July 20-21, 2012
Jul 20 08:34 Mitt's resurgence is President Obama's nightmare Jul 20 04:44 Jeff Anderson continues mining offensive against Clark, Nolan Jul 20 06:07 No margin for compromise Jul 20 13:23 ABL lying to protect Do-Nothing DFL legislators Jul 21 04:37 Exposing Brian Ross's hatchet job Jul 21 07:30 Examiner update
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mitt's resurgence is President Obama's nightmare
Most people think that the turning point in Mitt's campaign happened when President Obama made one of the biggest blunders in presidential campaign history. While there's no question President Obama's "somebody else made that happen" statement changed things, a case can be made that Mitt's speech at the NAACP was the start of his turnaround. NRO's Kathryn Lopez makes that case in this column :
All of the seniors-will-lose-out scare tactics from the Left had been getting to him, the cabbie told me while we sat in D.C. traffic. And then Romney spoke to the NAACP. 'For the first time since coming here, I heard what I've been waiting to hear from a presidential candidate,' he said.
With that speech, Romney began to alleviate the health care security concerns of the taxi driver and his wife of 40 years. After Romney was booed (the most-reported fact about the event, of course) at the NAACP convention for saying the same thing that he says to more receptive audiences, that he will repeal Obamacare, he went off-script. He started talking a little about what he would do, and showed why we absolutely need him to do it.
'If our priority is jobs,' Romney said, emphasizing 'and that's my priority', 'that's something I'd change, and I'd replace it with something that provides people with something they need in health care, which is lower cost, good quality, capacity to deal with people who have pre-existing conditions...and I'll also work to reform and save Medicare and Social Security.'
Romney also issued a challenge to embrace school choice as a civil-rights issue. One of the more indefensible positions of the current president has been his stubborn refusal to be an advocate for some of the poorest children in Washington, D.C., plagued by dismal, dangerous schools. Romney quoted Frederick Douglass as he talked about the intolerable inequality that persists in educational opportunity: 'It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.' That's a statement for our times, a soul-reviving one for a country and culture.
The Bain Capital/outsourcing argument was President Obama's attempt to turn the campaign into a contest of small ball. Starting with Mitt's speech at the NAACP convention, then accelerating with his fiery stump speeches in Irwin, PA and Ohio, Mitt stopped the small ball campaign. He changed it to a fight over the heart and soul of America.
When you read President Obama's foolish comments in context from his speech in Roanoke, VA, it's apparent that President Obama thinks too highly of government's transformational abilities. Here's the 'famous part' of President Obama's speech:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back. They know they didn't, look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something, there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
First, President Obama apparently wants to sell the roads and bridges and great schools as great gifts from a benevolent government. They're nothing of the sort. They were paid for by people's taxes.
Second, improved roads weren't the rule until the combustible engine was built. In fact, Henry Ford invented the assembly line before improved roads became the norm. The Transcontinental Railroad wasn't built by the federal Transportation Department. It was built by private companies with a vision.
I haven't studied the history of it yet but I'm fairly certain that the Wright Brothers didn't get any government assistance to build their plane.
The truth is that most history-changing things didn't happen as a result of government. Some did. Most didn't.
Since Mitt's speech to the NAACP, Mitt's hit his stride. That's a major problem for Mssrs. Axelrod and Plouffe because their candidate loses when this becomes a fight between rival philosophies. Their candidate loses because he's got a terrible record to run on. Economic growth is anemic. Job creation is slow and receding. The ACA is something President Obama is running from instead of running on.
The worst news for the Obama campaign comes in Scott Rasmussen's commentary :
For weeks, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has shown the president's support stuck between 44 percent and 46 percent every day. Romney's numbers are in a similar rut, 44 percent to 47 percent.
One reason for the lack of impact is that the Bain attacks have not reached a point where they raise doubts about Romney's character. Sixty-seven percent of voters believe the former governor of Massachusetts is at least as ethical as most politicians. Comparing Romney to other politicians may not be setting the bar very high, but that's his peer group these days. Using the same standard, the president doesn't measure up quite as well: Just 60 percent believe he is at least as ethical as most politicians.
Perhaps even more important, though, is that voters are trying to look forward rather than back. Regardless of what Romney did in his private sector past, voters have come to see a clear distinction between the candidates on the trade-offs between economic growth and economic fairness. It's not a distinction about a laundry list of issues or a particular legislative strategy; it's a distinction about the role the government should play in the economy.
That last paragraph should frighten Mssrs. Axelrod, Obama and Plouffe. Yes, Mitt's taken a hit but it isn't like he's been seriously damaged. The hit he took, I think, woke him up and caused Mitt to abandon his cautious campaign style. He's now unabashedly talking in ideological terms, which is exciting his base. Michelle Malkin's never been Mitt's biggest fan but she's singing his praises .
The thing is that President Obama is out of proverbial bullets. His vision for America is what he's already done. That isn't visionary. It's a failure.
That's why Mitt's resurgence is President Obama's worst nightmare.
Tags: President Obama , Unemployment , ACA , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Michelle Malkin , Free Markets , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 8:34 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 20-Jul-12 09:07 AM
Gary
Here is a web article on the Wright Brothers.... http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Wright_Story_Intro/Wright_Story_Intro.htm
I don't think they got very much if any government assistance at any level - rumor has it that their sister Kate provided funds to get the plane(s) built.
Comment 2 by eric z at 21-Jul-12 08:47 AM
I agree with you Gary, Gingrich would have been a far more representative candidate, for GOP values.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 21-Jul-12 09:50 AM
You missed it, Eric. Yes, I would've prefered Newt over Mitt. Still, Mitt's gonna beat President Obama like a drum.
President Obama's statement is one of the dumbest in presidential history in my lifetime.
Jeff Anderson continues mining offensive against Clark, Nolan
Jeff Anderson started picking a fight on mining with his Eighth District DFL opponents. Now he's ripping Rick Nolan for not being serious about mining :
In a hastily called news conference to counter Nolan's, Anderson said he would support the Republican-sponsored House legislation and that he supports incumbent Republican Rep. Chip Cravaack's amendment that would extend the new rules to projects already in the works, such as the proposed PolyMet copper mine near Hoyt Lakes.
Anderson blasted the Nolan plan as wasteful federal spending that would create no immediate mining jobs, and he challenged Nolan to support immediate regulation reduction, such as changing the state's longstanding sulfate standard for wild rice lakes and rivers. That standard currently is being upheld by the Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act. Sulfate often is a byproduct of mining. Anderson said the standard threatens several taconite and copper mining projects if not changed.
'While I support the idea of doing more research into evolving mining technologies, the people seeking jobs in this district cannot feed their families with studies,' Anderson said. 'They need jobs. They need good, livable-wages jobs.'
Nolan's plan isn't a serious proposal. It's a PR stunt and a pork project straight from Jim Oberstar's playbook. Anderson is right. Nolan's worship of mother earth prevents him from making a serious proposal on mining.
As for Tarryl, her response wasn't a response:
In a statement, Tarryl Clark, the third candidate in the DFL race, said she has been consistent in her support for reduced mining industry regulations. Clark noted she is supported by the United Steelworkers of America on the Range.
'With the right advocate in Congress, we can build on our past successes and lead the world in 21st-century mining that creates good-paying jobs while remaining responsible stewards of our environment,' Clark said. 'I have always supported an efficient and effective permitting process which guarantees protections for our workers, our water and our air. In Congress, I will continue to work on improving this process.'
In other words, Tarryl wouldn't say whether she's support Chip's amendment to minimize wait time for mining investors. Considering her position with the BlueGreen Coalition , it isn't likely she's a friend of the mining industry.
Rick Nolan and Tarryl Clark aren't friends of the mining industry. They're political opportunists trying their best to hide their hostility towards the mining industry with pork projects and spin about the mining industry.
A spokesman for Cravaack's campaign, Ben Golnik, said 'Chip Cravaack will continue to be laser-focused on working to improve the economy and bring more jobs back to the 8th Congressional District. In his short time in Congress, Chip has worked to reduce excessive and duplicative red tape blocking economic development and job growth.'
Chip's taken a proactive approach to getting the mining industry up and running. He's pushed for streamlined permitting, which has occasionally taken over 10 years to get approved. Chip's worked hard to get PolyMet's EIS approved by the EPA.
Chip Cravaack is the miners' best friend. That isn't just my opinion. It's the story told by Chip's actions.
Tags: Mining , Jeff Anderson , Rick Nolan , Tarryl Clark , Pork , Mother Earth , EPA , Jim Oberstar , DFL , Chip Cravaack , Permitting , Reform , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 4:44 AM
No comments.
No margin for compromise
Eleven days ago, DFL-endorsed candidate Jim Graves stopped at the Oxpitality Tuesday gathering at the Red Carpet. When Mr. Graves stopped past my table, we talked about his thoughts on energy independence and health care. In my opinion, those are the two biggest things preventing the economy from taking off.
My article in the Examiner about the conversation must've gotten under Mr. Graves' skin because he sent me an email last weekend. Here's something that he said that caught my attention:
Another point you seem to have brought up is how someone could be for a free market and not be totally opposed to the ACA. You imply that the ACA is completely incompatible with the free market. I know the ACA is long and complex, but one really needs to take a close and objective look at it and, of course, it is not perfect nor the final solution by any means. However, one must acknowledge that insurance companies are still independent entities. The various layers of health care providers are still independent entities.
First, it should be noted that he told me that "Whether people like it or not, government is already part of the health care system." Government interference in the form of telling health insurance companies, or any companies for that matter, what products they must sell to stay licensed can't be reconciled with free market principles.
Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, it doesn't fit the principles of a free market.
Here's the statement Mr. Graves' campaign released on the ACA:
St. Cloud, MN - 'Rather than continue politicizing the extremely serious health care issue, Jim Graves believes it is time to come together in a bi-partisan manner to address bending the health care cost curve' said campaign spokesperson Donald McFarland. 'Jim believes in working towards real solutions by pursuing an outcome based reimbursement model that incorporates prevention, transparency and free market principals. All Americans want the same things for themselves and their families. We all want sick children to get the care they need and our seniors to be protected. Working together across party lines, we can bring down the cost of health care so that it is both affordable and accessible.'
That's some of the finest Klobucharspeak this side of Sen. Klobuchar I've seen in months. Since he doesn't have an issues page outlining his policy perscriptions for our nation's most difficult challenges, I don't know what that statement means.
I know some of the things it might mean. It might mean he's willing to scrap the ACA, though I doubt that. It might mean he thinks expanding Medicaid to cover children is a positive thing. It might mean he's prepared to renounce the ACA and the process that led to it. That isn't likely because that'd mean standing up to Nancy Pelosi and getting kneecapped by a ruthless autocrat.
The ACA is the worst piece of legislation of our generation by a country mile. It was crafted in Nancy Pelosi's office and Harry Reid's office. The amount of consultation with people from the Cleveland Clinic and other innovation leaders within the industry was miniscule.
The fact that Mr. Graves won't put his policy perscriptions on his website is akin to him telling us to just trust him, that we don't need to know the specific things he'd champion.
Graves' interview with MPP's Bill Prendergast doesn't paint a picture of moderation :
GRAVES: So I'm not going to sit back when she says that there isn't such a thing as global warming. I'm going to say "Uh, Ms. Bachmann have you had an opportunity to fly over the North Pole? I haven't but I've seen pictures, and global warming is factual." Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the scientists agree to that, and I guess I go with the science.
Perhaps Mr. Graves should read this article and the list of scientists that once believed in AGW who've switched. This isn't exactly a fresh off the printer study, either. It was published in 2007.
Since then, scandals have riddled the scientific community. The IPCC report has been challenged as being more of a political document than scientific document. At this point global warming is a theory, not fact. The fact that Mr. Graves thinks this is settled science speaks volumes about the intellectual rigor that he's used in reaching his opinion.
I won't vote for a person who doesn't have the confidence in his policies to publish them on his website because it tells me he's hiding something. Fair or unfair, that's life.
Tags: Affordable Care Act , Climate Change , Free Markets , Nancy Pelosi , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 6:07 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Jul-12 07:19 AM
I've always said that great intelligence is not a requirement for holding high office. But some of this stuff ought to be obvious to anybody. Yes, the government is "part of the health care system" (about half, BEFORE ACA) and that's the PROBLEM. Get rid of the Medicare/Medicaid model, let the free market work, and costs can be cut in HALF. How else to explain that M/M costs go up faster than private insurance does? Considering private insurance has to pay what M/M doesn't, that's quite an indictment.
And anybody that doesn't make the distinction between global warming and MANMADE global warming is either craftily trying to deceive you, or is too stupid to know the immensely important difference.
Comment 2 by Iberg at 20-Jul-12 09:23 AM
ACA originated from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Graves reference to children addresses the fact that ACA now disallows insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. It is clear you know nothing about ACA. While ACA doesn't do anything to change market driven health care, it does put in place provisions that curb abuse by insurance companies which was part of the problem and turning Medicare over to them, especially covering seniors who use healthcare more than others, would be a disaster. People like Medicare so just accept that and move on.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jul-12 09:50 AM
IB, the provision for covering people with PEC's would've been in the GOP version of health care reform. That's been forgotten by the Democrats but it's still reality. Second, saying that the ACA "doesn't do anything to change market driven health care" ignores the fact that it tells people they can't buy the health insurance policy they want without paying the individual mandate tax if it doesn't have the coverages that government insists on in qualified health insurance plans.
Anytime the government tells us we must do this or can't do that, it's hindering the free market. That isn't automatically good or bad. It's just the way it is.
The ACA doesn't keep costs down. It doesn't make health care more abundant, either. It just imposes a ton of taxes on the middle class.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 20-Jul-12 10:07 AM
Iberb - So you blame the Heritage Foundation for the passage of a bastardized version (Obamacare) of what they originally came up with? I would venture to guess their plan was a lot different than what was rammed down our throats. I supposed you loved it when ol' Nancy said you have to pass it to know what's in it too? People with pre-existing conditions do not get denied, they just have to pay higher premiums than healthy people because they are more of a risk to insure. Same thing happens in auto, home, etc. insurance except no one if forcing you to buy a product.
Graves is just another DFL hack with a lot of money who thinks he knows best what is good for us. Global warming is just a made up hoax by a failed presidential candidate so as to transfer wealth from one person/company/country to those who will bend over and comply with stupidity. Just his comment about not having been the north pole yet believing in the hoax is enough for me to know he's nothing but a but a hack. The earth has changed temps for millions of years, and for most of that time neither humans or evil SUV's were on the planet.
Comment 4 by Iberg at 20-Jul-12 10:29 AM
Chad, Prior to 2010 passage of ACA, insurance companies sure as hell could deny insurance coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and they still can deny coverage to adults until 2014 when that provison kicks in. I am so tired of people who don't know what is in ACA and angrily spouts diatribes against it. There are many, many great provisions in it. While MN has quality healthcare, that isn't the case across the country and when it consumes 16% of GDP, it damn well makes sense to address it. Insurance companies are pleased with ACA as are hospitals and other providers. Electronic medical records, coordinated care, streamlined claims process, incentivizing quality over quantity. We will begin to see real savings as the CBO determined. Stop making the claim it will increase healthcare costs. You sound like an angry ill-informed idealogue. You are what is wrong with the political discourse in this country.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jul-12 11:10 AM
While MN has quality healthcare, that isn't the case across the country and when it consumes 16% of GDP, it damn well makes sense to address it.The ACA has increased health care costs, not shrunk them. The ACA put government at the center of our health care decisions. More doctors & clinics are going away from insurance-centered operations to being cash-only operations.
There's something disgusting happening when a married middle class couple buys their own health insurance, then gets called freeloaders because they bought a high deductible policy rather than a policy with a gazillion different coverages that the government mandates for a policy to be a "qualified policy."
There are at least half a dozen major flaws in the ACA. That's without counting the glut of taxes it imposes on the middle class & working poor. While there are a few sensible provisions in it, it's mostly a collection of things that shouldn't have ever been considered in any legislation.
Comment 5 by Iberg at 20-Jul-12 10:30 AM
Chad, also, when you said, "you venture to guess..." Don't guess, get the facts before you weigh in on anything, and that includes your nonsense on global warming. Get the facts.
Comment 6 by Iberg at 20-Jul-12 01:32 PM
There are no taxes on the middle class and poor. Those taxed will be the freeloaders. High deductible plans end up costing more because people DO NOT go to the doctor when they are sick because they can't afford to pay out the deductible. The illness gets worse for lack of treatment and then the cost of care increases. Studies show this is fact. Preventative care saves money. Studies prove this as well. Getting care when necessary and preventing disease, i.e. getting mammograms to avoid breast cancer, colonoscopies to prevent colon cancer, is important to attack health care costs. The only involvement of government in your health care is making sure insurance companies will pay for these preventative tests. I yearn someday for you reactionaries to take a deep breath and think LOGICALLY. Things make sense when you are informed and reasoned. Cleary you commentators on this blog are not there (yet)
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jul-12 11:21 PM
IB, there's a tax on people using tanning salons which is paid by everyone, including the middle class. There's a $210.2 billion tax increase through the Medicare payroll tax, which is paid by everyone, including the middle class. There's $110+ billion in tax increases on health insurance policies. That's before talking about the $111 billion tax increase on Cadillac health insurance policies. Lots of unions got them negotiated into their contracts, which, last I checked, included lots of middle class people.
Go away until you learn the subject instead of listening to the DFL's propaganda.
Comment 7 by J. Ewing at 20-Jul-12 05:54 PM
Somebody explain to me how the ACA is going to (allegedly but not in actual fact) cover 40 million more people without adding a single doctor? And how is it going to lower costs when 83% of doctors will consider ending their practice if ACA is fully implemented? Oh, yeah, that will work.
Socialists always believe that the only reason their grand schemes fail every time they're tried is because THEY personally (smartest guys ever) haven't been in charge of it. They were wrong before and they're wrong now. Just get the government OUT of the health care business altogether and costs will drop by HALF. Fact.
Comment 8 by IndyJones at 22-Jul-12 04:07 PM
Iberg...What the hell is wrong with you. ONLY the freeloaders will be taxed? The EBT,Tanf, sec8,welfare recipients are world class freeloaders and they will pay no more for healthcare than for their "free" food. It aint free, the taxpayer is getting gouged for this once again. I am always amazed at the absolute stupidity of the progressive class.
ABL lying to protect Do-Nothing DFL legislators
One of the tactics the Alliance for a Better Legislature uses is outright fabrication. That's the tactic of choice in this LTE :
At this time last year, our state was in the midst of a historic government shutdown. It never should have happened, and it should never happen again. But if Rep. Rich Murray and his Republican colleagues get their way, it will probably happen again.
Last year, Rep. Murray rejected not one, not two, not three, but seven balanced budget proposals in order to defend tax breaks for big corporations and the super rich. He chose extremism and a state shutdown instead of getting the job done for Albert Lea families.
Here's the truth that ABL won't tell you about. Gov. Dayton shut state government down when he refused to call a special session and pass a lights-on bill. It's all there to read in these negotiation communications .
According to these communications, the GOP proposed a 70:30 school shift. By comparison, Gov. Dayton proposed a 50:50 shift which would've shorted school substantially more than the GOP shift.
ABL doesn't say that the Dayton/Bakk/Thissen budget includes a whopping $1,400,000,000 tax increase that would've driven businesses from the state while hitting middle class families hard through lower wages and benefits.
The DFL/Dayton/Bakk/Thissen budget was the extremist budget. That is to the extent that it could be called a budget. The reality is that Gov. Dayton proposed a budget. DFL legislators never did. Then again, the DFL didn't put a set of redistricting maps either. That little fiasco cost Minnesota taxpayers $190,000 :
@SenateDFL redistricting staffer= $66000; DFL Workstation= $3500, DFL Plotter= $11000, DFL Printer= $3500, DFL Software= $10000 #nomaps
Ryan Furlong is ABM's press secretary/propagandist. He's the guy signing his name to these disgustingly dishonest LTE's. Here's more from his mass-produced LTE:
Middle-class Minnesotans are paying higher taxes and Albert Lea schools have less funding and fewer teachers because Rep. Murray chose to prioritize special and corporate interests at the expense of the middle class.
Thanks to the GOP saying no to Gov. Dayton's school shift, Albert Lea schools didn't get hurt like they would've had they compromised with Gov. Dayton. Thanks to the GOP saying no to tax increases, Minnesotans went from a $6,200,000,000 deficit to a $1,300,000,000 surplus in less than a year without a tax increase.
ABL isn't mentioning the tons of reforms that the GOP passed the last 2 years. That's because ABL doesn't want Minnesotans to know that the GOP did some great work in making Minnesota more hospitable to businesses despite the DFL's best efforts to make Minnesota's business climate less hospitable.
ABL is disgustingly dishonest. They omit things that the GOP did that've improved Minnesotans' lives. They omit the things that the DFL did that would've made Minnesota less hospitable to businesses.
These days, the Democrats are whining about context. Here in Minnesota, the GOP has a right to complain about ABL's content, or lack thereof.
Tags: ABL , Mark Dayton , Paul Thissen , Tom Bakk , School Shift , Tax Increase , ABM , Ryan Furlong , DFL , Reforms , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, July 20, 2012 1:23 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 21-Jul-12 07:32 PM
Gary, where is the GOP leadership to refute these false accusations and outright lies? Where are they in the fight to protect the wording on the amendments? Nowhere, that's where they are and the DFL keeps getting away with telling lie after lie because the GOP leadership refuses to stand up to these thug tactics. What are they afraid of to stand up and fight for what is right? Senjem and Zellers are nowhere to be found on any issue and they need to go. Hopefully the GOP will replace them before the people vote the DFL back into power.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Jul-12 10:08 PM
First, they're suing Ritchie on the amendment wording. Saying that they're nowhere is a stretch.
Second, Senjem's time in a leadership position is all but officially history.
Third, rather than berating them in public, perhaps the better tactic is to quietly praise them when they do the right thing, coupled with a statement like "You keep doing the right thing & I'll have your back" might produce the right outcome.
Exposing Brian Ross's hatchet job
Friday morning, most of America woke to the terrible tragedy in Aurora, CO. At the same time, ABC News put an innocent man's life at risk because their anti-conservative bias prevented them from vetting the information they put on the air:
Stephanolpoulos: I'm going to go to Brian Ross. You've been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.
Ross: There's a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.
Stephanolpoulos: Okay, we'll keep looking at that. Brian Ross, thanks very much.
The networks' anti-TEA Party bias prevented them from exercising the proper restraint. If there's violence, the media apparently thinks that the TEA Party must be involved.
Brian Ross should be terminated for that shoddy bit of journalism. Without the slightest bit of verification, Ross put gossip on national TV. The caveat that "we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes" was meaningless. If it hasn't been verified, verify the information before starting the gossip factory.
As a direct result of Mr. Ross's reporting, the TEA Party Jim Holmes started getting death threats. His life is destroyed for the near future. The 52-year-old Jim Holmes is entitled to ask what Ray Donovan said thirty years ago.
Donovan was Reagan's first Labor Secretary :
In a highly publicized 1987 case, Donovan and six other defendants were indicted by a Bronx County, New York grand jury for larceny and fraud in connection with a project to construct a new line for the New York City Subway, through a scheme involving a Genovese crime family associate and a minority-owned subcontractor.
After Donovan's acquittal, he famously said "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"
I'd suggest that the TEA Party Jim Holmes should see Mr. Ross about getting his reputation back. Ross, on the other hand, shouldn't get his reputation back. His sloppy work changed a man's life for the worse.
Just like with the Gabby Giffords shooting, the networks assumed that gun violence must've been tied to the TEA Party and to conservatism. Here's what Jacob Weisberg wrote about Jared Loughner's shooting spree :
Extremist shouters didn't program Loughner, in some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.
This was written with total certainty. That didn't make Weisberg's words anything other than gossip based on Democrats' beliefs. It wasn't based on verified facts.
This brings us to a perplexing place. It's a place where it's appropriate for the TEA Party to ask where they go to get their reputation back. It's also a place where it's appropriate to ask Brian Ross and Jacob Weisberg "Have you no shame, Sir?"
The Left is famous for its overheated rhetoric . When they're proven wrong, they just move on. It's clear that they don't have a conscience.
Brian Ross should be fired from his job and never hired again. People that put others' lives at risk by spreading gossip aren't journalists. People can bemoan the 24-hour media for causing mistakes like this. That's insulting. It doesn't have anything to do with the 24-hour media. It's got everything to do with sloppiness and lack of journalistic integrity.
Tags: Gossip , Brian Ross , George Stephanopoulos , Mass Murder , Jacob Weisberg , Gabby Giffords , Democrats , TEA Party , Ray Donovan , Conservatives
Posted Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:37 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Jul-12 08:45 AM
Any comments from NRA leadership?
Overheated rhetoric? As in Michele Bachmann seeing a Muslim Brother or two hiding in her fear closet?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 21-Jul-12 02:53 PM
Eric:
Are you having the nerve to try to blame the NRA or Michelle Bachmann for the shooting in Colorado. You're worse than Brian Ross.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 21-Jul-12 02:55 PM
Gary:
I was thinking a better example to use would've been the Olympics in 1996 when the media named and convicted him for the Olympic bombing. He won lots of money!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jul-12 05:46 PM
I didn't pay attention to those Olympics.
Comment 4 by IndyJones at 22-Jul-12 06:06 PM
Gun free zones are nothing more than free fire zones for psycopaths. And what is it about the university system that it can never recognize unstable individuals and report them to law enforcement? This is like the Virginia Tech shooting. And why was the Giffords shooter able to require firearms. He showed an unstable personality in school as well. Are people incapable of making judgements anymore?
Examiner update
Yesterday, I posted an article on Examiner.com titled Campaign Mitt unveils These Hands ad .
Early this morning, I posted Jim Graves on student loans .
You can subscribe to my Examiner articles by scrolling to the bottom of the page & clicking the Subscribe button. Once you see the message that you're subscribed, you'll automatically get an email alert whenever I publish an article for Examiner.
Posted Saturday, July 21, 2012 7:30 AM
No comments.
