's clear that Hentges 'borrowed' one sentenced from the Atlantic's article, then mixing it with his own personal opinion.
In the dictionary, that's known as plagiarism :
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author
This isn't a criticism of the St. Cloud Times. It's difficult for them to know the wording of every article on every subject. Instead, it's an indictment against Mr. Hentges, especially considering the fact that AJ Kern used that same sentence, with attribution, during her presentation on improving teacher quality during the Restoring Excellence in Education Forum.
Considering the fact that Mr. Hentges is an academic who sits on the St. Cloud School Board, he knows better than to claim personal credit for things written in an article. It's plagiarism, pure and simple. It's proof that Mr. Hentges' professionalism and ability to serve should be questioned.
Tags: Finland , Education , Bruce Hentges , Plagiarism , Corruption
Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 3:50 AM
Comment 1 by Joe at 30-Jan-12 07:49 PM
Considering the statement is a list of what Finland provides, how would you change the sentence?
I don't see the big deal here over a sentence. Especially a list.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-12 09:25 PM
Joe, I couldn't care less how I'd restructure the sentence because I wouldn't change it. I'd just attribute it to the man who made the statement.
Intellectual integrity matters. That's why plagiarism is frowned upon in the academic world. It's the equivalent of theft of intellectual property.
Comment 3 by Alan at 30-Jan-12 11:15 PM
After reviewing the article Bruce wrote and looking at the original source, it is blatantly clear this material was plagiarized. It happened more than once in the article. Plagiarism is more than just copying word for word from another source...it also includes using someone else's idea without proper citation. In Bruce's case, it was quite blatant. As a school board member, this is truly inexcusable. This is what gets students and academicians in serious trouble.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 31-Jan-12 12:06 AM
You're quite right Alan. This is intellectual laziness at its worst.
Newt News 1.30.12
Mitt Romney's Alinskyite tactics getting exposed on national TV
InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race 'Tighter Than Expected'
PPP shows race tightening
Newt Reaches for Reaganite Mantle, Reaganites flip out
Newt Gingrich: I am 'legitimate heir to the Reagan movement'
Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 6:46 AM
No comments.
Intellectual heft, integrity missing from Romney's attacks
If anything has become clear this week, it's that Mitt's surrogates don't have the intellectual heft or integrity that Newt's supporter have. This article offers a few examples of those weaknesses. This is a prime example:
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi called Romney a 'champion for pro-life values' as she introduced him at the rally. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen offered a similar defense during an earlier rally with the Cuban American community in Hialeah.
Bondi and Ros-Lehtinen can say whatever they want but their words ring hollow. The reality is that O'Romneycare allows for taxpayer funding of abortions. Mitt signed that into law 2 years after he allegedly had his pro-life epiphany.
Romney's team has tried explaining that away by saying that that's the court's decision, that Mitt's hands were tied. That's BS. The reality is that Mitt could've vetoed the bill and forced the legislature to override his veto. Mitt didn't do that.
Mitt didn't put up a fight when Planned Parenthood was given a permanent position on the MassHealth payment policy advisory board. Here's the truth about Mitt's life after 'the epiphany':
Romney claims, "The Commonwealth Care benefit services package was developed by the Connector Authority, an independent authority separate from the Governor's Office. Their decisions were made separate of the Romney administration." The truth is that the "Connector" was created by Romney's authority with the Act of 2006 that he signed, it was placed under Romney's executive branch administration, and was run by a ten-member board with four members directly seated by Romney's authority: the Planned Parenthood seat which he created, and three others appointed by Romney himself, and three appointed by Romney's attorney general who was also part of the executive branch and Romney administration."
Here's the section of the legislation that created the MassHealth payment policy advisory board :
Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members: 1 member appointed by the speaker of the house; 1 member appointed by the president of the senate; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Hospital Association;? 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Medical Society; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Extended Care Federation; 1 member appointed by Mass Aging Services Association, 1 member appointed by the Home Care Alliance of Massachusetts; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers; 1 member appointed by Mental Health and Substance Abuse Corporations of Massachusetts; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Medicaid Policy Institute; 1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems; 1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts; and 2 members appointed by the governor, 1 member representing managed care organizations contracting with MassHealth and 1 member being an expert in medical payment methodologies from a foundation or academic institution.
If Mitt's this great pro-life guy who was deeply moved to changing his mind in 2004, why didn't Mitt veto this bill and fight to keep Planned Parenthood off this panel? Might it be that he isn't the great pro-life candidate he claims to be? Considering all the lies he's told the last 2 weeks, why should I trust Mitt on anything?
It's time the conservative media started pointing out that Mitt's severely deficient in terms of intellectual heft and personal integrity. The reality is that Mitt's every bit the Alinskyite as Obama . The problem is that he isn't the charismatic figure that President Obama is.
Tags: Planned Parenthood , Romneycare , Mitt Romney , Pro-choice , Alinsky , MassHealth Payment Policy Board , Taxpayer Funded Abortions , Newt Gingrich , Gravitas , Integrity , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 12:26 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Jan-12 07:59 AM
Too wordy a headline. Try, "Integrity missing from Romney."
Why do Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter and Jennifer Rubin support an Alinsky progressive?
Something that doesn't make sense is the support Mitt Romney is getting from Hugh Hewitt and Jennifer Rubin. What's worse is that their support has intensified since Mitt's Alinskyite nastiness has been revealed .
Is this Hewitt's and Rubin's way of signalling that they're ok with Alinsky's politics of personal destruction as long as they aren't used against St. Mitt? Would they tolerate Mitt's thug tactics if it came from another GOP candidate?
God help us if they would.
Something tragically wrong is going on here. When a syndicated talk show host who allegedly votes for the conservative who's most electable goes into the tank for a nasty, perhaps evil, progressive, something's wrong. It raises the question of whether Hewitt gives a damn about the TEA Party activists. It raises the question of whether Hweitt is a principled man or if he's just another 'let's sacrifice our principles in the name of winning.'
Don't even get me started with Jennifer Rubin or Ann Coulter. As disgusting as Hewitt is, and that's plenty disgusting, Jennifer Rubin and Ann Coulter are intellectually vacant and without principles. Ann Coulter went from saying at CPAC that if nominated Romney, we'd lose decisively. Now she's singing his praises.
Did Ms. Coulter suddenly see the light that Mitt's a conservative like he says? Or is it that she's willing to lie about Mitt to maintain a high media profile? I suspect it's the latter.
The TEA Party doesn't take kindly to people that don't put principles ahead of popularity. She's a gutless weasel who won't fight the fight for conservatism when it matters.
Isn't that the complaint about most RINOs? That they sound good delivering speeches but they're MIA when the battles come?
Ms. Rubin is worse than Ms. Coulter in the sense that she's never pretended to care about conservatism's principles. She couldn't care less about conservatism's principles if it's a battle between Mitt and conservatism's principles.
Demagogues like Hewitt, Rubin and Coulter are a plague against conservatism because they aren't conservatives. They just play conservatives when they need ratings or readership.
TEA Party patriots, it's time to hit traitors to conservatism where it hurts. It's time TEA Party patriots to punish traitors like Hewitt, Coulter and Rubin in the wallet.
In fact, a significant amount of people have already tuned out Hewitt's radio program because, in their words, they can't stand his Mitt-can-walk-on-water schtick. Hewitt hasn't been in touch with the American people on Mitt in 5 years.
Mitt's Alinskyite tactics and lies have fractured the GOP. If Mitt wins the nomination, he'll lose because too many people hate his guts for how he won the nomination.
It's time for principled men and women to stand up to Mitt, Hewitt, Rubin, Coulter and the corrupt DC GOP Establishment. There's too much riding on this election to entrust our future to an Alinsky progressive and his merry band of parasites.
Tags: RINOs , Hugh Hewitt , Jennifer Rubin , Ann Coulter , CPAC , Mitt Romney , Alinsky , TEA Party , Patriots , Activists , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:40 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Jan-12 07:58 AM
Aside from your points, I hope it rains cold buckets all over Florida today. Winnow out the sunshine patriots.
Comment 2 by truthseeker at 01-Feb-12 12:04 PM
You are all nasty as far as I'm concerned. Your shrill screed doesn't exactly smack of "Can't we all just get along?"
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Feb-12 12:59 PM
Getting along based on betraying one's principles isn't a virtue.
Senate says no to Gov. Dayton's anti-energy PUC Commissioner
When the Senate voted to not confirm Ellen Anderson as chair of the Public Utilities Commission, aka PUC, there was a good reason for it. Sen. Gimse explains it perfectly here :
Gimse said Anderson was an "activist for clean energy" and he was concerned her views on restricting nuclear energy and electricity generated from fossil fuels wouldn't provide the "strong base load capacity for electricity" to keep utility rates competitive for consumers and create jobs.
Put differently, Anderson was a big green energy activist who consistently put ideology ahead of reality. Here's what Mike Nobles, the executive director of Fresh Energy said in his official statement after the Senate rejected Sen. Anderson:
Fresh Energy deplores the decision by the Minnesota Senate majority to deny confirmation to former state senator Ellen Anderson as chair of the Public Utilities Commission. Chair Anderson has managed the commission's business with professionalism and efficiency, and her long tenure on key legislative committees offers the state an unusually deep understanding of energy and consumer issues.
As a key legislative architect of the laws at the foundation of Minnesota's forward-looking energy policy platform, Chair Anderson was well-suited to administer those laws in an impartial and statesmanlike way, keeping Minnesota's business climate competitive and consumer energy bills affordable, while moving our state systematically forward to an energy-efficient, low carbon, clean energy future, as our state laws require.
Then-Sen. Anderson was a major advocate for the Next Generation Energy Act, a bill that won bipartisan support in the legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Pawlenty. Utility rates have climbed as a direct result of that legislation.
As a sidenote, Mike Noble should be remembered for his radicalism, which I wrote about in a post titled Attrition, not Litigation . The op-ed he co-authored with Paul Aasen highlighted the environmental community's anti-fossil fuel rigidity:
Along with our allies at the Izaak Walton League of America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy argued, first in South Dakota, then before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), that the new plant was a bad idea. Our message was simple: The utilities had not proven the need for the energy, and what energy they did need could be acquired less expensively through energy efficiency and wind.
We kept losing, but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.
This time around, the administrative law judge ruled in our favor, saying the utilities had proven the need for, at most, 160 megawatts and had failed to prove that coal would be the least expensive way of providing the electricity. The Minnesota PUC approved the transmission lines into Minnesota, and we filed an appeal that is pending with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
In short, Fresh Energy and the MCEA sued Big Stone II investors into the ground. Ellen Anderson steadfastly supported that attrition litigation, starting with this op-ed :
Many of us at the state and federal levels of government are trying to do just that. Working with a broad coalition of environmental groups, we introduced legislation in 2007 to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The bill that finally passed will go a long way toward accomplishing those reductions.
My main focus has been on the way we generate electricity. In Minnesota, we are very heavily reliant on burning coal, which means we contribute more than an average share to the climate change crisis. Others are working on the transportation side, and of course I support those efforts as well.
Based on Sen. Anderson's own words, does it sound like she'd be impartial? Let's remember that Sen. Anderson was one of the green energy's staunchest allies for over a decade. This isn't just something she believes in; it's part of who she is.
Was the Senate supposed to look past Sen. Anderson's history of radical ideology and confirm her? I don't think so. As for Gov. Dayton's reaction , it's a testimony to his childish temperament:
Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton on Monday in blistering language blasted Senate Republicans after the Senate voted to reject the confirmation of his appointee, Ellen Anderson, as chair of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
'A very good person, a very dedicated public servant, and an excellent chair of the Public Utilities Commission was wrongly maligned and cruelly rejected today by Republican Senators, who showed once again that they are unfit to govern this state,' Dayton read from a statement.
'You would think after their leadership scandals, which caused them to replace all of their leaders last month, they would behave themselves for at least a little while. However, they seem incapable of doing so,' he said.
That's the type of childish rant that Minnesotans have come to expect of Gov. Dayton. He's ill-equipped, temperament-wise, to lead the state.
Finally, this is another troubling statement from then-Sen. Anderson:
Minnesota law says that if we can meet our need for power more cost effectively through the use of renewable energy, or through energy conservation, or through a combination of both, then a new coal plant cannot be built. In January 2007, the administration filed a brief, clearly stating that the proponents failed to show the plant was needed, and failed to show it was the most cost effective solution.
She's talking about the Next Generation Energy Act. Clearly, NGEA was a mistake because it's imposing a plethora of unreasonable regulations on power generators. That then-Sen. Anderson was a steadfast supporter of such counterproductive regulations is an indictment against her judgment.
Tags: Ellen Anderson , PUC , Environmental Extremist , Confirmation , Mark Dayton , Paul Aasen , MCEA , Mike Noble , Fresh Energy , DFL
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:02 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 31-Jan-12 04:36 PM
I like how Sen. Rosen put it, that Anderson was unwilling to set aside her personal views for the common good. It's fun to use liberal phrases against a liberal.
Comment 2 by Patrick at 31-Jan-12 06:09 PM
Rex that is the best part of annoying a liberal with the truth.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 01-Feb-12 08:58 AM
Dayton's "unfit to govern" description of the GOP Putsch nailed the truth about their chest-pounding outrage and obstructionism, against sane DFL policy.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Feb-12 09:09 AM
Eric, here's a hint. It isn't sane policy. It's what passes as sane DFL policy but it's worthless policy. It's provably terrible policy because a) it's based on discredited reports & b) Sen. Anderson's policies would shrink the amount of electricity generated while driving up costs. If that's "sane DFL policy", then it's time the DFL actually stopped listening to their special interest groups.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 01-Feb-12 09:41 AM
This woman used to be my state senator and is one of the dimmest bulbs on the planet when it comes to rational thinking. She spewed whatever garbage it was from whatever environmental group was giving her campaign the most money and to her it was gospel. Listening to her at town hall meetings babble on about things she knew nothing about was very frustrating. When confronted with an opposing view, she just sat there like a deer caught in the headlights because she didn't have anything to back up her prior statements.
Green energy is a waste of our personal (utility bills)and tax dollars (subsidies)as it is inefficient and expensive. Just look at all the green companies going broke even after millions and millions of state and federal tax dollars have been dumped on them. Oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear are PROVEN sources of energy and no matter how how money we dump into green energy, green energy will never be able to supply our ever growing needs.
Comment 5 by Rex Newman at 01-Feb-12 05:02 PM
Chad Q is more direct than perhaps necessary, but he's right. Watching her on TV she appears intellectually vacant, which would explain her demonstrated gullibility.
