July 6-10, 2018
Jul 06 02:09 Trumps totally trash Tester Jul 06 19:02 Protecting Maxine Waters Jul 07 08:45 Kleis wants to hear from you? Jul 08 10:51 Harry Reid's foolish decision Jul 09 08:09 Trump's SCOTUS frontrunners? Jul 09 10:02 Bill Nelson's electoral death spiral? Jul 09 16:42 All Stars vs. Hall of Famers Jul 10 14:39 The Democrats' top strategists? Jul 10 16:51 Idiots of a feather stick together
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Trumps totally trash Tester
I could be polite and say that President Trump criticized Jon Tester, (D-MT), but that wouldn't be forceful enough. When President Trump got to Four Seasons Arena in Great Falls, MT, it didn't take long for Trump to trash Tester. It took President Trump a few minutes to get started on that 'mission' but once President Trump started zeroing in on Sen. Tester's voting record, he totally obliterated Sen. Tester. President Trump totally demolished Tester's carefully crafted image of being a mountain state moderate. It was like watching the destruction of Tom Daschle all over again.
This article does a nice job of covering the rally. I love it that they reported that President Trump "criticized Tester for publicly airing unproven allegations that Navy admiral and doctor and presidential physician Ronny L. Jackson drank on the job, improperly prescribed and dispensed medications and created a 'toxic' work environment." Later, the Secret Service trashed Tester's allegations. Unfortunately, Tester's trash-talking had demolished a good man, which was the point of the attacks.
Elsewhere in the article, it correctly reported that President Trump "also criticized Tester for voting against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch's nomination for the Supreme Court." Gorsuch is now one of the rising stars of the high court. Check out this video, especially where Don, Jr. warms up the crowd:
[Video no longer available]
Especially fun was the part where Donald Jr. said this about Tester:
I can't think of a single measurement where we aren't better off today than we were 18 months ago. And yet, they run on this platform. Everything Trump does is terrible. If Donald Trump came out in favor of oxygen, the Democrats would come out against it. : When I look at Jon Tester in this race, he talks about all the things he's voted for Trump on. But wait a minute. Where was he on Justice Gorsuch? Where was he on sanctuary cities? Do you want Montana to be a sanctuary state? And most importantly, the biggie, where was he on tax reform? You know where he was? He was with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. He was nowhere to be found -- the big one, the one that puts money in your pockets, the one that allows you to take care of family, the one that allows you to put food on the table -- he wasn't there for that one and he said "expletive one of the worst bills ever put before the Senate." Think about that. The bill that is allowing all these companies to bring back all this money, that is allowing these companies to pay all these bonuses, that is employing tens of thousands of people, all-time low unemployment numbers, all those positive things because of this bill, he was against it.
The important principle to remember in all this is that every Senate Democrat up for re-election this fall has a virtually identical voting record. In fact, it isn't a stretch to say that DC Democrats have a virtually identical voting record.
Obviously, the House doesn't vote on judicial nominations but they voted on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act just like their Senate brethren. It's stunning that every Democrat voted against the tax cuts. They voted against the policy that's creating literally hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
That's who Jon Tester really is. That's who the Democrats really are. It's time to drain the swamp of America-hating Democrats. It's time to install God-fearing patriots who put America first in our federal government.
Posted Friday, July 6, 2018 2:09 AM
No comments.
Protecting Maxine Waters
In a script that can only be considered bizarre, 200 women wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer criticizing them for not protecting Maxine Waters "from 'unwarranted attacks from the Trump administration and others in the GOP.'"
The letter continued, saying "We write to share our profound indignation and deep disappointment over your recent failure to protect Congresswoman Waters from unwarranted attacks from the Trump Administration and others in the GOP,' the group of nearly 200 women wrote in a letter sent Tuesday. 'That failure was further compounded by your decision to unfairly deride her as being 'uncivil' and 'un-American.' In doing so, we believe this mischaracterizes her call to action for peaceful democratic assembly and the exercise of her constitutional rights to free speech in support of defenseless immigrant children and their families.'"
This isn't what Democrats need right now in their push to retake the majority in the House. The last thing they need is to be seen defending an outspoken critic of the Trump administration who has advocated for harassing members of President Trump's cabinet.
The letter then said this:
"Disparaging or failing to support Congresswoman Waters is an affront to her and Black women across the country and telegraphs a message that the Democratic Party can ill afford: that it does not respect Black women's leadership and political power and discounts the impact of Black women and millennial voters," the women wrote.
Frankly, the Democrats are better off without her. Further, "failing to support Congresswoman Waters" isn't an affront to black women across the nation. It's common sense. Why would anyone defend the indefensible?
[Video no longer available]
Posted Friday, July 6, 2018 7:02 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 06-Jul-18 08:17 PM
Maxine represents black leadership? God help those who look to her for leadership. Pelosi and Schumer are democrat hacks but they know crazy when they hear it and Maxine's cheese has long ago slid off her cracker and she is a liability now with her crazy rants.
Kleis wants to hear from you?
Mayor Kleis and the City Council are putting together the 2019 City budget so they want to hear from its citizens. Of course, that doesn't mean they want to hear from everyone. They definitely don't want to hear from the citizens who are collecting signatures to put a petition on the ballot.
A "group of St. Cloud residents is gathering signatures for a petition that would put a refugee resettlement resolution on the November ballot." According to Matt Staehling, the city administrator, the "initiative petition does not meet the legal criteria of an initiative pursuant to our city charter, state statute and long established case law in the state of Minnesota." That's too bad for Mr. Staehling because the Minnesota State Supreme Court disagrees with him .
A citizen watchdog group just handed the city of Bloomington an embarrassing loss at the Minnesota Supreme Court. The case started over the rights of residents of the Twin Cities suburb to choose their own garbage hauler. But more broadly the unanimous 6-0 ruling upholds the standing of citizens in home rule charter cities to bring petitions and place legislation on the ballot apart from and in opposition to the city council.
Staehling's argument is that resolutions aren't legislation, therefore, they can't be put on the ballot.
Greg Joseph, the citizens' attorney, said "What the ruling today says is that cities can adopt a home rule charter and that governs what happens in that city, period. And voters can go around the city, they're not subservient to it."
The taxpayers are getting hurt financially by the federal government not picking up the full tab for the Refugee Resettlement Program as required by the Refugee Act of 1980. The City Council acted irrationally last November by passing Jeff Goerger's 'Welcoming Community' resolution. A significant number of St. Cloud residents were prevented from speaking against Goerger's resolution that night. Why shouldn't they have the right to put their petition on the ballot? (Notice that the ruling didn't limit the petition to just legislation .)
Further, it's rather hypocritical for Mayor Kleis to sit silent on this. In my past conversations, Kleis identified himself as welcoming hearing from the citizens, whether it's in the form of ballot referenda or whether it's in the form of town hall meetings. Kleis loves townhall meetings so much, in fact, that he's got his own bus so he can get around and talk to people in their neighborhoods:
Mayor Kleis, since you love hearing from the people, it's time to exhibit some leadership and get the petition on the ballot if they collect the required number of signatures. The citizens are tired of being ignored by this City Council. They're tired, too, that jackasses like Dave Masters object to hearing from his constituents and that Carol Lewis makes rulings that violate prior Minnesota State Supreme Court rulings .
If people like Masters and Lewis think that they don't have to listen to their constituents and that they're above the Constitution, it's time to fire them so they don't have constituents.
Finally, it's important to show up Monday night and tell Mayor Kleis and the 5 ostriches how you want your money spent.
Posted Saturday, July 7, 2018 8:45 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 07-Jul-18 09:44 AM
That expensive vinyl wrap bus is paid for by his campaign fund, I hope. Ostentation should not be at the expense of the voters.
Comment 2 by Liz at 07-Jul-18 10:01 AM
Thank you Gary for getting this important information out. I read the quote "It effectively says that the citizens are on an equal playing [field] with the City Council in terms of their ability to initiate and move [local] legislation," as confirmation that this is the right course of action for St. Cloud's disenfranchised voters. Everyone should support the petition, even if you disagree, you should still sign the petition in support of EVERY citizen's right to be heard.
The petition will be available at Monday's City Council meeting for everyone to sign. To speak up about the budget, come to City Hall at 4:30 on Monday (before the City Council meeting) or call the Budget Suggestions Hotline at 320-650-3152 or email your comments to budget.ci.stcloud.mn.us
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Jul-18 10:14 AM
Great points, Liz. Whether Kleis truly wants to hear from us or not, what's indisputable is the fact that the City Council (with the exception of Jeff Johnson & possibly George Hontos) really don't like hearing from their constituents, aka the uppity peasants.
Comment 3 by Liz at 07-Jul-18 10:36 AM
"Uppity peasants" LOL, I love it. I am also wondering about Terry's comment too. Who did pay for the bus? I have seen several new vehicles that seem extraneous for a city of our size to own in recent years. The RV that was parked in front of the cameras at the mall after the "knife attack", and the SWAT type vehicle too. Seems strange as I remember hearing Kleis talk about reducing the budget... digging into this further might be an interesting project.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 07-Jul-18 05:42 PM
I would guess this will cost the City a pile of money to fight in court. Until the employees of cities are held personally liable for actions or inactions and not having access to the backing of the cities lawyers and insurance policy, city employees will continue to spit in the face of those who foot the bill.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Jul-18 09:04 PM
Actually, the best way to inflict pain upon politicians is to give them the gift of unemployment this November. At minimum, it's one of the best ways to inflict pain on politicians.
Comment 5 by Beth Schlangen at 08-Jul-18 05:46 PM
Would that make them Lofty Losers? Thanks Liz for Blog link.
Harry Reid's foolish decision
When then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to abolish the filibuster on judicial nominees and presidential appointments in 2013, people told him that his tactic would have adverse affects in years to come. Chief among those critics was Mitch McConnell, the current Senate Majority Leader.
Last year, Democrat special interest organizations ordered Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. When Democrats complied, Sen. McConnell predictably replied by dropping the nuclear option on the Democrats. This summer, when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, those same Democrat special interest organizations have ordered Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to keep all Democrats together in voting against President Trump's nominee to replace Justice Kennedy. (Apparently, the idiots who ordered the first mistake haven't learned that it's foolish to double down on that mistake.)
This article highlights just how foolish Democrats are. Because these special interest organizations insisted on resisting President Trump the last time, they don't have a chance this time. It must've killed Carl Hulse to write this:
The actions of a handful of Senate Democrats struggling to hold their seats in red states where Mr. Trump remains popular - notably Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia - will have broad implications for the party at a critical political juncture.
That's just the start of the list. After this week, you'd better add Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill and Bill Nelson to the list, too. If Tim Kaine votes against President Trump's latest nominee, it'll be difficult for him to defend himself because he will have voted against both of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees.
That's what happens when politicians listen to lunatics like this activist:
[Video no longer available]
Republicans should thank Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and President Trump for the difficult position Democrats are in right now.
Posted Sunday, July 8, 2018 10:51 AM
No comments.
Trump's SCOTUS frontrunners?
Most of the focus on who President Trump will pick to replace retiring SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy has been on Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barrett. That's understandable because Cavanaugh and Barrett spice up the conversation, Barrett for her religious beliefs, Cavanaugh because he's a Bush appointee. What if they weren't the frontrunners, though?
What if Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge were the actual frontrunners? According to this NYTimes article , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "told President Trump this past week that Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Thomas M. Hardiman presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to Republican officials briefed on the conversation."
With a 50-49 majority, Sen. McConnell can't afford a single defection. The thinking is that Any Coney-Barrett is a lightning rod candidate that might invite defections by Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. In this interview, Ben Shapiro praised Kethledge's opinions, stating that they're quite strong. At one point, he said they're more of a punch-you-in-the-mouth type of writing rather than a politically conciliatory writing.
[Video no longer available]
At this point, I'm betting on the pick being either Hardiman, who was runner-up to Gorsuch last time, or Kethledge because he writes such strong opinions. Within 16 hours, we'll know who President Trump picked. Until then, though, the speculation game will intensify.
Posted Monday, July 9, 2018 8:09 AM
No comments.
Bill Nelson's electoral death spiral?
When Chas Anderson tweeted this information this morning, my first thought was whether this included a big loan from his personal stash.
Check out what the article says. It says "Gov. Rick Scott's campaign says he raised $10.7 million during the second quarter of 2018, a 'record breaking' number that more than triples the best effort of any quarter by his opponent, Democrat Bill Nelson. The $10.7 million figure - 'a historic amount that surpasses any other national Senate campaign' - also does not reflect any of Scott's own personal money spent on the campaign. The final tally included more than 11,000 contributors, 80 percent of whom live in Florida ; 75 percent of all contributors gave less than $500." In other words, lots of Floridians like this guy and are contributing to his campaign. Each of those 11,000 in-state contributors are votes for Gov. Scott. That's an impressive political base. Further, that's a huge haul, one that Bill Nelson likely can't compete with.
This must intimidate Bill Nelson:
Scott, a two-term Governor, asserts in the release that the $10.7 million haul is "sending a message to Washington that the time of career politicians is over - and our momentum is not slowing down." Florida Finance Chairwoman Darlene Jordan had a similar take: "This historic more than $10.7 million fundraising quarter shows that the opportunity to elect Governor Rick Scott and send a career politician back home has Floridians more excited than ever before."
Bill Nelson is a do-nothing senator. His list of accomplishments is pretty short. Rick Scott's list of accomplishments is significant and lengthy.
This should frighten Sen. Nelson, too:
Gov. Rick Scott's campaign says it has hauled in as much cash in three weeks as his opponent, Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, raised in the first three months of this year. Scott, a Republican, collected $3.2 million in individual contributions since he launched his bid to unseat the three-term incumbent senator, according to his campaign.
That's from an April 30th article. The thing that stands out to me is that Scott's fundraising continues at an impressive pace. If I'm Bill Nelson's campaign manager, I'd be worried. ALOT!
Posted Monday, July 9, 2018 10:02 AM
No comments.
All Stars vs. Hall of Famers
Tonight, President Trump will announce who he's nominating to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court. The list of 25 judges represents the best of the best of conservative jurisprudence. It's important to note that that isn't the same as conservative political thinking. The two things are quite different.
Conservative political thinking is rooted in the philosophy of limited government being the best form of governing and that the government closest to the people is the best form of governance. These play out in the form of reform-minded policies. Conservative jurisprudential thinking is rooted in the notion that the text points the direction to the ruling.
The judiciary's ruling undoubtedly has a political impact because their rulings are on political documents, aka legislation/statutes. That isn't the same as judicial activism. For instance, when the Supreme Court ruled on Janus v. AFSCME, they ruled on whether public employee unions violated the employees' First Amendment rights. The majority didn't address the policy issue of whether they thought unions were a good or bad thing.
That's a policy matter, which is left to the political branches, aka the executive and legislative branches.
The 4 judges that are thought to be the finalists, Amy Coney-Barrett, Brett Cavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Thomas Hardiman, aren't automatically political conservatives. Each fits the mold of being a judicial conservative, though. The question for President Trump is whether he wants to pick a legal All Star or whether he wants to pick a likely legal Hall of Famer.
Cavanaugh's reputation is that of a man whose opinions are occasionally conciliatory but always filled with conservative logic. He has 12 years of opinions so his track record is fairly lengthy. Amy Coney-Barrett has the reputation of having a conservative judicial mindset but she's only been on the bench for a year. President Trump might think that he doesn't want to take a chance on her until she has a more substantive bunch of opinions. She might be an all star. She might be a Hall of Famer. There's no sense in taking chances at this point.
Hardiman and Kethledge both have extensive records in terms of opinions. Earlier today on Fox, Andy McCarthy said that Kethledge's opinions were like a punch in the nose, meaning that they're well-reasoned and hard-hitting. That's the type that's most likely to turn into a Hall of Famer. I haven't heard much about Hardiman's writings except to say that they're extensive and well-written. Hardiman was supposedly the runner-up to Gorsuch last time so that might give him an edge with President Trump.
Whoever President Trump picks, we'll get a judge who won't insert his/her policy preferences over the preference of the Legislative and Executive branches. The only question left is whether we get a Hall of Famer or an All Star.
Posted Monday, July 9, 2018 4:42 PM
No comments.
The Democrats' top strategists?
Earlier this week, I criticized Democrat strategists for not being too bright. As if to provide proof that I was right, Paul 'The Forehead' Begala wrote this op-ed to prove my point. His point is that vulnerable red state Democrats can vote against confirming Brett Kavanaugh and not get punished for that vote.
The first point Begala makes is that "Kavanaugh is a total swamp creature." Coming from a Democrat, that's rich. Coming from a 25-year occupant of the Swamp, that's even richer. Then Begala followed by saying "Rather than choosing a judge from Indiana or Pennsylvania or other heartland states, President Trump went with a Beltway Boy, born and bred. Kavanaugh got to where he is the Washington way: by loyally serving powerful figures in the party -- first special prosecutor Ken Starr in his pursuit of Bill Clinton, then as a legal hit man in the Constitutional drive-by shooting of Bush v. Gore. And then, finally, as an aide to Pres. George W. Bush in the White House. Bush rewarded Kavanaugh's service by placing him on the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has consistently backed presidential power against the little guy or gal. Kavanaugh is the kind of guy who sucks up and spits down -- the epitome of a Beltway swamp creature. Nobody who rides a John Deere tractor all day will be able to relate to Beltway Brett."
Notice that Begala never once said that Kavanaugh was a bad judge. The only reference to jurisprudence he made was to "the Constitutional drive-by shooting of Bush v. Gore." I know Democrats hate that ruling but that case was decided correctly. The Florida Supreme Court didn't follow the law. The Bush team took the case to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS instructed the Florida Supreme Court to follow the law as written. When the Florida Supreme Court ignored SCOTUS' instructions, SCOTUS ended the recount. At that point, Bush was ahead. There was no other outcome warranted.
That being said, I hope these red state Democrats listen to Begala. I hope that they ignore their constituents. I hope that they play into the hands of Republicans. They won't stop Kavanaugh's confirmation but they'll give voters another reason to fire them. Let's remember that 7 of the 10 Democrats voted against confirming Justice Gorsuch and that all of them voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts. That isn't a re-election resume. That's a defeat resume.
Then Begala wrote this:
Finally, Begala wrote this:
If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. If President Trump is able to replace Justice Kennedy with a Trumpian Republican, women's rights, gay rights, voting rights, the right to use contraceptives, so much of modern life, could be upended. Standing for principle, not caving to a bully, earns the respect of voters. Far better to be what Mark Shields calls "a conviction politician" rather than just another Washington windsock.
What a blowhard. Saying that confirming Kavanaugh will lead to making contraceptives illegal is the height of dishonesty. There's no chance that will happen. This is the Democrats' fearmongering playbook. It doesn't have anything to do with reality. Nothing.
Still, I hope these red state Democrats obey Begala and Dick Durbin:
[Video no longer available]
Suffice it to say that strategists like Begala are strategists that Republicans should promote. LOL
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2018 2:39 PM
No comments.
Idiots of a feather stick together
Make no mistake about this. Bernie Sanders' socialism isn't mainstream like he claims. It's more widely accepted amongst Democrats but it's hardly mainstream. That's why it's difficult to imagine why Keith Ellison invited Bernie Sanders to campaign with him . Does Ellison still think that he's running for election only in Minnesota's Fifth District?
According to news reports, "U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is coming to Minnesota this week, bringing his firebrand progressive style, and some level of grassroots star power, to bear on the statewide race for attorney general. In events in Duluth and Minneapolis Friday, Sanders will stump for fellow liberal U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, who's running in the Democratic primary for attorney general instead of re-election to his Minneapolis-based seat in the U.S. House."
In 'honor' of the event, Doug Wardlow has put together a video that's sure to get people's attention. Check it out:
[Video no longer available]
As nutty as that is, that isn't the nuttiest thing Ellison has said recently. Check this out:
[Video no longer available]
In other words, Democrats will consider impeaching Supreme Court justices if they retake control of the House. It doesn't get much 'fringier' than that.
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2018 4:51 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Jul-18 06:26 PM
Are you saying by implication that you expect Ellison to win his DFL primary? Or to lose, by dependence on a link to Sanders? If Ellison fails to win, who would outdraw him in the primary?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Jul-18 12:33 AM
He'll win the primary.
Comment 2 by eric z at 12-Jul-18 03:39 PM
You do not see him winning statewide?
I've not seen a strong GOP candidate for AG. Who do you have in mind as able to defeat Ellison statewide?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Jul-18 05:14 PM
Doug Wardlow. Frankly, Ellison won't get hardly any votes beyond Edina.
