June 5-6, 2015
Jun 05 00:31 Hillary's reputation takes another hit Jun 05 03:26 Megyn Kelly grills defense attorney Jun 05 05:34 The IRS's next investigation? Jun 05 12:30 Rebecca Otto's hissy fit Jun 05 15:41 The Democrats' propaganda machine Jun 06 08:09 PUC approves Sandpiper Pipeline Jun 06 08:56 Democratic panic coming? Jun 06 11:04 Joni Ernst, rising GOP star
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Hillary's reputation takes another hit
Hillary the candidate is getting a reputation for underperforming. In December, 2014, Hillary's speech at Georgetown was poorly attended. Saying that the event was half-full would be lying. It would've taken hundreds of people for that statement to be true. This article indicates that Hillary continues to underperform. Check out how Hillary's team tried to create the appearance of a packed house at Texas Southern University:
Hillary Clinton closed a three-day campaign fundraising swing through Texas and New Mexico on Thursday with a rare public appearance at Texas Southern University in Houston and a stemwinder on voting rights.
She took no questions and spoke with no reporters, but angrily complained that Texas voters can present their concealed-carry gun permits as a voter ID, but not their college student identification cards.
Clinton was received with wild applause at the historically black college, but organizers arranged the 8,100-seat basketball arena so that three-quarters of the seats were roped off and empty. They added rows of chairs on the floor, but 15-foot-tall blue curtains draped all around blocked the view of entire sections of empty seats, leaving the impression that Clinton couldn't fill the room. The university didn't provide a crowd count, but an arena security official estimated that there were 2,200 in attendance.
The only thing that Hillary's performed well at is fundraising. The Georgetown speech shows she isn't attracting young people. The Texas Southern speech shows she isn't attracting African-American voters. At what point will the Beltway media admit that Hillary isn't the rock star that the Democrats have tried portraying her as?
Her record at the State Department is a disaster. The video of her handing the reset button to Russia's Foreign Minister is certain to be used in ads as a way to highlight her record. Ditto with video of the attack on Benghazi.
When she was in the Senate, she didn't accomplish anything so she can't point to anything there. Hillary's campaign thus far is a Potemkin campaign, complete with images of full events in three-fourths empty arenas.
That's fitting because, thus far, she isn't a real candidate interacting with real people.
Posted Friday, June 5, 2015 12:31 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-Jun-15 07:51 AM
Gary:
I thought she was a great speaker. She was able to get people to pay her $300,000 plus for a speech. It seems like a lot of people should be asked again and again why did you pay her so much money unless you were trying to buy influence with her.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Megyn Kelly grills defense attorney
Last night, Megyn Kelly demolished defense attorney Arthur Aidala's argument that no state laws were broken when the Duggars' daughters were identified as victims of sex crimes. Check this video out:
First, here's the Arkansas law that's being debated:
Arkansas Legal Code
ANN. SEC. 16-90-1104
"A law enforcement agency shall not disclose to the public information directly or indirectly identifying the victim of a sex crime."
Aidala argued that the lawyer in question relied on the opinions of 2 different Arkansas attorneys general in making his decision. If that's true, which I believe is true, then these attorneys general got their opinions horribly wrong.
The Arkansas statute is exceptionally clearly written. It isn't ambiguous. If there's another law that says that people who commit sex crimes must be identified, then these attorneys general should've brought these conflicting statutes to the attention of the Arkansas legislature, Arkansas' governor and the people of Arkansas. Those conflicting statutes must be fixed so that they aren't conflicting anymore. Otherwise, teenage victims of sex crimes will be doubly victimized in the future.
Fortunately, a judge has stepped in and said "Don't release it and destroy the remaining reports."
What people think about Josh Duggar is irrelevant to this topic. That's totally separate. The law states what the law states. Releasing the report that identified those girls was illegal. Now that the Arkansas judge has ruled, that's the law of the land unless and until the legislature changes those statutes. I'm betting that the legislature won't touch it because it's an emotionally charged subject that's settled at this point.
The bigger point, though, to this discussion is that a state attorney general's opinion shouldn't conflict with clearly written state statutes. Opinions and precedents that conflict with statutes are simply wrong. There can't be any question about that. Period.
Posted Friday, June 5, 2015 3:26 AM
No comments.
The IRS's next investigation?
Once the IRS finishes harassing TEA Party organizations and other American patriots, wouldn't it be fantastic if they launched a real investigation into something important? If they're interested, I'd suggest that they start an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. If they start that investigation, they should start with Kim Strassel's article . She's already done much of the legwork to give investigators a starting point. Check this out:
The media's focus is on Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, and whether she took official actions to benefit her family's global charity. But the mistake is starting from the premise that the Clinton Foundation is a 'charity.' What's clear by now is that this family enterprise was set up as a global shakedown operation, designed to finance and nurture the Clintons' continued political ambitions. It's a Hillary super PAC that throws in the occasional good deed.
Here's the proof that Ms. Strassel has found to support her accusation:
Some operatives don't even bother feigning separation. Longtime aide Cheryl Mills served as general counsel to Mrs. Clinton's 2008 campaign, then worked at State. She then joined the board of directors of the foundation and remains on it still, even as she works on Clinton 2016. Nick Merrill, an aide to Mrs. Clinton at State, has continued on as her press liaison. Last year his name popped up on a news release as a contact person for the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Merrill will be a campaign spokesman for Clinton 2016.
Maura Pally was until recently the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation. Her training for this important job was working as a lawyer in the Clinton White House, as a counsel to Hillary 2008, and in cultural affairs at the State Department. Valerie Alexander is the foundation's chief marketing officer, and the woman responsible for turning the outfit into a Clinton PR machine. She worked as a senior communications adviser for Hillary 2008.
Amitabh Desai is the foundation's foreign policy director. He was a legislative aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Craig Minassian is the foundation's chief communications officer. He worked on Hillary 2008. Ira Magaziner is CEO of the Clinton Health Care Access Initiative. He is one of the Clintons' oldest advisers. Bari Lurie, chief of staff to Chelsea Clinton, worked on Hillary's Senate campaign and her 2008 run, and for her PAC. Erika Gudmundson is the foundation's deputy director of communications initiatives. She was a press aide for Hillary 2008.
By itself, Cheryl Mills serving on the Clinton Foundation's board of directors is acceptable if that's the only hat she wears. It isn't. Ms. Mills is working on Hillary's campaign while working for the Foundation.
Then there's this:
The other question is how many more operatives are cashing foundation checks that we don't know about - as 'consultants' for the group. We now know longtime Clinton pal Sid Blumenthal drew $10,000 a month. For what? Then there's Mrs. Clinton's longtime aide, Huma Abedin, who worked as traveling chief of staff during the 2008 campaign, then went to State. There she was granted a special arrangement to continue earning money as a private-sector consultant. Among those she consulted for? The Clinton Foundation. Ms. Abedin has transitioned back as vice chairman of Mrs. Clinton 2016 campaign.
I'm not a lawyer but this information looks like it pertains to the Clinton Foundation:
7.25.3.1.1 (02-23-1999) Statute
1.IRC 501(c)(3) exempts from Federal income tax: corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (i)), and which does not participate in , or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office .
There's certainly grounds for an investigation. We don't know when Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin left the Foundation and started working for Hillary's campaign. For that matter, I haven't seen proof that they've left the Foundation. Working for the Foundation and for the campaign certainly would warrant an investigation.
Fortunately for the Clinton Foundation, the Obama administration won't investigate this situation.
Posted Friday, June 5, 2015 5:34 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-Jun-15 07:48 AM
Gary:
Based on the case that you just laid out shouldn't the FEC be investigating on the grounds of illegal financial support of a political campaign?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Rebecca Otto's hissy fit
Thanks to Rebecca Otto's hissy fit, Gov. Dayton won't call a special session unless the legislature agrees to repeal a law they passed and he signed. Bill Hanna criticizes Otto in this article :
Now the governor is saying he will only sign off on a final deal if House Republicans remove a provision from a government funding bill that would give counties the option to have audits done by the private sector rather than the State Auditor's Office.
So now a bill with a provision that the governor OK'd and signed into law is possibly holding up a special session because Dayton wants it removed from the measure, even though he put his Mark Dayton on it.
Gov. Dayton signed this provision into law last week. This week, he wants the provision repealed during a special session. In fact, he's insisting that it be repealed before he calls a special session. What's likely to happen, IMHO, is that Speaker Daudt will tell Gov. Dayton that that's off the table. I also think that Speaker Daudt will stage a mini-campaign that highlights the facts surrounding this provision.
Why not have some options for counties? Cities and school districts already have auditing choice. Why should counties be held as wards of the State Auditor's Office on this issue if they choose otherwise?
'It's going to give them a cost savings and hopefully give them faster results on their audits, two of the complaints that we've heard from counties as far as the state auditor goes,' said Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, who is an advocate for the change.
Bill Hanna makes an astute observation:
So State Auditor Otto is having a tantrum over something that would make for better policy for Minnesotans and trying to hold up a final end to a ludicrous session. And the governor, rather than giving her a time out, is in agreement.
It's time for Gov. Dayton to revisit Planet Earth instead of residing on Planet Dayton.
Posted Friday, June 5, 2015 12:30 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-Jun-15 01:12 PM
A great example of sleep walking by the DFL here.
Either Dayton signed a bill without knowing what is in the bill (nothing new) or Otto wasn't even aware of the provision until after Dayton signed it.
Shows one or both aren't qualified for their job.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 05-Jun-15 02:29 PM
As I've said before, any job Rebecca Otto can competently perform can be safely done away with.
We eliminated the obsolete State Treasurer office by Constitutional Amendment in 1998. It's time to do the same for this obsolete office. And while we're at it, convert the State Attorney General to Gubernatorial appointment. After fumigating the office of all those consumer affairs headline chasers, maybe we can get back to actually serving our justice system.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Jun-15 03:01 PM
Now that's a revolutionary idea. Imagine if the attorney general actually paid attention to law enforcement instead of civil litigation.
As for the state auditor's office, we shouldn't think that she gets the job done on time. The auditor's office has a terrible history with on-time performance.
In fact, that's indisputable fact.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 05-Jun-15 03:26 PM
It is my understanding that Otto was having her hissy fit before the bill was even voted on and that she said the Gov. would veto it if the current language was kept in the bill. The discussions on the bill were stopped and the Gov. or someone in his office said he would not veto the bill if current language was left in the bill.
So now this jack wagon is threatening to force a shut down over something he knew about?
Otto isn't even qualified to do her job so I'm not sure why she's getting her panties in a bunch. I assume she still gets paid the same and will have even less work to perform. Seems like a win/win for a liberal. Oh, forgot about that whole control thing.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 05-Jun-15 03:43 PM
Chad, the worst fear that a Democrat can get is becoming irrelevant.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 05-Jun-15 06:34 PM
Gary:
Correction isn't the worst fear that a democrat has is that they realize they have become irrelevant. a bunch are now, but don't know it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 05-Jun-15 06:42 PM
Lots of Democrats realize that they're irrelevant. Their fear doesn't kick in until they're exposed as irrelevant.
The Democrats' propaganda machine
Donna Brazile is a skilled Democratic propagandist. This article is proof of that. Check this out:
While a great deal of progress has been made over the years, today, we face new challenges to those who are eligible to vote, and some of the leading culprits of erecting barriers are running for president.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Republicans are imposing new restrictions on the right to vote, restrictions that disproportionally affect African-Americans, Latinos, working Americans, seniors and America's youth, the very groups the Voting Rights Act was formed to protect.
Actually, voting has never been easier. The poll tax is a thing of the past. More voting stations mean people have a place to vote closer to their homes. The only restriction that's new, relatively speaking, is photo ID. That isn't the only consideration worth consideration. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the majority opinion in the Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections lawsuit, wrote this :
'There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U. S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election. The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo identification cards currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.'
Justice Stevens isn't an archconservative. He said that election integrity is just as important as making voting easy. In his majority opinion, Justice Stevens cited how many routine activities require photo identification.
The myth that Democrats try to spread is that this is an unjust burden on minorities and the elderly. What they're saying is that minorities and the elderly don't have access to airports, cashing checks, buying certain types of over the counter medicines or entering federal buildings. That's flimsier than a flimsy argument. Here's another Democrat canard:
That's the fundamental difference between Democrats and the current GOP presidential field. As Democrats, we believe in the right of every eligible citizen to vote and have that vote counted; we are fighting to expand and protect the right to vote, while Republicans are doing just the opposite.
That's plain BS. Republicans want every eligible citizen to vote. It's just that we're committed to making sure that people that aren't eligible to vote can't vote. Democrats aren't committed to preventing voter disenfranchisement. That isn't propaganda. That's what Artur Davis witnessed firsthand:
I've changed my mind on voter ID laws; I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one; and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.
When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.
The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community , at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots , at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.
Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights ; that's suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
Hillary's speech at Texas Southern was given in an arena that was one-fourth full. Hillary knows that she'll lose badly if she doesn't have a large turnout in the minority community. Democrats always play the 'Republicans are trying to stop you from voting' card because it's their only way of ramping up the turnout.
Posted Friday, June 5, 2015 3:41 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Jun-15 07:51 AM
Interesting that none of the court cases against photo ID have turned up anybody with "standing," that is, an eligible voter who would be denied a vote by the law.
My usual response to these vote fraudsters is to reply that it is TRUE, Republicans want to deny the dead, fictitious and fraudulent the right to vote. The reason "there is no voter fraud in Minnesota" is because we don't look for it, and our Secretary of State hides it as best he can.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Jun-15 08:17 AM
Jerry, I'd modify your statement slightly. It isn't that voter fraud doesn't exist. It's that it isn't looked for. You won't find what you refuse to look for.
PUC approves Sandpiper Pipeline
Now that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, aka PUC, has issued a certificate of need for the Sandpiper Pipeline project , it's time to ask an important question. First, here's what happened:
ST. PAUL - The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has approved a certificate of need for the proposed Sandpiper pipeline from North Dakota's Bakken oil fields to Superior, Wisconsin. While the PUC agreed 5-0 Friday that the $2.6 billion, 610-mile pipeline is necessary, they didn't foreclose the possibility of rerouting it away from environmentally sensitive lakes, streams and wetlands in northern Minnesota. Enbridge Energy will still have to go through a lengthy review of its proposed route and a proposed alternative.
It's great that they approved the project but I'm just a little worried about why they're involved. Their primary responsibility is monitoring public utilities. There's no doubt that politicians create 'innovative' definitions for words but that doesn't mean a pipeline is a public utility.
There's no justification for adding the PUC into the regulatory process -- except if the goal is to create another hoop for companies to jump through. Then it makes perfect sense. If creating multiple hoops is the goal, then having the PUC review pipeline projects is imperative.
There are multiple agencies that review these types of proposals. Why? Shouldn't Minnesota create a one-stop shopping center for reviews? Shouldn't there be a time limit placed on both parties to speed up the review process? That way, companies can't run out the clock by withholding important information and regulators can't string companies along with endless amounts of questions.
Streamlining the review process gets important projects approved quickly while still asking the important questions.
There's a throng of anti-corporation organizations filled with environmental activists attempting to kill the Sandpiper Pipeline project. They thrive off of multiple bites at the apple during the regulatory process. They're assisted by politicians like Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken, not to mention Gov. Dayton, Lt. Gov. Smith and legislators like Rep. Thissen and Sen. Marty.
These environmentalists will stand in the way of this type of reform. They'll insist that the process isn't broken and that it doesn't need fixing. That's a fantasy. Any system that requires years to get a project approved isn't just fractured. It's broken. Companies should be held accountable but they shouldn't be required to spend tens of millions of dollars on each step of the regulatory process.
A strong national economy relies on cheap energy. If that's our goal, which it should be, then it's time we stepped into the 21st Century.
Posted Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:09 AM
No comments.
Democratic panic coming?
Fred Barnes' article raises an interesting question. If Hillary's stumbles continue, will the Democrats start panicking?
When a CNN poll last week showed Hillary Clinton leading Rand Paul by a single percentage point (48-47) and only three points ahead of Marco Rubio (49-46) and Scott Walker (49-46), it was mildly shocking. In April, her lead over the three Republican presidential candidates had been in double digits: Paul (58-39), Rubio (55-41), and Walker (59-37).
But wait. If the next CNN survey shows Clinton actually behind one or two or three of the GOP candidates, it won't be just shocking. It will send Democrats into a near-panic over the possibility of losing the White House in 2016, even with their preferred candidate, Clinton, as nominee.
It isn't just that Hillary sold herself as dominant. She sold herself as inevitable and invincible. She's neither of those things. Frankly, she's a mediocre candidate with a great organization:
That Clinton's candidacy is in trouble is indisputable. She's not threatened with losing the Democratic nomination - at least not yet. She has the well-financed Clinton machine and a national network of supporters on which she can rely. The campaigns of her Democratic opponents are small and weak in comparison.
~~~~~
Bill Clinton is charming, has wonderful political instincts, is a compelling speaker, and has a common touch. She lacks all four. Also, Bill is dynamic. She is lifeless as a candidate.
I'd slightly modify that last paragraph. I'd argue that Bill Clinton was a compelling speaker and he was dynamic. The years have taken its toll on Bill's fastball, metaphorically speaking. The White House Bill Clinton was sharp and quick to react. The Bill Clinton we've seen on the campaign trail has lost his touch.
We remember Hillary telling Diane Sawyer that they were "dead broke" when they left the White House. America cringed at that moment. We were shocked because we couldn't picture Bill making such an ill-advised statement. That would've been unimaginable in the 1990s. Less than a month ago, though, Bill was questioned about the Clinton Foundation's questionable finances. He was asked if he'd still accept high-paying speaking offers. He said that "I've got to pay the bills." Coming from a power couple who frequently get paid $200,000+ per speech, it sounded elitist.
There's one more problem of Clinton's doing: her mad dash to embrace the left wing of the Democratic party. After being paid hundreds of millions for speeches to Wall Street firms, she now says the very wealthy in America must be 'toppled.' She promises to legalize more illegal immigrants than the five million Obama has. And so on.
Hillary is running as an I'll-say-anything-to-win presidential candidate. That doesn't work. Just ask John Kerry how well that works. (Think about his "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" quote.)
If Hillary's last name was Thompson, she'd have a ton of challengers. In fact, she wouldn't be considered a top tier candidate.
Posted Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:56 AM
No comments.
Joni Ernst, rising GOP star
Last fall, I wrote lots of posts and articles about Joni Ernst because a) she caught everyone's attention and b) it was clear that she was a rising star in the GOP. Her Roast and Ride event will be bigger than the Iowa Straw Poll. It's clear that Joni Ernst isn't taking her foot off the pedal in terms of gaining notoriety. People are noticing :
BOONE, Iowa - It's a newly created political event, hosted by a first-year senator who's barely known outside her state. Yet seven presidential candidates and the national media horde has descended on this rural town 45 minutes from Des Moines because the significance of the first annual 'Joni Ernst's Roast and Ride' is already clear: amid great uncertainty about which White House hopefuls will choose to compete in the state GOP's embattled straw poll in August, this could end up being one of Iowa's most important retail politicking events of the year.
The only modification I'd make to that paragraph is I'd eliminate the words "one of." I wouldn't be surprised if it was easily Iowa's most important retail politicking event of the year.
According to this map , Sen. Ernst defeated her Democratic opponent 52.2% - 43.7%. She defeated Bruce Braley by 95,000+ votes in a state that cast 1,100,000 votes, which indicates that Iowa's buying what she's selling.
Iowa is a state that should flip into the Republicans' column this time. The Republican Party of Iowa is strong. They've got a strong, diverse group of leaders, ranging from Chuck Grassley and Terry Branstad to Joni Ernst and Steve King. While lots of national pundits roll their eyes when they hear about Steve King, the truth is that he's got a strong, ultra-loyal following. The presidential candidate that gets his voters will stand a good chance of winning Iowa's electoral votes.
'I doubt the candidates will win any converts during their eight allotted minutes onstage - all of the activity is going to take place off stage, off the bikes, actually interacting with and talking to Iowans,' said Matt Strawn, a former Iowa GOP chairman who worked closely with Ernst during her 2014 Senate campaign. 'What I'm watching for are, which candidates understand this is meant to be a fun, relaxing event designed for them to interact with Iowans? Most of the large events in the state have been forums in ballroom theater settings, not an opportunity to spend a lot of time personally interacting.'
Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry are all confirmed to speak, but Walker is the only one confirmed to ride a motorcycle with Ernst (though Perry has his own motorcycle event that day, and most of the other candidates are working other events before and after).
This is another opportunity for Scott Walker to win Iowans over. He's already leading in Iowa but it doesn't hurt to build on what's successful. At this point, he's the favorite to win the Iowa Caucuses. He's got an advantage in that he appears to be cut from the same cloth as Sen. Ernst. It isn't a negative when you're seen as a kindred spirit to that state's rising star.
UPDATE: Here's the best tweet from the hashtag #RoastandRide:
She didn't tell them to get to the back of the line, you peasant, like Hillary did?
#RoastAndRide
#RoastRide
https://t.co/VRPsjVT1d1
- Franci (@LadySandersfarm)
June 6, 2015
Now that's seriously a great shot at Hillary.
Posted Saturday, June 6, 2015 7:27 PM
No comments.
