January 8-10, 2012
Jan 08 01:14 Debate Wrap-up: Santorum solid, Newt is back, Mitt dodges tax questions Jan 08 02:57 Newt is alive & kicking (That's understatement) Jan 08 13:18 Thomas Sowell's Perspective Jan 08 15:46 Mitt gored by reality Jan 09 01:31 McClung demolishes Cathie Hartnett Jan 09 03:24 Cravaack criticizes Obama's "draconian" military cuts Jan 09 13:40 League of Women Voters, MN to host Photo ID protest Jan 09 23:55 Smoking guns, Photo ID, voter fraud and corrupt organizations Jan 10 15:19 Democrats' anti-Photo ID campaign is nationwide effort
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Debate Wrap-up: Santorum solid, Newt is back, Mitt dodges tax questions
Three things that the candidates said stood out for me tonight. First, Mitt did his best to avoid answering any questions or comments about his timid tax policy. When Newt cited the WSJ's study, Mitt went straight to a canned reply that had nothing to with taxes.
That isn't unexpected. Mitt's tax policy isn't a pro-growth tax policy. That's why Art Laffer endorsed Newt, not Mitt. That's why Thomas Sowell endorsed Newt, not Mitt.
Newt had the best line of the night when he criticized the media for covering only one side of the gay rights fight. After ABC antagonists Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos questioned Rick Santorum on gay rights issues, Newt interjected himself into the conversation, saying that it's shameful (my term) that the media never talks about how this administration has essentially shut down Catholic Charities' adoption operations in DC, Massachusetts and elsewhere.
That line got the loudest applause of the night and second place wasn't that close.
I tweeted early in the night that Newt, the smartest man on stage, was back because he was. His reply on infrastructure was focused, intelligent and explained how infrastructure improvements mattered in international competitiveness.
Rick Santorum had a strong night, showing his policy gravitas. That especially was true in is economic prescriptions for manufacturing. Sen. Santorum also got in a good shot at Mitt, saying that playing the class warfare card was for Democrats, not Republicans.
Another thing that stood out was ABC's incompetence. Diane Sawyer looked half in the bag. George Stephanopoulos thought his job was to start fights between the candidates. None of the panelists asked thoughtful questions on the economy or foreign policy. Compared with the FNC teams, this panel looked amateurish at best.
Afterwards, Jake Tapper and Matthew Dowd talked about Mitt Romney winning simply because "nobody laid a glove on him." Perhaps but it also might be that he wasn't especially coherent, too. The reality is that Mitt was invisible most of the night.
Does anyone remember anything Mitt said that made them sit up and pay attention? I don't. The only thing I remember him saying was him agreeing that Newt was right about Catholic Charities.
On the issue of whether states had the right to "ban contraception", Mitt did his best to ridicule the question. After getting pushed, he admitted states had the right but that he didn't know of any states that would "ban contraception."
Newt was brilliant, too, when he was asked if he'd send troops back into Iraq. The context was that Iran is threatening to turn Iraq into another of their provinces. Newt said that, if Iran was causing problems in Iran, then the best thing the United States could do is help topple the Iranian regime.
Newt was tonight's winner because he consistently was proactive. His reply to gay rights was a perfect example of that. Ditto with his Iraq answer. On those two questions, the other candidates gave tactical answers whereas Newt's answers were on the strategic level.
You might say that Newt's opponents were playing checkers while he played grand masters chess.
It'd be just as true if you said that Newt was the only man of gravitas on that stage Saturday night.
UPDATE: Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has posted the video of Newt's Catholic Charities response:
Tags: Debates , Rick Santorum , Mitt Romney , Newt Gingrich , Iraq , Iran , Gay Rights , Catholic Charities , Washington, DC , Massachusetts , Illinois , Tax Reform , Manufacturing , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 8, 2012 1:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Jan-12 08:16 AM
From your headlines about dodging tax questions I expected a different direction than you took. Sure, you watched the thing and I did not, and content there drives what you analyze, and I and others rely upon you as a filter when not wanting to invest time in what any of that bunch say beyond what LFR reports.
That said, the tax question that intrigues me is Mitt Romney has continuously and steadfastly dodged disclosing his tax returns. Do you, Gary, know if this is universal across the field, and has Gingrich, specifically, also ducked disclosure?
Perhaps it is not of interest to other Republicans so not pushed in the primaries, but to general voters, independent voters, it should matter. Presuming Romney wins the nomination, can he still credibly duck such considerations and expect "Trust me" to suffice?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jan-12 01:22 PM
Not only has Mitt not disclosed his records. He's said that he wouldn't disclose that information.
Newt is alive & kicking (That's understatement)
Prior to Saturday night's debate, the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future PAC got a major shot in the arm :
A Las Vegas billionaire has contributed $5 million to an independent group backing Newt Gingrich, breathing new life into the former House Speaker's struggling campaign for the GOP presidential nomination and casting renewed attention on the role of such groups in the 2012 contest.
A person familiar with the development said Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul and longtime donor to Republican candidates, made the contribution Friday to Winning Our Future, a super PAC run by Gingrich allies. The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity and was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Adelson is expected to contribute as much or more to the candidate who eventually wins the Republican nomination, be it Gingrich or one of his rivals.
Rick Tyler, a former top Gingrich strategist and spokesman for Winning Our Future, declined to comment on the donation, which was first reported by The Washington Post. Politico reported last month that Adelson was prepared to spend $20 million to help Gingrich.
While Newt Gingrich can't use any of this money directly, he'll be the beneficiary because Winning Our Future PAC will use it to purchase lots of media in South Carolina and Florida.
More importantly, this means that Mitt better plan for the long haul because it isn't likely that Newt's going away anytime soon. Most importantly, this is a morale boost for Newt's supporters in South Carolina and beyond.
That isn't what Mitt wanted to have happen. Mitt wanted to eliminate his competition early. Adelman's pledge probably means that Mitt will have to debate Newt one-on-one.
Considering the fact that Newt's lead in gravitas is substantial, I can't imagine why that Mitt wouldn't be frightened by that possibility.
If Newt's campaign was running on fumes, Mitt wouldn't have to worry about that possibility. Because of this contribution to the pro-Newt PAC, Newt's fundraising can be dedicated mostly to buying air time in Florida and South Carolina as well as beefing up staffing in those states.
Tags: Winning Our Future PAC , Newt Gingrich , Florida , South Carolina , Sheldon Adelson , SuperPACs , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 8, 2012 2:57 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Jan-12 08:08 AM
Wow. Multi-millions.
With no strings attached.
From gameland.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jan-12 01:21 PM
Isn't the First Amendment wonderful? I love the smell of liberty in the air.
Thomas Sowell's Perspective
Thomas Sowell's perspective on this presidential election is highly valuable because he's prone to cutting through the inevitable spin. Dr. Sowell is equally prone to cut to the chase when it comes to the important things.
That's what Dr. Sowell did in his latest column . Here's a particularly powerful insight into the presidential race:
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
If that sounds familiar to LFR readers, it's probably because I wrote here that Mitt Romney doesn't have any conservative accomplishments:
Frankly, Mitt doesn't have anything that could be considered a conservative accomplishment. That's what makes Ann Coulter's endorsement so puzzling. What's Ms. Conservative Movement doing endorsing a candidate that's this far removed from the conservative movement?
Rather than look only at Mitt's lack of conservative credentials, let's look at who's got a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments through Dr. Sowell's eyes:
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years, followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms , despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
Calling the surpluses "Clinton surpluses" is what I'd expect from a Clintonista spinmeister, which are legion. Before Gingrich proposed balancing the budget in the Contract With America, there wasn't serious talk about balancing the budget in DC. Newt Gingrich and John Kasich were the only people talking seriously about balancing the federal budget.
After President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich and then-Chairman Kasich finished negotiations on that first Clinton-Gingrich-Kasich budget, the course was set to consecutive balanced budgets.
Mitt talks about how important it is to have worked in the private sector to understand how to create jobs. My question for Mitt is simple. What private sector experience did President Reagan, President Clinton or Speaker Gingrich have in the private sector when economic growth was explosive?
I'd argue that Mitt's argument is phony at best. As this trio of men proved, great economies haven't been created by presidents with extensive private sector experience.
Dr. Sowell isn't the only person who's noticed the accomplishment gap and the gravitas gap between Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich :
Newt's past performance and record of accomplishments are exactly what we need in Washington. While revisionist historians would like to credit the tremendous success of the 1990s to Bill Clinton, all Bill Clinton had to show before Newt Gingrich's leadership in the House was a failed stimulus plan, a failed attempt at national health care, a major tax increase, a bill to restrict Second Amendment rights, and midnight basketball. Then, Newt took over and reform came to Washington.
It was not Bill Clinton who displayed the political courage to hold the line on federal spending, leading to the first balanced budget in four decades and four consecutive balanced budgets. It was the House of Representatives, led by Newt Gingrich. It was not Bill Clinton who crafted the welfare reform that lifted millions out of poverty. Instead, Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform. It was wholly a consequence of the dogged determination of Newt Gingrich's House of Representatives that Bill Clinton finally agreed to making welfare a bridge to work and not a dead end of dependency.
Congress, and not Bill Clinton, pushed the tax cut of 1997 with a capital gains cut that produced millions of jobs. These huge accomplishments would not have taken place without Newt Gingrich's vision and leadership. We desperately need that leadership in the Oval Office today.
This is why Newt is the best candidate to face President Obama. He's actually worked with Democrats to get the conservative agenda signed into law. Unlike Mitt, he didn't cave into the Democrats' demands. Newt fought with President Clinton until he won major conservative victories.
This video is a highlight reel of Newt's best moments from this morning's NBC/Meet the Press/Facebook debate:
Here's my favorite Newt moment from the debate:
SPEAKER GINGRICH: You know David, I find it fascinating that very, very highly paid Washington commentators and Washington analysts love the concept of pain. Who's going to be in pain? The duty of the president is to find a way to manage the federal government so that the primary pain is in changing the federal bureaucracy.
If we eliminated theft alone, we could save $100,000,000,000 in Medicaid and Medicare if the federal government were competent. That's $1,000,000,000,000 over 10 years and the only people in pain would be crooks. (APPLAUSE) So I think a sound approach is to actually improve the government, not punish the American people because of the failure of the political class to have any sense of cleverness.
Mitt's governing mindset has been that of being risk averse. He hasn't rocked any liberal's boat. Newt, by contrast, has been constant, passionate, construcive confrontation.
Mitt's history was devoid of fighting for conservative principles until he started running for president. Then, miracle of miracles, Mitt became pro-life, a lifetime member of the NRA and a Reagan conservative.
In 1994, while Newt was putting together the Contract With America and making history, Mitt Romney was running from President Reagan's legacy:
Yes, Newt's said things that I've disagreed with. Newt's said that he's been wrong before, which I accepted as a sincere apology. Mitt's run away from conservatives too often to trust. That's just reality.
Tags: Conservatism , Contract With America , Newt Gingrich , Reagan Revolution , Thomas Sowell , Budget Surplus , Mitt Romney , Assault Weapons Ban , Pro Choice , Flip-Flopper , Liberal , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 8, 2012 4:03 PM
No comments.
Mitt gored by reality
If you're like me, you enjoyed this morning's debate when Newt Gingrich, then Rick Santorum, dismantled Mitt's argument that he isn't a career politician. Byron York quoted Rick Santorum's exchange with Mitt in this Examiner article :
Early in the debate, after Newt Gingrich attacked Romney as virtually unelectable, given his record as a "Massachusetts moderate," Romney responded that he governed as a "solid conservative" in Massachusetts. "I'm very proud of the conservative record I have," Romney said.
That was too much for Santorum. "If his record was so great as governor of Massachusetts, why didn't you run for re-election?" he asked Romney. "I mean, if you didn't want to even stand before the people of Massachusetts and run on your record, if it was that great, why did you bail out? "
"I was in a 71 percent Democratic district," Santorum continued. "I had a 90 percent conservative voting record. It was a hard thing to do. My district was more Democrat than the state of Massachusetts, and I stood up and fought for the conservative principles. I didn't do what Gov. Romney did in 1994 [when Romney ran for Senate against Sen. Edward Kennedy]. I was running the same year he ran, in 1994. I ran in the tough state of Pennsylvania against an incumbent. Gov. Romney lost by almost 20 points. Why?
Because at the end of that campaign, he wouldn't stand up for conservative principles, he ran from Ronald Reagan, and he said he was going to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights, on abortion and a whole host of other issues. We want someone when the time gets tough, and it will in this election, we want someone who's going to stand up and fight for the conservative principles, not bail out and not run to the left of Ted Kennedy ."
That's what's called drilling the frontrunner right between the eyes. Mitt didn't have a defense against such accurate specific accusations. That's why Rich Lowry, part of the NRO editorial board that's twice endorsed Mitt Romney, wrote a post about Romney taking on water in this morning's debate :
Romney had a tough start. Santorum had a very pointed question on his decision not to run for re-election in 2006, 'Why did you bail out?' Romney responded with what Newt rightly called 'pious baloney.' On this question, Romney simply can't admit the truth - he didn't run for re-election because he might have lost and, more importantly, he wanted to run for president. Romney absurdly characterized leaving office to run for another office as returning to the private sector. I'm not sure how much voters will be outraged by any of this. They probably assume every politician wants to run for office. But the exchange got to a certain falsity in Romney's self-presentation that plays into more important doubts about his sincerity.
The other notable exchange came at the end between Romney and Newt on the Superpac ads. Here again, Romney was less than forthcoming. He said on the one hand that he hadn't seen the ads and then immediately related some of the most damaging charges in them (carefully leaving out one of the most dubious ones, I believe).
What do these exchanges have to do with this post's title? They have to do with Mitt's need to run away from substantive, verifiable, accusations. Mitt wants the public to think that his reason for not running for re-election had to do with his desire to rejoin the private sector.
Sen. Santorum phrased things so exquisitely that Mitt was trapped. He left for exactly the opposite reason. He left to run for president rather than getting defeated for re-election.
Since 1994, Mitt Romney has run for the U.S. Senate, to be Massachusetts governor and twice ran to be POTUS. He's run for election 4 times in 17 years. Does that sound like the resume of a man who cherishes his time in the private sector?
Here's a little background on Mitt's parents , George and Lenore Romney:
George Wilcken Romney (July 8, 1907-July 26, 1995) was an American businessman and Republican Party politician. He was chairman and CEO of American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962, the 43rd Governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, and the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1969 to 1973. He is the father of former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney and the husband of former Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Lenore Romney.
Mitt Romney comes from a low-profile political dynasty. While the Romney family isn't as high profile as the Bush or Kennedy families, they're certainly a political dynasty, albeit not a terribly successful one.
Should we belief that a man who's wanted to be a U.S. senator, Massachusetts governor and POTUS really loves being a private citizen and a captain of industry? I think not.
Tags: Debates , Mitt Romney , Liberal , George Romney , U.S. Senate , Governor , Massachusetts , POTUS , Rick Santorum , Confrontation , Newt Gingrich , Conservatives , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, January 8, 2012 3:46 PM
No comments.
McClung demolishes Cathie Hartnett
Whether we're talking about George Stephanopoulos during Saturday night's ABC debate or whether we're talking about Brian McClung taking Cathie Hartnett apart this morning on @Issue's Face-Off segment, this wasn't a good weekend for liberal operatives or pundits.
Sunday morning, Cathie Hartnett said that "the Republican Congress" like she'd rehearsed it for 2-3 hours a day for days on end. Ms. Hartnett didn't break her cadence. Ms. Hartnett didn't act like she'd just told a whopper. Ms. Hartnett just said it like a robot would.
Ms. Hartnett's silliness didn't last long thanks to McClung highlighting the fact that the Democrats control the Senate. Something that Brian McClung didn't say, probably to be merciful, was that the GOP House has piled up a ton of bills that would've straightened out Obama's economy.
Another thing that McClung didn't mention is the fact that the Democratic Senate hasn't taken action on 28 bills that the House has passed that would've straightened this economy out. If Brian would've wanted to go for the proverbial throat, he could've asked why Sen. Reid won't let the bills get a hearing, much less a vote.
Cathie Hartnett didn't reply after McClung highlighted the fact that Democrats control the Senate. Ms. Hartnett wouldn't have had a response for Sen. Reid bottling up all those bills.
If you're talking hatchetman George Stephanopoulos and gigglehead Diane Sawyer at Saturday night's debate, you're talking about a monumental liberal disaster. If you're talking about Cathie Hartnett on @Issue Sunday morning, you're talking about a monumental liberal disaster. If you're talking about David Gregory's DNC's talking points questions for Sunday's debate, you're talking about a monumental liberal disaster.
The underlying theme is that Democrats are great with chanting points but if you get them to actually talk policy, they're pretty much toast.
That's why I'll bet on Brian McClung anytime he's matched up against Cathie Hartnett. It isn't a fair fight. In fact, it's reminiscent of G. Gordon Liddy's quip where he said "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man."
Tags: Cathie Hartnett , George Stephanopoulos , David Gregory , Debates , Chanting Points , Media Bias , Harry Reid , Liberalism , Brian McClung , Economy , GOP
Posted Monday, January 9, 2012 1:31 AM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 09-Jan-12 07:29 AM
Gary - you should know by now that the DFL NEVER lets silly little things like fact get in the way of a good talking point.....
LL
Cravaack criticizes Obama's "draconian" military cuts
Sunday morning, Esme Murphy interviewed Chip Cravaack. The first thing they talked about was President Obama's cuts in defense spending. Here's what Chip said in response to Esme Murphy's question:
CHIP CRAVAACK: I think they're draconian cuts. I didn't vote for the Budget Control Act for the very reason that I was afraid that we would have close to $1,000,000,000,000 in cuts over the next decade coming out of our national defense. Being a 24-year vet, being a retired Navy captain, I can see these cuts being very draconian to the point that we can't defend the country. We've always gone with a 2 theatre concept, meaning that we would be able to fight in 2 theatres if anything should happen.
Right now, we would basically be able to do a 1 theatre war and then cross your fingers and hope nothing else happens. This is very disconcerting to me, especially when you see, as a member of Homeland Security, I can see the threats. The threats are varied and everything from cyber warfare to possibly Iran getting a nuclear weapon and putting that on a missile and shutting down the Straits of Hormuz.
What happens if that occurs and then they're working with China and China decides to blockade Taiwan? Now what do we do?
It's rather apparent that Chip Cravaack has a comprehensive understanding of national security policy. It's equally clear that Chip Cravaack's star is shining bright.
While the DCCC is undoubtedly targeting Chip for 2012, there's no question but that he's significantly more formidable than the DCCC initially anticipated.
Later in the interview, Chip Cravaack talked about his economic viability plans for northern Minnesota, noting that the EIS was almost prepared for PolyMet. Before that, though, Chip criticized the administration for "going from crisis to crisis" in reference to the stop-gap band-aid fix on the payroll tax holiday.
Not that the truth means anything to the DFL but Chip Cravaack gives them a healthy dose of it in this video:
Here's part of what Congressman Cravaack said about the payroll tax holiday:
CHIP CRAVAACK: Unfortunately, this administration goes from crisis to crisis. What we're trying to do is have a long-term tax holiday for a year, go ahead and give unemployment insurance for a year and, also, one of the major portions that we're not talking about right now, but the bill that we proposed over to the Senate had a proposed 2 year doc fix for our seniors.
And that's not being talked about right now and that's one of the main things that's protecting our seniors right now. We have to stop robbing the Social Security Trust Fund.
ESME MURPHY: But that's why Republicans, including yourself, were initially concerned about supporting an extension to the payroll tax cut.
CHIP CRAVAACK: Well, that's one of the things...We wanted offsets. We've increased spending by 24% in the last 2 years. We wanted to cut back on that spending and making sure that those offsets went right into the Social Security Trust Fund to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund.
Their proposal is to create fees in the housing market, which is going to decrease the construction, which is already completely hindered.
That explanation is why it'll take a top tier candidate to be competitive with Chip Cravaack in 2012. Chip's rock solid on the issues and he's very good at explaining his priorities. That's what leadership is about.
If the DFL thinks that this is Jim Oberstar's district, that they're entitled to that seat and that their candidate will just waltz to victory, they're kidding themselves.
Good policies makes for great politics. Chip's looking out for the senior citizens. He's paying attention to national security. Most importantly, he isn't getting cowed by the national and local media the minute the DCCC issues a press release criticizing him for his votes.
Tags: Payroll Tax Holiday , National Security , Doc Fix , Offsets , Social Security Trust Fund , Iran , Taiwan , Straits of Hormuz , President Obama , Jim Oberstar , Democrats , Chip Cravaack , PolyMet , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 9, 2012 3:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Jan-12 07:01 AM
Is this a raise taxes post?
If the GOP cuts the money so that rich indulgent men don't have to be as deeply hurt, taxwise, as small business owners and others, then cutting expenses or running deficits is the only way out.
Reagan and Bush II went the deficit route, which is unwise. Now the GOP also wants balanced budgets.
What a bunch of inconsistent whiners.
Comment 2 by LadyLogician at 09-Jan-12 07:31 AM
As long as we are cutting, lets take away from some LIBERAL sacred cows....like half a billion to Planned Parenthood. Or a billion out of the EPA's "environmental justice grant" program.....
Oh wait - according to the left that IS necessary spending were stupid little things like national defense are not.
LL
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 09-Jan-12 10:57 AM
Better yet, let's cut the ENTIRE Dept of Education budget!
LL
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 09-Jan-12 12:19 PM
Sacred cows is exactly the right term. Eric, why assume that there's a federal role in education? Most of the stuff that's demanded in exchange for federal education $$$ comes from the EPA, the Dept. of Energy & the like. It's indoctrination on green jobs, on climate change.
The tons of anti-energy regulations hurt businesses & consumers alike. Is it that you're willing to hurt families so you can punish "the evil rich"?
It's troubling that you've never considered the possibility that there's tons of wasteful spending in the federal budget & in state budgets.
Comment 5 by Curious at 09-Jan-12 05:46 PM
If Cravaack is upset about the budget cuts in the DOD budget, then he should talk to his leadership, starting with Speaker Boehner, who brought the bill to the House floor that provides for these cuts. Cravaack's party passed the bill and now Cravaack is concerned? He's a little late to be raising this issue.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Jan-12 06:16 PM
If you'd paid attention, you'd know that Chip voted against the debt ceiling bill, citing this specific issue as why he wouldn't vote for the bill. Who's late to the issue now?
Comment 6 by eric z at 10-Jan-12 01:38 PM
So, again, how is CC saying having the big sabre to rattle, being worldwide policeman, is to be paid for?
You guys talk around that. Because you've no answer.
Screw the old people out of Social Security and Medicare, to give military brass big pensions? Great.
All you guys say is there are things you don't like, but regardless of that, the ineffective [call Iraq a victory and get out] military is an embarrassment, and it was Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney that got the nation into that quagmire based upon lies about WMD. Get real, guys.
And it's worse with the politicians, both parties, that have bases in their district. Does CC have a base in his district? Help me on that, please.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 10-Jan-12 02:19 PM
Eric, you're smarter than this. First, the United States built a navy so they could protect against Iran clogging up the Straits of Hormuz because shutting down 16% of the world's oil would quickly lead to worldwide depression.
As for screwing old people out of Social Security & Medicare, Democrats keep voting to extend the payroll tax holiday that's robbing money from the Social Security Trust Fund. When Democrats voted for Obamacare, Democrats voted for cutting Medicare by over $500,000,000,000 over 10 years.
Don't you dare lecture Republicans for supporting cutting Medicare. That's intellectually feeble & flatout BS.
I don't know what you mean by a base inside the district but I know Chip owns a home in Chisago County.
League of Women Voters, MN to host Photo ID protest
Since 2008, Democrats have peddled the myth that requiring Photo ID would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. This Thursday in St. Cloud, the Minnesota chapter of the League of Women Voters is hosting a documentary and discussion on the issue . It's likely that the event will turn into a protest against Photo ID:
The issue of requiring photo identification for voters will be discussed Thursday after a short documentary on the topic is shown at the St. Cloud Library.
The documentary 'Democracy for All? The Barriers of Photo ID' was produced by the League of Women Voters, Minnesota. It will be shown at 6:30 p.m. in the Mississippi Room at the library, 1300 St. Germain St. A discussion led by Sherri Knuth, public policy coordinator for the league, will follow the documentary. The program, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, St. Cloud Area, is free and open to the public.
The documentary puts the current debates around voter photo ID in the context of earlier efforts to expand the voting franchise. 'Democracy for All?' features individuals whose right to vote will be threatened if a voter photo-ID requirement were put in place in Minnesota, and includes interviews with election officials on Minnesota's election safeguards, according to the league.
Notice the provocative language in this press release? "'Democracy for All?' features individuals whose right to vote will be threatened if a voter Photo-ID requirement were put in place in Minnesota." Notice that the LWV-MN didn't say that any individual wouldn't be able to vote. They said that it would be threatened, which is an entirely different matter.
If you think that the LWV-MN is an impartial bystander on this issue, think again. This link was highlighted on LWV-MN's website. It's supposed to be a factcheck of sorts on the pro-Photo ID 'accusations'. Instead, there's this misinformation:
Second, McGrath states that voter ID laws have been upheld as constitutional when challenged. Untrue. The voter ID law in Missouri was overturned as unconstitutional in 2006 (Weinschenk vs. State).
Nowhere did Chuck Samuelson, the executive director of the ACLU-MN, mention the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court decided this issue, by a 6-3 margin, in 2008. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens wrote this in his majority opinion :
The State has identified several state interests that arguably justify the burdens that SEA 483 imposes on voters and potential voters. While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
That's liberal Justice Stevens. This information is also pertinent:
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.' Id., at 783.
She rejected 'as utterly incredible and unreliable' an expert's report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card.
District Judge Barker rejected "as utterly incredible and unreliable" the report that nearly a million registered voters didn't have proper ID to vote. The court's finding of fact was that approximately "43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card."
For the mathematically challenged, 989,000 is 43,000 multiplied 23 times. Photo ID's opponents were off by a whopping 2300%. Keep that in mind when you read this from Mr. Samuelson's op-ed:
This proposed requirement, asking registered voters to show a current Minnesota drivers license, ID card or voter ID card, would immediately disenfranchise more than 100,000 voters.
Using the 2300% benchmark, that 100,000 drops to 4,347. In a state where almost 3,000,000 people voted in the Coleman vs. Franken race, 4,347 is statistically insignificant or smaller. In fact, there's no documentation that verifies the 100,000 figure. There's no proof that this isn't a manufactured number designed for its shock value.
What's disturbing is that the LWV-MN didn't think about how many voters are disenfranchised when voter fraud happens. Thankfully, former Rep. Artur Davis, (D-AL), has thought about it. Here's what he said about voter fraud :
I've changed my mind on voter ID laws; I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one; and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.
When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.
The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.
Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights ; that's suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
This is someone with firsthand knowledge that voter fraud exists and had the courage to write about it. This sentence is especially powerful:
If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
States have the affirmative responsibility to ensure that a person's vote isn't spoiled by a criminal committing voter fraud. Unfortunately, the LWV-MN hasn't spoken out about that responsibility.
Shame on the LWV-MN for not living up to its reputation of being a nonpartisan good government watchdog. On this issue, it's apparent that the watchdog was caught napping. Either that or it doesn't take its watchdog responsibilities seriously.
Tags: League of Women Voters-Minnesota , Chuck Samuelson , ACLU-MN , Voter Fraud , Photo ID , Artur Davis , SCOTUS , Watchdog , Al Franken , Norm Coleman , Elections
Posted Monday, January 9, 2012 1:40 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing, at 09-Jan-12 04:58 PM
Anytime somebody tries to pull this $%^& somebody should say, "Okay, I want you to trot out this person who cannot get a free state-issued ID. I want to meet them." If they ever do, we'll issue them one on the spot.
Comment 2 by ARay at 09-Jan-12 09:33 PM
Democrats are always whining about how hard voting is, or how ballots are too confusing,or how IDs are too hard to get. I'm glad they've appointed and anointed themselves the representatives of the "Stupid-whiny class" voter. Anyone who can't figure out an ID by voting age shouldn't vote! It does get tiresome and tedious hearing this baloney every year. We have a better grasp on the way they(the LWV, DNC,etc.)define their core constituency and my characterization couldn't be too far off.
Comment 3 by L. Helm at 10-Jan-12 09:48 AM
J. Ewing - how would you "issue an id on the spot"? Maybe the actual id you offer techinically is "free" but what "free" documents would you need to satisfy as proof for this person's identity? (Or should I say this $%^& pulling person's identity.) Based on your statement, you likely have an "appropriate" id - try having some empathy and walking in another person's shoes. It would also help if you didn't assume that everyone who is not like you must be trying to committ fraud.
Comment 4 by James at 10-Jan-12 04:16 PM
And yet you and those on the right can't point to any actual evidence of widescale voter-fraud going on. Hell Bush did a 5 year study and found less then 300 cases and most of those were nothing more then a former felon voting when they weren't allowed to...something that Voter ID won't stop.
But there you and the rest of the right wing sit continuing to peddle the myth that there is such widespread voter fraud that it is somehow imperiling our democracy and yet..again..your side when asked for the evidence has none.
The surest proof that the right wing doesn't belong in power is that they have to cheat to win it. Which is all your "Voter ID" attempt is..an attempt to cheat the system so you can gain power. If your side can't win on ideas then your side doesn't deserve the slightest consideration.
It is you that is attempting to cheat, child. IT is you that is attempting to ruin democracy. IT is you that should have your rights to vote stripped. After all..it would only be a small amount of you that wouldn't be able to vote...surely that's not that big of a problem is it?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Jan-12 04:42 PM
I'm tired of people like Mr. Kessler say that voter fraud exists. BULLSHIT!!! Further, it's silly to talk about widespread voter fraud. There have been massive amounts of convictions in Minnesota, Milwaukee, Nevada & Seattle.
Comment 5 by Patrick at 11-Jan-12 09:12 AM
James you say "The surest proof that the right wing doesn't belong in power is that they have to cheat to win it."
Where is your data or proof? I tire of those who make these kind of statements in an attempt to say they have something important to say.
I have worked as an election official (poll worker) and I feel very strongly that Voter Photo ID requirement is long overdue. You need a valid ID for so many things today but yet you liberals say that one of the most important things a citizen does needs nothing. I call "B" as in bee; "S" as in ess on you and your whole group.
Smoking guns, Photo ID, voter fraud and corrupt organizations
This post is about exposing the connection between a campaign against Photo ID, a smoking gun in Minnesota, attempted voter fraud and a corrupt organization.
The trail starts with two supposedly good government watchdog organizations, the LWV-MN and Common Cause MN that sing from the same voting rights hymnal. First, here's what Common Cause MN says about voting :
Our broad goals for overhauling the nation's system of voting include:
- Access: Increase access to voting by removing existing barriers, changing registration and voting practices, and ensuring voting rights for all Americans.
- Accuracy: Safeguard our voting systems by passing federal and state legislation to enhance voting machine accuracy and security.
- Accountability: Hold election officials accountable by passing legislation prohibiting partisan activity and establishing strict conflict of interest laws
Common Cause MN's initiatives are entirely unacceptable. Voting machine accuracy is fine but the machine doesn't know if the person voting is a legal, registered voter. Voting machines can't tell if the voter is a convicted felon whose voting rights haven't been restored. Therefore, that initiative is ineffective in combating voter fraud. Passing "strict conflict of interest laws" sounds impressive but what does that mean in terms of guaranteeing election integrity?
Is Common Cause MN accusing election officials of swinging elections through partisan activities? If they aren't, why should citizens think that this provision is anything more than window dressing? Most worrisome, though, is their first initiative of increasing "access to voting by removing existing barriers, changing registration and voting practices, and ensuring voting rights for all Americans."
If Common Cause MN thinks that "increasing access to voting" by removing important safeguards against voter fraud is a positive step forward, then they're complicit anytime voter fraud is caught and prosecuted. It's naive to say that "all Americans" have the right to vote. Felons still on probation don't have the right to vote in Minnesota. Illegal immigrants don't have the right to vote. How would a voting machine detect who's an illegal immigrant or a felon?
Next, it's important to connect these 'good government watchdog organizations' to the campaign against Photo ID. The LWV-MN website cites this report by Justin Levitt of the Brennan Center for Justice as proof that Photo ID isn't needed. Before jumping into the meat of the subject, here's what the Brennan Center for Justice website said about Mr. Levitt:
Justin Levitt is counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, working on election administration, redistricting, and other voting rights concerns. Before he joined the Center, Mr. Levitt served as in-house counsel to America Coming Together, the largest voter mobilization campaign in history, and as Director of Strategic Targeting for a national presidential campaign. He is the author of Making the List: Database Matching and Verification Processes for Voter Registration (Brennan Center 2006), and a number of other scholarly and popular publications on election law.
That's an important piece of information. When you read Scott Johnson's post on Powerline titled A Gun Smokes In Minnesota , the connection will become clear. Here's the key portion of Scott Johnson's post:
Among the well-funded and supposedly independent groups supporting John Kerry in the campaign is Americans Coming Together (ACT). ACT has taken notice of Minnesota's special vulnerabilty to vote fraud and organized a sophisticated effort to exploit it in a manner that violates Minnesota law. 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 email is a smoking gun of massive premeditated vote fraud. The ACT effort contemplates the prepositioning of registered voters as volunteers at their precincts of residence to provide the 'vouching' necessary to get individuals registered to vote on election day in the precinct whether or not the volunteer 'personally knows' the residence of the unregistered voter. It is a recipe for illegal voting in every precinct of the state.
In other words, the study that the LWV-MN is citing as proof why we don't need Photo ID was written by the in-house counsel of a corrupt organization that put together a plan to commit voter fraud that Photo ID would've stopped dead in its tracks. Obviously, the information in Scott Johnson's post identifies ACT as a corrupt organization.
Additionally, it ties together the need for Photo ID because it proves that voter fraud a) is systemic, b)was sponsored by a corrupt organization and c) was planned with great specificity for a specific state's voting laws. The thought that an organization could be that well-funded, that corrupt and that well-versed in states' election laws means that this isn't just a Minnesota problem.
Though voter fraud schemes in other states undoubtedly take other forms, there's little doubt but that it's a systemic problem. The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Photo ID laws are constitutional. In the case of Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections, the Supreme Court ruled that Photo ID's are constitutional :
The State has identified several state interests that arguably justify the burdens that SEA 483 imposes on voters and potential voters. While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
In other words, 'good government organizations' like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause are fighting a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Why would two supposedly good government watchdog organizations fight against election integrity? While we don't have the answer to that question, we know that a) voter fraud exists, b) Photo ID is constitutional and c) corrupt organizations have put together elaborate plans to commit voter fraud. It isn't difficult to understand why Photo ID polls so well in every demographic group :
Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the voter ID bill saying it lacked 'broad legislative bipartisan' support. According to our exclusive new SurveyUSA poll, 76% of Minnesotans say they'd vote in favor of voter ID. Only 18% oppose the idea.
It isn't surprising that Gov. Dayton vetoed the Photo ID bill. It's a matter of religious faith with Democrats that Photo ID is evil and must be defeated at any cost. Thanks to the League of Women Voters' website, we now know that there's a connection between the opponents of Photo ID, voter fraud and some corrupt organizations.
Tags: League of Women Voters-MN , Common Cause MN , Photo ID , Voter Fraud , Brennan Center For Justice , Justin Levitt , America Coming Together , Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , SCOTUS , John Paul Stevens , Majority Opinion , Mark Dayton , DFL Legislature , Elections , Election 2012
Posted Monday, January 9, 2012 11:55 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Jan-12 01:29 PM
What got you looking at Common Cause?
The elections law complaint against the Minnesota GOP?
That is interesting news.
Somebody had to officially call out the situation, and the Republicans were not going to muck their own stable publicly, so Common Cause went for it. Good for them.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Jan-12 02:11 PM
I looked at Common Cause MN because they're a corrupt organization that's bought into the DFL's agenda hook, line & sinker.
They were part of the progressive coalition that tried to hijack the redistricting process. They've argued in court that ethnic communities of interest should have greater priority than political communities of interest.
Now they're arguing that voter fraud doesn't exist & that, even if it did, Photo ID wouldn't prevent it.
They're arguing that requiring a Photo ID to vote is onerous even though it's a federal law that people have to show Photo ID to buy cold & allergy medications like Claritin-D & Sudafed.
Why isn't that considered an onerous burden, too?
As for them complaining about the troubles the MNGOP has had, nobody's been tougher on the MNGOP than MNGOP activists like Andy Aplikowski, Mitch Berg and other activists.
Democrats' anti-Photo ID campaign is nationwide effort
I've written 2 articles about the DFL's anti-photo ID campaign. This article highlights the LWV-MN's anti-Photo ID event Thursday night at the St. Cloud Public Library.
That article also features an op-ed by Chuck Samuelson, the Executive Director of the ACLU-MN.
This article highlights the voter fraud system that was put in place in 2004 by a now-defunct organization called America Coming Together. That's important because the former in-house counsel for ACT wrote a study that was published by the Brennan Center for Justice. That study is linked to on the LWV-MN website.
Now that we've established that foundation, it's time to highlight the fact that this isn't just a Minnesota project. Rep. Keith Ellison has introduced legislation that would ban Photo ID's nationwide :
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) today introduced two bills with Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) to strengthen voting rights in federal elections.
Both bills, The Same Day Registration Act and The Voter Access Protection Act, would combat the coordinated effort sweeping several state legislatures to restrict voting rights. The Same Day Registration Act would require states to provide same-day voter registration for a federal election. Currently, Minnesota leads the nation in providing election-day voter registration.
This information was included later in the press release:
The Voter Access Protection Act would prohibit election officials from requiring photo identification to cast a vote or register to vote.
'This year, thirty-four state legislatures introduced bills requiring photo identification in order to vote,' Ellison noted in an op-ed that appears on DailyKos.com. 'This rash of legislation classifies several previously accepted IDs as unacceptable, and would negatively affect roughly 21 million Americans if they are passed. For the first time in our nation's history, we would shrink the voting franchise instead of expanding it.'
'This legislation would prohibit one of the most pernicious forms of voter suppression, requiring a strict photo identification card at the polls,' said Rep. Moore. 'As one of our most sacred democratic rights, state laws that disenfranchise large proportions or minorities, elderly, students, and low-income Americans have no place in modern society.'
This is progressive propaganda. When progressives' accusations reach court, here's what happens :
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.' Id., at 783.
She rejected 'as utterly incredible and unreliable' an expert's report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card.
Judge Barker's finding of fact essentially laughed in the face of the Democrats' claims. Instead of there being 989,000 people in Indiana that didn't have "acceptable photo identification", the judge set that figure at 43,000 people.
Most importantly, Judge Barker stated as fact that "petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.'" In a state the size of Indiana, why couldn't Democrats find a single person who wouldn't be able to vote as a result of Indiana's Photo ID law?
Isn't that the benchmark question that needs answering? Why can't Democrats find a single person who couldn't vote as a result of Indiana's Photo ID law? Might it be that they can't find that person because Photo ID isn't as onerous as Democrats allege?
I suspect so. I suspect that because, especially in a post-9/11 world, photo ID is required for tons of things. For instance, Photo ID is needed to buy drain cleaner in Illinois :
A new state law requires those who buy industrial drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log.
According to the TSA, Photo Id is required of adult passengers to go through the TSA checkpoint:
Adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight.
If photo ID is required to board a plane or purchase industrial strength drain cleaner, is it that difficult to have a state-issued Photo ID?
It's apparent that Democrats' claim that Photo ID requirements are onerous are more propaganda than reality. Democrats' only chance of keeping Photo ID from being adopted by all the states is to paint the picture that senior citizens, college students and minorities will be disenfranchised.
That's patently absurd.
Let's exercise in a little absurdity here. Progressives argue that health care is a right. Let's stipulate for the point of absurdity that it is. According to this article , Photo ID is required to purchase OTC drugs:
Consumers must show a photo ID and sign a log to purchase some nonprescription sinus, cold and allergy medicines such as Claritin-D and Sudafed, drugs that will now be locked behind the counter starting today.
A federal law bans over-the-counter sales of drug products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine to curb illegal production of crystal methamphetamine, an addictive drug made with the ingredients.
Putting this together, progressives must now argue that the legislation they passed puts an onerous burden on people trying to exercise their God-given right to health care. If health care is a right just like voting is, why should Democrats put an onerous burden on people trying to get healthy?
Keith Ellison's legislation is a political ploy designed to create a talking point for the campaign. If Rep. Ellison wants people to take his statements seriously, let him produce well-documented studies that verify his claims that Photo ID disenfranchises huge blocks of voters in specific demographic groups.
The truth is that Rep. Ellison can't produce a study done by a reputable think tank that verifies his accusations because such a study doesn't exist.
Tags: Keith Ellison , Gwenn Moore , Voter Access Protection Act , Same Day Registration Act , Chuck Samuelson , ACLU , Photo ID , Voter Fraud , Democrats , SCOTUS , Judge Barker , Elections
Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 3:19 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Jan-12 03:11 PM
Counter-nationwide effort would be the better terminology.
Comment 2 by ARay at 12-Jan-12 12:26 AM
More examples where ADULTS get a PHOTO ID to do ordinary things, buy cold medicine or firearm ammunition(a 2nd amendment activity). Voting, requires registration in your precinct before election day. For democrats, an event as random and spontaneous as an election can't be figured out. The ineptly stupid, shouldn't be voting in ANY election ANYWHERE.
