July 21-24, 2017
Jul 21 00:05 How dishonest is Gov. Dayton? Jul 21 03:35 Eliminate these politicians' cover Jul 21 10:58 AFL-CIO's lawlessness Jul 21 21:59 Is Tim Walz's seat at risk? Jul 21 22:52 Betsy Hodges' public humiliation Jul 23 00:37 Is Arradondo the right choice? Jul 23 09:33 MSM's artificial constitutional crisis Jul 24 02:53 The 2018 midterm elections Jul 24 08:48 Same old Democratic con job
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
How dishonest is Gov. Dayton?
After reading a frightening quote from this article , it's fair to question whether Gov. Dayton is partially dishonest or mostly dishonest.
The article quotes Gov. Dayton as saying "It is unfortunate that Republican legislative leaders are using this ruling to avoid completing their work." Apparently, Gov. Dayton's staff hasn't made sure that he's taking his medication. Apparently, Gov. Dayton hasn't noticed that he signed all of the budget bills. Apparently, Gov. Dayton is pretending that his veto eliminating the Legislative Branch is constitutional even though a judge has said it isn't.
In his ruling, Judge Guthmann said "The court concludes that the Governor's vetoes violated the Separation of Powers clause of the Minnesota Constitution because they both nullified a branch of government and refashioned the line-item veto as a tool to secure the repeal or modification of policy legislation unrelated to the vetoed appropriation."
Judge Guthmann continued, saying "Absent emergency court funding, the effective abolition will exist as long as the Governor decides to veto legislative funding bills submitted to him, which the Governor's counsel conceded could occur through the remainder of the Governor's term. The Governor argues that the vetoes abolished or defunded the legislature. However emergency funding is at most a temporary measure to preserve the constitutional rights of the people while the Executive and Legislative Branches resolve their differences. Emergency funding is not a remedy for arguably unconstitutional actions by one branch of government against another."
Gov. Dayton, is your appeal based on the belief that you stacked the Minnesota Supreme Court with DFL ideologues who will rule with you no matter what? (Actually, I'm fairly confident the Minnesota Supreme Court will get this right because I can't imagine how they'd argue that the Legislative Branch isn't an essential part of the government.) If Gov. Dayton's justices rule that the legislature isn't essential, they'll be instant laughingstocks.
Gov. Dayton and Rebecca Otto are both appealing their lawsuits to the Supreme Court. Gov. Dayton is virtually assured of losing while Otto is likely to lose. Side note: Whatever the rulings in the Dayton and Otto lawsuits are, they're frivolous and extreme wastes of taxpayers' money. It's more proof that the DFL doesn't care about other people's money.
Posted Friday, July 21, 2017 12:05 AM
No comments.
Eliminate these politicians' cover
According to Potomac Watch columnist Kimberly Strassel's column , it's time to strip a handful of GOP senators of their cover for repealing the ACA.
Strassel's column starts by saying "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at this point has busted pretty much every move in his effort to rally 50 votes for an Obama Care replacement. He's listened. He's negotiated. He's encouraged. He's cajoled. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Months later, still lacking a majority, the time has come for the Kentucky Republican to execute the final, clarifying move. It's time for Mr. McConnell to make this all about his self-interested members. Up to now, this exercise has been about trying to improve health care and the federal fisc. The House bill isn't perfect - no bill ever is - but it amounts to the biggest entitlement reform in history. It repeals crushing taxes. It dramatically cuts spending. And it begins the process of stabilizing the individual health-care market and expanding consumer freedom."
In other words, it's put-up-or-shut-up time for "Ohio's Rob Portman, Nevada's Dean Heller and West Virginia's Shelley Moore Capito", Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, Utah's Mike Lee, Kentucky's Rand Paul, "South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and Louisiana's Bill Cassidy."
Ms. Strassel is right in saying "any Republican who votes against moving forward, 'motion to proceed, 'will forever be known as the Republican who saved ObamaCare. The Republican who voted to throw billions more taxpayer dollars at failing entitlement programs and collapsing insurance markets. The Republican who abandoned struggling American families. The Republican who voted against a tax cut and spending reductions. The Republican who made Chuck Schumer's year."
It's time to play hardball. It's time to tell these senators that they have to either stand for conservative principles or get primaried. It's time they were told that it isn't enough to talk a good game. It's time that they walked the walk, not just talked the talk.
Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor to lay out his course of action:
The time for playing pretend is over. The time for making life better for Americans is now. The time for demanding the perfect is over. The time for rejecting major improvements is proof of foolishness.
Posted Friday, July 21, 2017 3:35 AM
No comments.
AFL-CIO's lawlessness
According to this article , Minnesota's AFL-CIO is putting partisanship ahead of the Constitution. The proof comes when they wrote "Working Minnesotans applaud Governor Dayton's move to appeal today's court decision. The Republican budget is a bonanza of tax giveaways to corporate CEOs coupled with toxic policies that weaken teacher standards and demonize immigrants."
Apparently, the Minnesota AFL-CIO hasn't figured it out that Gov. Dayton signed those bills into law without a gun pointed at his head. Gov. Dayton wasn't coerced into signing the budget bills. He didn't like signing the bill that changed teacher licensure. Gov. Dayton certainly tried forcing Republicans into passing a Real ID law that could be given to illegal aliens. Unlike a handful of DC Republicans, Minnesota Republicans stood up to Gov. Dayton. They told him what they weren't willing to include in bills, then kept their promise.
The Minnesota AFL-CIO is acting like an obedient subsidiary of the DFL. They're acting like the DFL's obedient prison bitch. By saying "Republicans can avoid further wasting taxpayer dollars by returning to the table with Governor Dayton to negotiate a budget that is fair to working people and reflects Minnesota values", they're simply repeating Gov. Dayton's words.
Speaking of Gov. Dayton, he's still pretending that he's got some leverage :
It is unfortunate that Republican legislative leaders are using this ruling to avoid completing their work.
The legislature's work is finished, thanks in large part to Gov. Dayton negotiating this year's budget, then signing those budget bills. If Gov. Dayton wants some bills changed, he'll have to sweeten the pot. At this point, that isn't likely to happen.
Briana Bierschbach's article is instructive in what it gets wrong:
Another key question of the case was whether eliminating funding for the Legislature is the same thing as effectively abolishing it. That's what the Legislature argued, and in the ruling, Guthmann unequivocally agreed.
The argument isn't that Gov. Dayton's line-item veto effectively abolished the legislature. It's whether Gov. Dayton's line-item veto forces legislators to perform essential responsibilities without getting paid. Does Gov. Dayton have the constitutional right to tell legislators that they must continue performing constituent services without compensation? The DFL should think twice before answering that question. Should Republicans have the right to appropriate no money for Gov. Dayton's commissioners' salaries?
Legislators have an affirmative responsibility to perform constituent services. Gov. Dayton shouldn't have the authority to tell legislators they have to work for nothing.
Dayton wasn't actually opposed to the level of funding passed for the Legislature's operations, but Sam Hanson, Dayton's attorney, said that didn't matter. The state constitution gives the governor the power to line-item veto budget provisions for whatever reason he chooses, he argued, and the wisdom of those decisions cannot be questioned by the other branches of government.
That's what arrogance sounds like.
Posted Friday, July 21, 2017 10:58 AM
No comments.
Is Tim Walz's seat at risk?
If ever there was a sign that Tim Walz's seat was in play, this article provides proof that Rep. Walz's seat is in danger of flipping into Republicans' hands.
The paragraph that's killing the DFL says "That's still better than any of Hagedorn's potential DFL opponents. Former state lawmaker Vicki Jensen raised just $17,000. Four other Democrats have filed as candidates but none reported raising any money by Saturday's deadline."
When the DFL fundraising leader for the First District has raised $17,000, that's a terrible sign. What's worse is that Sen. Jensen lost that race by a 58.5%-41.5% margin. What's worst for the DFL is that the other 4 candidates haven't raised any money yet. That's the definition of a weak DFL field.
There's more than just that, though. According to the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office , Tim Walz, the incumbent in 2016, defeated Jim Hagedorn by a 50.3%-49.6% margin. Now Walz is running for governor, most likely because he thought he'd lose the rematch against Hagedorn.
If Vicki Jensen is the DFL-endorsed candidate to replace Walz, they'll be fighting an uphill fight. At this point, though, I don't think we know who the DFL-endorsed candidate will be because none of the candidates have raised much money. Hint: there are legislative candidates that've raised as much money as Jensen has.
Posted Friday, July 21, 2017 9:59 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Jul-17 12:04 PM
Is Tim Walz's run for governor going to go anywhere? That is a more interesting question. And have you any thoughts about the Republican side of the AG contest? That one interests me, and I'd hope you also.
Last time I looked, two candidates, one I know little about while the other had courage to file that lawsuit about the party NOT endorsing judicial candidate and resident state clown Tim Tinglestead [sp?].
Have you any greater insight than that, and do you have any crystal ball insight of whether another shoe will drop; or make that another hat will be in the ring?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Jul-17 02:01 PM
I think Walz will be the DFL candidate after winning a primary. As for the GOP AG, I'm impressed with Doug Wardlow. I've met him a couple times. He's a great legal mind. As for the GOP gubernatorial candidate, I think it'll be Speaker Daudt. He's a very sharp man.
Betsy Hodges' public humiliation
Betsy Hodges' public humiliation quite likely signals the end of Hodges' political career. While attempting to announce her pick to be Minneapolis's police chief, Mayor Hodges was drowned out by protesters attending the press conference.
One protester interrupted Hodges, saying "We ask you for your prompt resignation. We don't want you as our mayor of Minneapolis anymore. We are asking you that you take your staff with you. We don't want you to appoint anybody anymore. Your leadership has been very ineffective, and if you don't remove yourself, we're going to put somebody in place to remove you. Your police force has terrorized the city enough. Your press conference is ineffective because you won't let the people in. And you didn't want to hear us, so you hear me now. We do not want you as our mayor of Minneapolis, and we're asking you to resign."
The protesters were there because a Minneapolis police officer shot and killed an Australian woman named Justine Damond:
On Saturday, Justine Damond, a 40-year-old Australian woman living in Minneapolis called 911 to report a possible rape occurring outside of her building in an alley. When officers responded, their body cameras were turned off. When Damond approached the officers' squad car, one of the officers fired one shot at Damond, fatally wounding her.
This video shows how out-of-control things got:
What's more is that this isn't the first controversy Janee Harteau has been involved in as Minneapolis's police chief:
Levy-Pounds was among the prominent early supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement in Minneapolis and spoke out against Jamar Clark's death, pushing for charges against the officers involved. But Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman declined to charge the officers involved in Clark's death, saying the deadly force was justified. Police Chief Janee Harteau also found that the officers' actions were warranted .
The Jamar Clark shooting triggered a city-wide revolt in Minneapolis. It will be difficult to get things under control anytime soon.
Posted Friday, July 21, 2017 10:52 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 22-Jul-17 06:46 AM
Good, they are starting to eat their own now. Problem is they will elect someone just as bad or worse than bicycle Betsey.
While I think the police were justified in the Clark case, the recent shootings of two dogs and Ms. Damond really make a person question whether or not the police force is trained correctly and if political correctness/affirmative action hiring's are causing the problems. Based on the body cam video, the dogs were not a threat and it sounds like Noor never should have been on the force. Bad apples spoil the whole lot.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 22-Jul-17 09:05 PM
I agree with CQ (and LFR). But replacing Hodges with the next predictably clueless, spineless progressive won't fix anything.
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Jul-17 11:59 AM
Chad and Rex, do you live in Minneapolis so that you'd have a vote? I do not. I live CD6 where I am forced by majority vote to endure clowns like Bachmann and then Emmer, and Abigale Whelan as my HD35A rep. Yuk.
Which legislative districts are yours?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Jul-17 01:56 PM
I live in HD-14B.
Is Arradondo the right choice?
Yesterday, Janee Harteau resigned as Minneapolis's police chief. Embattled Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges has picked Medaria Arradondo to replace Harteau. The next question is whether Arradondo is the right pick to succeed Harteau. According to this MPR article , Chief Harteau was "the first woman, first Native American and first openly gay person to serve as chief in Minneapolis."
R.T. Rybak was the mayor that picked Harteau to be his police chief. Now that Hodges is picking Harteau's successor, it's fair to ask whether she's picking the right person for the job. This article suggests that she's picking the wrong person. It says "Linea Palmisano, a city councilwoman who represents the ward where the shooting happened, told The Associated Press on Saturday that she's known Arradondo for some time, relying on him to explain police initiatives and working with him during community meetings such as one introducing 'implicit bias training' for officers a few years ago."
The fact that the Minneapolis Police Department has "implicit bias training" tells me that politicians are interfering too much. The National Initiative for Building Community Trust & Justice explains that implicit bias "can distort one's perception and subsequent treatment either in favor of or against a given person or group. In policing, this has resulted in widespread practices that focus undeserved suspicion on some groups and presume other groups innocent."
It's important that Minneapolis gets this decision right. They've had problems for quite some time. Focusing on politically correct training isn't wise. Apparently, that's what Minneapolis has focus on. If you want the right results, you have to have the right training.
The point is that picking the right PC isn't as important as putting the officers through the right training. At this point, the training emphasis needs to improve.
Posted Sunday, July 23, 2017 12:37 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 23-Jul-17 06:26 AM
Political correctness has been and will continue to be the downfall of every business whether it is government or private. Hire the best person for the job, period.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 23-Jul-17 08:40 AM
"undeserved" suspicion? When crime rates in some communities are 6-20 times what they are in others? If somebody describes a downtown Minneapolis suspect as a "young black male" should we go looking out near Edina?
And to say we hired the ?the first woman, first Native American and first openly gay person.." is to say we paid absolutely no attention to qualifications, and guess what we got.
Time to understand that police don't cause crime; criminals do.
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Jul-17 11:54 AM
The guy who shot the Australian white woman had insufficient training when he was put out into community policing. Both cops should be fired for failing to use body cams. WTF were body cams purchased for, using real money after all, besides usage to document police interactions with citizens?
So, who's going to be mayor next term? More Hodges? Have you any guess, Gary, Chad or Jerry?
And crystal balling w/o naming a name of who should be hired is a bit of a sham. Say you had a council majority in the bag, who would you put it behind?
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 23-Jul-17 01:49 PM
The next mayor of Minneapolis will be even more left than Bicycle Betsy is because the special interests will demand it. Until you get rid of one party rule in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, things will continue to go further down the drain.
MSM's artificial constitutional crisis
It's increasingly clear that the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, is intent on creating an artificial constitutional crisis. I offer Doyle McManus' column as proof of this affliction.
In writing, you're told to not bury the lede. Mr. McManus certainly didn't do that. The opening paragraph of Mr. McManus' column says "President Trump has openly declared war on Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the Russian saga. The president clearly wishes he could fire Mueller; his associates say he's mused about that for weeks. Now, by stepping up the pressure, he's moving toward a showdown, and a possible constitutional crisis."
First, the president can fire Mueller without triggering a constitutional crisis. It wouldn't be the smartest move politically but it wouldn't trigger a constitutional crisis. The next paragraph is just as hyperbolic, saying "There's plenty of other craziness billowing from the White House: lawyers considering whether the president can pardon himself, the president publicly denouncing his attorney general for failing to protect him. But the clearest portent of a crisis is the president's increasingly evident desire to be rid of the meddlesome prosecutor, who appears to be doing his job too well."
If conflation were an Olympic event, Mr. McManus would be the gold medalist. Yes, it wasn't bright for President Trump to publicly criticize Jeff Sessions. Still, jumping from that to saying "the meddlesome prosecutor" "appears to be doing his job too well" is a mighty leap.
At this point, Mueller looks more like the establishment's hit man than an honest man seeking the truth. Roger Simon's article highlights Mueller's potential pitfalls, saying "significant portion of the American public, myself admittedly among them, will be convinced he has been railroaded in a partisan hatchet job. The voters who elected the president are going to feel, at the very least, undermined, more likely betrayed, & by their own government and public officials. Many are going to feel this has nothing to do whatsoever with justice and will act accordingly."
After months of searching for a crime, Mueller still hasn't found one. Adam Schiff, who specializes in running for Dianne Feinstein's U.S. Senate seat, still hasn't found a crime. He's great at making accusations but he's terrible at offering proof for his accusations.
The MSM is disgracing itself. This is a perfect example:
If Trump had business relationships with Russians who could be acting on behalf of Vladimir Putin, that would seem quite relevant.
Then there's this stupidity:
The nightmare haunting Trump, of course, is the history of past counsels - especially Kenneth Starr, who took an inquest into Bill Clinton's family finances and turned it into an investigation of sex and perjury.
The key difference between the Starr investigation and the Mueller fishing expedition is that Starr's investigation expanded because judges expanded the investigation. Another important difference is that the statute that Ken Starr operated under expired.
Perhaps, at one time, Mueller was a man of integrity. Expanding his fishing expedition this far afield, though, appears intent on creating a legacy rather than seeking justice. Similarly, at one time, the MSM attempted to look semi-impartial. Those days seem like ancient history.
Posted Sunday, July 23, 2017 9:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Jul-17 11:48 AM
He can fire Mueller, he can pardon himself, even if he had raped small children. Because he says so. In tweets.
You were right Gary, back in the Never Trump days. How time flies.
The 2018 midterm elections
Anyone that thinks Democrats will retake the U.S. House hasn't read this article . I'm not predicting another defeat for Ms. Pelosi just yet. I'm just not willing to predict it's a foregone conclusion.
Josh Kraushaar's article contains the ominous warning that "a new study of last year's election results underscores the idea that Democrats need to win back working-class Donald Trump voters before they chase moderate Republicans who defected to Hillary Clinton."
Apparently, Democrats know that they need to win back working-class Donald Trump voters. That's what's behind their latest con-job marketing scheme . The Democrats' latest rebranding scheme is doomed for failure if it relies on "Too many families in America today feel that the rules of the economy are rigged against them. Special interests have a strangle-hold on Washington - from the super-rich spending unlimited amounts of secret money to influence our elections, to the huge loopholes in our tax code that help corporations avoid paying taxes."
When coal miners hear the term special interests, they immediately think environmental activists. When construction unions hear special interests, they hear environmental activists. Democrats are the party of the special interests. Blue collar workers know that the Democratic Party isn't interested in fixing things. This is laughable:
By two to one (67% to 33%), for example, Americans believe it is a bigger problem that "huge corporations and billionaires are using their political power to reduce competition, keep wages low, and get special tax breaks" than that "government is imposing too many job-killing regulations on businesses and taxing people too much."
There's a quick reply to the Democrats' study alleging Republicans giving special treatment to "huge corporations and billionaires." I'd simply ask 'remember Solyndra?' They got more than $500,000,000 in guaranteed loans.
There's more :
"What's so troubling is that politics seems to be the dominant factor," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. "They're not talking about what the taxpayers are losing; they're not talking about the failure of the technology, whether we bet on the wrong horse. What they are talking about is 'How are we going to manage this politically?'"
Democrats will have a difficult time posturing themselves as the party fighting the special interests. When environmental activists tell Democrats to jump, Democrats frequently reply 'how high' or 'off what'?
Finally, there's this:
If the government goes back to putting working families first, ahead of special interests, we can achieve a better deal for the American people that will raise their pay, lower their expenses, and prepare them for the future.
I'd love hearing the Democrats explain how government can put people first. Government doesn't create wealth or prosperity. Government's responsibility is to maintain infrastructure, protect the public and get out of the way on the rest of things.
During President Obama's administration, government told schools which bathrooms kids could use. Government also denied male college students their due process rights or the right to confront their accusers. I'm confident that those students didn't think government put their interests first. Meanwhile, Republicans fought for and supported coal miners, construction workers and fought for increased pipeline infrastructure. Democrats fought against those things.
Posted Monday, July 24, 2017 2:53 AM
No comments.
Same old Democratic con job
Chuck Schumer's op-ed is the Democrats' old agenda dressed up in new clothes. It's just another instance of Democrats putting a ton of lipstick on an ugly pig.
Sen. Schumer says that "Democrats will show the country that we're the party on the side of working people - and that we stand for three simple things." Then Sen. Schumer proceeds to tell us that "First, we're going to increase people's pay. Second, we're going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we're going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy."
They're still the same socialists they've been since 2001. For instance, Democrats will stand for "increasing workers' incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave." How is that different than what they've pushed for years? According to this NPR article , which was published in November of 2015, "fast-food workers ... plan to protest at the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee. They want the federal minimum wage boosted to $15."
Then there's this:
Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work.
Cities that've implemented a $15/hr. minimum wage have gotten hurt. Further, Democrats haven't said that they'll push for increased pipeline construction. Noticeably missing from the Democrats' plan is a commitment for increased oil exploration and coal mining. President Obama once infamously said that "we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices."
It wasn't just President Obama saying we couldn't drill our way to cheaper gas prices. Sen. Schumer insisted that Democrats had a better solution:
In June and July, we will be introducing legislation that will promote conservation, that will promote alternative energy and that will do many things to reduce the price.
Meanwhile, Republicans pushed for increased fracking and energy independence. Today, we're on the verge of being energy independent. It's more than that, though. President Trump proposed increasing natural gas exports to Europe. If a pipeline is built, it'll deal a crushing blow to Putin.
Democrats aren't interested in that, though, because Tom Steyer and other Democratic special interests oppose energy independence. Hint to Democrats: you can't be pro blue collar jobs if you oppose mining and fracking.
Posted Monday, July 24, 2017 8:48 AM
No comments.
