June 21-24, 2016
Jun 21 09:46 Greg Gutfeld's theory on Orlando Jun 21 12:50 Special interests, special sessions Jun 21 15:29 ABM's BS factory working overtime Jun 22 06:47 SC Times sides with Gov. Dayton Jun 22 17:16 GOP gets morale boost Jun 22 18:08 Gov. Dayton appeals NGEA ruling Jun 23 06:51 Thissen's special session statement Jun 23 11:32 Nolan joins Pelosi's sit-in Jun 24 14:02 Bipartisan compromise in the works?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Greg Gutfeld's theory on Orlando
Greg Gutfeld has a theory about Orlando. Unfortunately, it's a depressing theory . The silver lining to society's dark cloud is that it's possible, albeit a longshot, to change things.
The turning point will happen when we answer some important questions in unison. Right now, we're nowhere close to that point. Don't think in-the-next-town-over distant. I'm thinking the-next-solar-system-over-then-hang-a-left distant. Gutfeld lays it out with this illustration: "We quarrel about the quarrel. We cannot agree on the fight. And therefore we cannot begin to fight. Instead, we are like that proverbial snake that devours its own tail. Except, we think it's sushi. But it's blowfish. You get the idea. We're dead."
Then Mr. Gutfeld applies that illustration to the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, saying "How can America defeat ISIS if we have vocal factions believing that we are worse? How can we fight the enemy if a large portion of our population thinks an inanimate object, a gun, caused Orlando?"
Mr. Gutfeld's logic is indisputable. Yesterday in the Senate, they debated 4 gun control bills. Each bill predictably failed on (more-or-less) party line votes. Last night, I wrote this article to highlight how ideologically blind the Left is about guns and terrorism. In the article, I quote Sen. Franken as saying "I will continue to do everything I can to disarm hate and get these measures passed into law despite today's setback." I reject Sen. Franken's belief that he's done everything he could to "disarm hate" because he hasn't done a thing to annihilate ISIS. Greg Gutfeld has another illustration that might break the logjam:
As I said earlier, Dr. Gutfeld's logic is indisputably correct. Therein lies the bigger problem. The first problem identified is an identification problem: was Orlando a gun problem or a terrorist problem? That's the first problem but yesterday's Senate votes expose the bigger problem. It's impossible to persuade people who don't apply logic in their decision-making. Picture this hypothetical conversation:
FBI Agent: Did the terrorist have a gun?
Night Club Witness: Al-Qa'ida is on the run. GM is alive but bin Laden is dead.
FBI Agent: Sir, the terrorist called 9-1-1 and pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Night Club Witness: We need more gun control laws.
FBI Agent (getting impatient): Sir, witnesses said the terrorist used an assault rifle. Can you confirm that?
Night Club Witness: The Religious Right is responsible for all the hate speech.
FBI Agent: Thanks for your time.
Here's the next logical question for gun grabbers: What's the right number of gun control laws to protect people? 1? 12? 123? What's the right number of laws that would protect citizens from terrorists? This picture says it all:
As long as we have to deal with logic-resistant Democrats, we won't be able to defeat ISIS.
Posted Tuesday, June 21, 2016 9:46 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 21-Jun-16 10:19 AM
Maybe we could do as they did in the Civil War and start calling Democrats "Copperheads".
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jun-16 10:42 AM
Better yet: we could start shooting terrorists like our lives depended on it. Oh wait. They do.
Special interests, special sessions
It wouldn't be a special session if the DFL's special interest allies didn't suddenly rush out of the woodwork like they're doing now. This morning, legislative leaders met with Gov. Dayton and Lt. Gov. Tina Flint-Smith. PBS's Mary Lahammer tweeted that negotiations are underway . Meanwhile, David Montgomery is reporting that the meeting is over. Montgomery quoted Speaker Daudt as saying "I'm still optimistic we'll get to a special session. It may take some time."
That's probably right. I suspect that the DFL won't cave until they start seeing how poorly they're doing in outstate districts in the House and Senate. That's the point at which they'll have their 'come to Jesus' meeting with Gov. Dayton. It would be embarrassing for the DFL to thrown out of the majority in the Senate in the year Hillary cleans Trump's clock in Minnesota. Still, that's a distinct possibility.
The array of DFL special interests this morning was impressive in a depressing way. Transportation Forward put together a rally. Check out their list of DFL special interest " Coalition Partners ". I've made this graphic showing the environmental organizations on Transportation Forward's "Coalition Partners":
Organizations highlighted are hardline environmental activist organizations.
Here's some other Coalition Partners:
Transportation Forward's special interest allies have made it essentially impossible to negotiate a deal for a special session. That's disappointing.
Posted Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:50 PM
No comments.
ABM's BS factory working overtime
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, is the DFL's BS machine. These days, it looks more like a BS factory than anything else. This post's content is almost totally BS. In a blatant display of dishonesty, ABM insists that "Daudt and his Republican colleagues have pursued a harmful, Trump-like agenda ."
That's interesting. It's also BS. Speaker Daudt and the GOP haven't said that they'll sit down with the NRA to straighten them out about gun rights and due process rights. Trump certainly hasn't put together a middle class tax cut proposal like Speaker Daudt and the GOP have. Trump's tax plan favors corporations. Tax Chair Larry Davids' plan favors veterans, students, small businesses and parents saving for their kids' college education. Trump's proposal is as similar to Chairman Davids' proposal as ice cream is similar to hydraulic log splitters.
The title to ABM's propaganda piece is titled "Speaker Daudt Can't Deny His Ties to Trump." I know ABM will hammer that theme for the rest of the campaign even though it doesn't have anything to do with reality. That's why ABM will hammer it. They know it isn't the truth. That's what ABM specializes in. What's coy is ABM's tactic of quoting a Trump campaign worker:
Similarly, the Minnesota Trump campaign chair said, "Speaker Daudt will be a tremendous champion for our shared message in Cleveland, and across Minnesota."
Let's remember that Trump promised to self-fund his campaign, too. Yesterday, news reports flourished that Trump raised $3,100,000 in May and that he's got $1,289,000 cash on hand (CoH). Trusting anything Trump says or that his surrogates say isn't just foolish. It's proof that you're totally gullible. I don't doubt that they'd love to have Speaker Daudt's endorsement but that isn't happening. Speaker Daudt knows better than to tie his boat to Trump's sinking ship.
Posted Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:29 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 22-Jun-16 06:40 PM
Until Republicans denounce the Orange Idiot, they will keep getting this question asked to them.
Trump support is my litmus test for everyone on my ballot. They'll either tell me yes or no because I'M asking the question too. Dancing around the question equals support.
SC Times sides with Gov. Dayton
The SC Times Editorial Board isn't as unflinchingly liberal as the Strib's Editorial Board but it's a close second in Minnesota. This editorial isn't the worst that they've published but it's still a cheerleading editorial.
For instance, this editorial says "Earlier, the Times Editorial Board gave this advice to Gov. Mark Dayton: Don't call a special session. Make the lawmakers deal with the consequences of failing to find agreement on some major legislation." Clearly, the Times Editorial Board is picking Gov. Dayton's side. It's as if they're absolving him of any responsibility for the trainwreck.
Gov. Dayton isn't innocent in all this. He's the idiot that vetoed the Tax Bill that would've provided tax relief to small businesses, farmers, students with crushing student loan debt, parents trying to save for their kids' college education and military veterans. Is the Times Editorial Board cheering this disastrous decision? That's what it looks like.
Dayton's glum status report: "We're moving backward."
Gov. Dayton ought to know. He's the politician who's moving things backwards . During the session, he signed a supplemental spending bill. It wasn't for nearly the amount that he'd originally wanted. Gov. Dayton is now insisting that a special session won't be called until Speaker Daudt agrees to give him the rest of his spending request.
Thankfully, Speaker Daudt rejected that demand. Meanwhile, the Times apparently doesn't care that hard-working blue collar people have gotten deprived of tax relief thanks to the actions of a spoiled trust fund liberal. Listen to Sen. Hann's opening statement in this video. It's quite compelling:
Dayton's limousine liberalism and his my-way-or-the-highway negotiating style sends the clear message that he puts his ideology ahead of doing the right thing for Minnesotans. Lumped in with that is the DFL itself.
Sen. Hann noted the bipartisan nature of the bonding/transportation bill. Now Gov. Dayton wants to essentially start over and include all of his priorities while refusing to accept Republicans' proposals. That's what obstructionist liberalism looks like.
Let's be clear. If Sen. Bakk were a profile in courage, he'd break with Gov. Dayton and insist that Gov. Dayton call a special session to fix the Tax Bill. The fact that he's stayed silent says everything.
Finally, why has Gov. Dayton and the DFL insisted on a bonding bill that funds Southwest Light Rail? Twin Cities progressives insist that it's needed. They've never explained why it's needed. That hasn't mattered to the Times. Like an obedient puppy, they've refrained from asking important questions. That isn't surprising, especially considering the Times' puppy dog reputation.
Posted Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:47 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Jun-16 10:28 AM
The finger pointing going on to me has a flavor of "Who lost China."
Comment 2 by AJK at 22-Jun-16 04:33 PM
Dayton is a typical Dem. They never compromise and all their stances are hard left. Sheer lunacy. An informed public would almost always vote GOP, but we have colleges, newspapers and television to brainwash.
Comment 3 by AJK at 22-Jun-16 04:35 PM
Dayton is a typical Democrat of today. Only concerned with his elite lefty friends. Never compromises. If we have an informed electorate, the GOP would almost never lose. But the Dems have newspapers, TV and colleges to brainwash. Sadly.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 22-Jun-16 06:37 PM
DFL mantra: If you can't be part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.
GOP gets morale boost
This Quinnipiac poll is the best news Mitch McConnell has seen in months. Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said "With Republican national leaders worried about keeping control of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Marco Rubio might ride to their rescue if he decides to reverse field and seek re-election. This Quinnipiac University poll finds Sen. Marco Rubio in good shape when matched against his two potential Democratic opponents."
Brown continues, saying "In general, this poll of the three major swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, is good news for the GOP. Sen. Rob Portman is in a dead heat with former Gov. Ted Strickland in Ohio. But that is an improvement for Portman, who earlier in the campaign was down as much as 9 points. And in Pennsylvania, GOP Sen. Pat Toomey has a 9-point lead. It is far too early to say he's a sure thing, but he is in good shape."
This has to be considered good news for the GOP, too:
Pennsylvania
While the presidential matchup in Pennsylvania and the U.S. Senate race both feature a Democratic woman running against a Republican man, Sen. Pat Toomey has the advantage of incumbency. He leads 56 - 35 percent among men, while women are divided with 44 percent for Katie McGinty and 42 percent for Toomey.
If Republicans hold those 3 seats, they'll hold their majority in the Senate. I expect them to hold Wisconsin, too, where Ron Johnson will benefit from the fact that he's running 5+ points ahead of Trump in Wisconsin.
Something noteworthy is happening, too. Each of these candidates are running well ahead of Mr. Trump. While it's still early, this suggests that voters are differentiating between Mr. Trump and mainstream Republicans. If that's what's happening, then that's good news for those who've been worried about a major GOP thumping this upcoming November.
With Rubio now officially running for re-election, coupled with this news, the NRSC just got a major morale boost.
Posted Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:16 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 22-Jun-16 06:36 PM
Until we get Constitutional Conservatives elected, Republican majorities are simply Democrat majorities with a different letter at the front.
A United States Senate led by Mitch McConnell is like being the best hockey player on Guam. It doesn't matter in crunch time.
I'm not going to get excited over Toomey or Johnson either, both of whom have been the usual gigantic disappointment. At best, conservatives tread water.
Gov. Dayton appeals NGEA ruling
In a PR stunt, Gov. Dayton announced that he's appealing the ruling shooting down the Next Generation Energy Act, aka the NGEA. It's a PR stunt because Gov. Dayton said "it's a matter of protecting air quality." The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees, saying that "Minnesota would need Congressional approval to enforce that section of the 2007 law."
Gov. Dayton is standing on shaky constitutional ground. He's argued that the NGEA "doesn't illegally restrict new coal-powered plants but merely requires that they be offset by reductions at existing plants." That's irrelevant. The Interstate Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution states "The Congress shall have Power To ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Think of the insanity if this wasn't the case. If the ICC didn't exist, North Dakota could pass a law that requires all electricity sold into North Dakota had to be from nuclear power plants. Without the ICC, Minnesota would face a choice of not selling electricity into North Dakota or to generate that electricity at nuclear power plants.
Such laws would demolish state sovereignty. That's intolerable.
A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision last week that barred Minnesota from enforcing key sections of the Next Generation Energy Act. The court sided with North Dakota utilities and other interests that argued [the NGEA] illegally regulates out-of-state utilities.
As usual, Rep. Pat Garofalo nails it with this statement:
This is an election year stunt aimed at improving turnout with environmental activists. It's Gov. Dayton's signal that he's with them. Sadly, Gov. Dayton didn't swear an oath to be with them. The oath he took said that he'd uphold the Minnesota Constitution and the US Constitution. As usual, he's got his priorities all mixed up.
Posted Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:08 PM
No comments.
Thissen's special session statement
When it comes to dishonest DFL politicians, Paul Thissen is in the conversation. Though he isn't at the top of the list, he's certainly part of the conversation. Yesterday, Rep. Thissen issued this statement . To be fair to Rep. Thissen, there were fragments of truth in his statement.
For instance, Rep. Thissen was sort of right in saying "Republicans have refused to provide any compromise offers to get needed tax, bonding and budget bills passed in a special session." I say sort of right because they're sticking with the House bill, which included lots of DFL priorities in it. I wrote this article to highlight the amount of compromise included in the House bonding/transportation bill. I included a lengthy quote from Sen. David Hann in the article. He was clearly and justifiably upset with Gov. Dayton's refusal to drop any of his demands. Here's what Sen. Hann said:
I would just reiterate that the bills that we had on the last day of session were compromise bills. Go back again. Look at the tape. Look at Sen. Stumpf talking about the bonding/transportation bill. He called it a "true compromise between Republicans and Democrats." The Speaker has pointed out that half of that bill, more than half of it, had the Governor's priorities in it. And now we're supposedly at a point where all of those compromises are off the table and we've got another $243,000,000 of additional spending that we are being asked to do without any backing away from that number -- an additional couple hundred million in bonding.
And all of this is kind of in complete denial of all of the compromise work that had gone on this entire last session. This is what I find so remarkable. I think it is a setback. Why, after a whole session and actually going back to the session before of talking about some of these issues, to now have a bill get killed at the last minute with a request for a light rail project that no one had ever seen a hearing on and now, that becomes a must have and they say we have to start over and renegotiate everything, I think it is a setback.
Rep. Thissen, why should Republicans offer additional compromises when Gov. Dayton refuses to move a square centimeter from his post-session positions? Rep. Thissen apparently thinks that Republicans should always compromise and that DFL politicians don't ever have to compromise.
Later in his statement, Rep. Thissen said "If House Republicans were serious about doing the job they were elected to do, they wouldn't be bringing controversial new policy into the discussion at this stage." That's rich. The only reason we're in this position is because a handful of DFL senators amended the House bonding/transportation bill with less than 10 minutes left in the session to include a provision for funding for the Southwest Light Rail project. That provision was controversial. It wasn't discussed in any House or Senate committee hearings. As Sen. Hann points out, "now it becomes a must have and we have to start over and renegotiate everything."
It's time Speaker Daudt and Sen. Hann turned up the heat on Gov. Dayton for killing the Tax Bill, then refusing the legislature to fix it. Gov. Dayton said he wouldn't hold the Tax Bill hostage. I guess he meant he wouldn't hold it hostage until he started using it as leverage in negotiations. Here's why that's important.
Gov. Dayton wants to increase the size of the bonding bill by more than 40% over the House bonding/transportation bill. Further, he wants $243,000,000 worth of additional spending for the Twin Cities added to a new supplemental appropriations bill after signing a major supplemental appropriations bill a month ago.
In other words, Gov. Dayton is insisting on getting everything he's wanted from the start of the regular session. Republicans need to expose him for the autocrat that he is. Similarly, they need to expose the DFL as the party who hasn't negotiated in good faith and that aren't interested in doing what's right for Minnesotans. Here's Rep. Thissen's statement:
Posted Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:51 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 23-Jun-16 09:36 AM
"Rep. Thissen apparently thinks that Republicans should always compromise and that DFL politicians don't ever have to compromise."
__
That's what all Democrats think. And until Republicans stop giving in to them, they will continue to think exactly this thought. Now is the time for Speaker Daudt to hold the line.
Nolan joins Pelosi's sit-in
Rick Nolan isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I recall thinking that when he was my congressman back in the mid-1970s. Back then, constituents knew that he'd vote the way Democratic leadership told him to vote. Nothing's changed in 40+ years. Yesterday, Nolan joined the Democrats' gun control sit-in. When it was his time to speak, Nolan spoke of a bygone era that didn't exist , saying "If anybody had a good idea in the form of a bill or an amendment, they got an opportunity to offer it, and have it debated and discussed. That rarely happens anymore."
What's changed in those 40+ years is that Democrats went from being a party brimming with ideas to being the party of identity politics. Democrats don't provide solutions anymore. These days, Democrats offer legislation that appeases one of their special interest allies. This week, rather than offering President Obama advice on how to destroy ISIS, Democrats have staged a faux protest aimed at getting their special interest allies frothing at the mouth over gun control. Here's Nolan at his fruitiest:
Rep. Nolan supplied one of the dumbest arguments in favor of gun control. It deserves to be enshrined in the House of Representatives' Hall of Shame. Here's what Rep. Nolan said:
"I represent rural communities in northeastern Minnesota. Everybody in my neighborhood has shotguns and deer rifles - including me," Nolan said in the release. "I'm proud to strongly support the Second Amendment. But the fact is, when you're out duck hunting, you can only have three shells in your gun. Why? To protect ducks! That's right - we put limits on guns to protect ducks. So why can't we do the same for our elementary schoolchildren? For our friends and neighbors in places of worship? For our families who want to catch a Friday night movie? For our LGBTQ community who just want to go out for some fun and dancing on a Saturday night? Surely they deserve the same concern and safety that we afford to ducks."
That's breathtakingly stupid. Either that or he's being breathtakingly dishonest. The Second Amendment wasn't ratified to give people the right to hunt. Comparing hunting regulations with constitutional protections is like comparing the newest power tools with this year's beauty pageant contestants. One has nothing to do with the other. Let me explain.
Hunting regulations were put in place to maintain healthy populations of game animals so sportsmen could go hunting. They weren't put in place, as Rep. Nolan said, "to protect ducks." The no fly-no buy legislation that Democrats, including Rep. Nolan, support requires the suspension of Fifth Amendment's due process protections. Those protections protect people from start to finish. The Democrats' No Fly-No Buy legislation only offers due process 'protection' after the fact. That certainly wouldn't meet constitutional muster.
This is a gift to Stewart Mills' campaign. Mills lost to Nolan by 3,732 votes in 2014. If Rep. Nolan keeps saying stupid things like this, he'll get pummeled.
Posted Thursday, June 23, 2016 11:32 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 23-Jun-16 01:25 PM
Let's look at what the Democrats' ideas were. If the Great Society, War on Poverty and the New Deal are "brimming with ideas", maybe identity politics isn't the worst thing for them to expend energy on.
And Mills is a Trumpie. I live in 8CD and am not willing to support a Republican candidate who won't repudiate someone who is politically closer to Rick Nolan.
Comment 2 by Patrick-M at 23-Jun-16 01:52 PM
Someone might want to tell Nolan about Pelosi's reign when she was Speaker and Harry's time as Majority. How quick (and conveniently) they forget the past.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 23-Jun-16 06:11 PM
Nolan and all the others are pandering to the low information, tug at your heat-strings voter who believe it is the gun and not the person that is to blame.
Bob J, are you going to vote for Nolan or just not vote? Either way, Nolan wins. I don't like Trump but he's a hell of a lot better than Clinton, and that's not saying much. I'd rather vote for someone I agree with rarely than someone I disagree with all the time.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 24-Jun-16 01:10 PM
Chad, I prefer to quote Charles Spurgeon: "Of two evils, choose neither." My 8CD vote will probably be blank, and that's not on me, that's on Mills.
I reached out to Mills' campaign to see if he supported Trump. I received an affirmative answer. A candidate capable of making that kind of error in judgment is one I just can't support. It shows his principles are for sale just like Trump's.
I also respectfully disagree with your belief that Trump is "a hell of a lot better" than Clinton since they are both non-sensical in foreign affairs, both like the Obamacare mandate, both are gun-grabbers, both are misogynists, both use race-based identity politics as a core part of their identities, both are insider crony capitalists and neither one will do the first thing to fix what's wrong with our country because they both have too much invested in prolonging its problems.
Bipartisan compromise in the works?
Despite Gov. Dayton's best efforts to play the part of Obstructionist-in-Chief, with a supporting cast of metro environmentalists and SWLRT activists, it appears as though a bipartisan compromise has been reached between Sen. Jeremy Miller, (R-Winona), and Sen. Roger Reinert, (DFL-Duluth).
The key part of their compromises comes when they say "While there are projects in the districts we represent that didn't make the bonding bill legislative leaders agreed to in the final hours of regular session, we realize that in order to garner the three-fifths super majority needed in each chamber to pass a bonding bill, any additional projects will need to have a strong state-wide significance."
Sen. Miller and Sen. Reinert then lay out their proposal, saying "First, in recognition of the University of Minnesota's critical role in our designation as a top state for healthcare education, access, and outcomes, we support including the University of Minnesota Health Sciences Education Facility in a final bonding bill. Second, in order to avoid unnecessary additional costs to taxpayers that would occur if the Minnesota Security Hospital Upgrade is not fully funded this year, we also support including their full request in the bonding bill."
Simply put, I think this paints Gov. Dayton into a tight corner. It's apparent that there's significant bipartisan opposition to Gov. Dayton's demands for funding SWLRT. Here's the senators' letter:
Special session compromise proposed by Senators Miller and Reinert by Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus
Posted Friday, June 24, 2016 2:02 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 24-Jun-16 10:40 PM
No way for Dayton to take credit for it so it won't happen. No way for Daudt to win either, nobody except the usual suspects howling.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jun-16 08:04 AM
That's fine. It's a win-win situation for Republicans. They win by proving they can negotiate with Democrats. (These items aren't controversial so including them isn't a huge loss for the GOP.) It's a big win because Gov. Dayton is exposed as intransigent and an obstructionist. I don't see the strategic downside.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 26-Jun-16 09:23 AM
Actually, I think Republicans at last may have the upper hand in the public perceptions war, so I would ask Speaker Daudt and Minority Leader Hann to do one thing more before agreement. Since these two "big priority" items are to be added to the bonding bill, take out enough "low priority" items from the bonding bill so that total bonding is the same as before. After all, the size of the bill was agreed, so why shouldn't it be preserved?
