June 7, 2015
Jun 07 05:33 Hillary Clinton, dishonest demagogue Jun 07 05:52 Environmentalists protest pipeline Jun 07 06:42 Prof. Schultz's hollow arguments Jun 07 12:29 MN350 and the Sandpiper Pipeline Jun 07 13:05 Walker rips Obama's foreign policy Jun 07 19:28 Hillary, the vincible?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Hillary Clinton, dishonest demagogue
When Hillary Clinton went on her dishonest rant about Republicans suppressing the vote in a speech at Texas Southern University, she verified that she was just another Democrat demagogue on the issue of race. Scott Walker is the latest GOP presidential candidate to expose her dishonesty :
Potential Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker knocked Hillary Clinton for being "firmly out of touch" on the issue of voting rights just days after the former secretary of state announced her proposals championing minority access to voting.
"In our state we have a photo ID requirement that would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat," Walker told reporters Saturday at Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst's Roast and Ride event. "And I think that's a good example where her statements of late show that she's firmly out of touch with I think where mainstream America is."
When asked by a reporter about universal voter registration for the state of Wisconsin, Walker shrugged and shook his head, pointing instead to Wisconsin's turnout records. "From our standpoint, we think we've got one of the most effective systems right now where we have one of the highest levels of voter participation," Walker said. "We've got a pretty good system."
Here's what Hillary said at Texas Southern:
"Today, Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting," Clinton said Thursday at Texas Southern University in Houston, a historically black college. "What part of democracy are they afraid of?"
Folks, that's demagoguery that only a Clinton or an Obama would have the chutzpah to say in public. If you wanted to be totally blunt about it, Hillary's statement was an outright lie. Hillary knows that Republicans aren't "systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting." Here's why she knows:
In the 2012 general election, Wisconsin had the second-highest voter-turnout rate in the nation with 73 percent of the population participating. The state trailed just behind Minnesota, which had a 76 percent turnout rate. Wisconsin also ranked second in the nation during the 2008 general election.
It's amazing that Wisconsin's voter participation rate was significantly higher than New York's participation rate. According to this interactive website , Wisconsin's participation rate in 2014 was 56.2%. New York's was 28.2%. In 2012, New York's participation rate was 53%. Wisconsin's participation rate was 73%. In 2008, New York's participation rate was 59% while Wisconsin's participation rate was 72.4%.
In other words, Hillary is taking cheapshots at Wisconsin while New York's participation rate was 20 points worse. It isn't fair to say, though, that New York is "systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting" though it's fair to say that Hillary isn't really interested in increasing voter participation. She's only interested in making sure minority voters turn out in 2016. Without them, she's toast.
Posted Sunday, June 7, 2015 5:33 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Jun-15 09:17 AM
Gary:
Lets remember the Democrats play this game because they need to get part of their base out the black vote. If they don't get enough of them out to vote they lose. Turnout also might have something to do how serious races are. In 2012 there was an effort by Romney to win Wisconsin and an important Senate race. New York was assume to be Obama and didn't have a serious senate race.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Environmentalists protest pipeline
Predictably, environmental activists protested the PUC's approval of the Sandpiper Pipeline project:
Hundreds gathered Saturday to protest Minnesota's proposed Sandpiper pipeline. The rally in St. Paul came one day after Minnesota regulators endorsed the $2.6 billion Sandpiper pipeline that would carry crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken oil fields to Superior, Wisconsin, according to the Star Tribune. That's where pipeline owner Enbridge Energy operates an oil terminal tied to other pipelines supplying refineries in the East and Midwest.
Anti-pipeline activists said they expected as many as several thousand people. Activists who led the battle against the giant Keystone pipeline say they hope to turn Minnesota's pipeline into the next national organizing symbol against tar sands and climate change.
These professional protesters show up wherever a fossil fuel project has been approved. If someone wants to build a pipeline, these professional protesters will protest there. What's more, they'll be insisting that the project being built shouldn't be built if there's the slightest chance of any sort of accident.
That's an impossible standard. It can't be met, which is why these activists insist on that standard.
Richard Smith, who heads the group Friends of the Headwaters, told Minnesota Public Radio News the Enbridge project could put sensitive water resources at risk. "They shouldn't have the right to exploit our water resources, our headwaters of the Mississippi, our lakes and streams, our wild rice and our drinking water," he said.
Sharon Day, with the Indigenous People's Task Force, fears expanding oil production in Canada and moving more oil through the state will hurt the environment. "If you want your grandchildren's grandchildren to have life, to have clean water, then we must all do what we can," Day said.
Richard Smith says that Enbridge "shouldn't have the right to exploit our water resources, our headwaters of the Mississippi, our lakes and streams, our wild rice and our drinking water." I'd state it differently. Friends of the Headwaters shouldn't have the right to tell Minnesotans that they have to pay higher prices for energy, whether it's gas prices or higher home heating bills, just to meet their impossible goals.
I stated earlier that FoH and other environmental activist organizations insist that projects meet their 'no accidents ever policy'. It's time to insist that building Minnesota's energy infrastructure is just as important as protecting Minnesota's natural resources. Thus far, DFL politicians have said that that's possible. Then they've nitpicked every single project to death. The environmental activist wing of the DFL, led by the MCEA, has literally litigated these energy projects into oblivion.
It's time the DFL's actions matched their words.
Posted Sunday, June 7, 2015 5:52 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Jun-15 09:12 AM
These environmentalist wackos live in a world all their own, where cars and planes and even busses run on pixie dust and unicorn farts. That oil is going to move, somehow, some way, and the pipeline is the safest and cheapest. How did you get to that protest, Ummm?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Jun-15 11:51 AM
The problem is that conservatives don't do anything to change people's minds so that they can change the laws.
We need to be proactive so they only get to do one protest. Cutting taxes is nice but streamlining the review process kills progressives' protests.
Comment 3 by Gretchen Leisen at 07-Jun-15 05:20 PM
The alternative to the pipeline is to transfer oil via railroad cars in long, long, long trains. Such trains come through St Cloud regularly in the east side of the Mississippi river. They are alarmingly close to resident homes and a few years ago there were 2 derailments of trains in central Minnesota. One was in Benton county, between Highway 10 and homes located on 5th Avenue SE. The other was a bit west in the vicinity of Royalton [either Benton or Morrison counties].
Naturally their answer would be to eliminate fossil fuels entirely. But without such fuel, our economy would implode and we would be living under conditions similar to the mid-19th century. When confronted with reality, they sputter and mutter and have no cogent answers.
Comment 4 by Kayla j at 24-Jun-15 07:54 AM
I live in St paul mn and I want to do something to help. Should I contact our congress person , state Representative? What can I do so I can be another voice strong against the Pipeline.
Prof. Schultz's hollow arguments
Prof. David Schultz's post criticizes the "dissing" of democracy. Saying that it rings hollow is understatement. Here's an example of Dr. Schultz's argument:
Consider first the most obvious and blatant assault on democracy-the behind the door negotiations to resolve the budget. It's bad enough when legislative leaders and the governor did private talks and deals on the budget at the governor's mansion. Bad enough when votes take place at the end of session at the wee hours of the morning. Bad enough when they take place in impromptu conference committee hearings that effectively exclude the public and most legislators. But now the talks to resolve the disputes over the three budget bills are being done in private between Governor Dayton and Speaker Daudt. No public, no media, no other legislators.
When have any final negotiations been open to the public? When the DFL controlled St. Paul in 2013, there was a dispute on how to raise taxes. Gov. Dayton, then-Speaker Thissen and Sen. Bakk met at the Governor's Mansion to negotiate the final details. The public wasn't invited, nor was the press. To this day, we don't know what was said because it was held in private. We didn't find out what they'd negotiated until the bills were passed.
I don't recall any outcries from Prof. Schultz accusing the DFL of short-circuiting democracy then. I don't recall Prof. Schultz complaining about the lack of transparency when Tim Pawlenty negotiated budgets with then-Speaker Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller, either.
This is the first time Prof. Schultz has complained about the lack of transparency. If you're going to make a principled argument, it has to be consistent to be credible.
Second, Democrats and Republicans joined together with the governor to eliminate the political contribution rebate (PCR) program. These program, one of the true hallmarks of political reform in Minnesota, allowed for Minnesotans to contribute up to $50 per year and have it rebated to them by the state. The PCR was nationally hailed as a powerful campaign finance reform tool that encouraged small contributors to give.
I've never heard of the PCR thought of as a "powerful campaign finance reform tool." Further, it's questionable to say that it "encouraged small contributors to give" because people aren't really giving anything. They're sending a check into the state but then they're sent that money back in the form of a rebate check. The PCR is just a way to encourage public financing of campaigns, which is anything but reform.
So-called reformers talk about leveling the playing field during campaigns. When they talk about that, it almost automatically means everyone gets the same money from the government. How is that fair? I want to know which candidates can build a grassroots organization. I want to know which candidates can raise money because that tells me which candidates are appealing to the most voters.
Posted Sunday, June 7, 2015 6:42 AM
No comments.
MN350 and the Sandpiper Pipeline
When the PUC approved the certificate of need for the Sandpiper Pipeline project, it was predictable that the DFL's army of environmental activists would start complaining. MN350 quickly criti cized the decision :
'It seems Enbridge has a new office in Minnesota today, staffed by the members of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission,' said Andy Pearson of environmental rights group MN350. 'The record clearly shows that the Sandpiper pipeline poses unacceptable risks to water, climate, and treaty rights. A better commission would have stood up against Enbridge to protect Minnesotans, but that is not the commission which met on Friday. This decision is an embarrassment to Minnesota and a disservice to its citizens.'
Here's a series of questions for Mr. Pearson and the other extremists in the environmental movement:
- What is an acceptable risk to water and climate?
- Is there an acceptable risk?
- Are all risks unacceptable?
- If all risks are unacceptable, explain why they're unacceptable.
It's more than interesting that Pearson first attacked the PUC, essentially accusing them of being bought and paid for by big corporations. What proof does Mr. Pearson have that substantiates that accusation? Or is he just shooting his mouth off? I suspect it's the latter.
Shouldn't people question MN350? Haven't they made enough statements that have demolished their credibility? I've been following environmental organizations for decades. Their predictions are wildly inaccurate. That's on a good day. Their predictions and/or statements read more like outright propaganda than statements that should be taken seriously.
If Republicans were smart, which is questionable, they'd start championing regulatory reform. They'd start with a conversation that explains how the environmental activist wing of the DFL hurts farmers and businesses. They'd probably do a series of videos that highlight how not building pipelines hurt farmers. They could include another video series that shows that the 'science' that these regulations is more voodoo than science.
If all we do is complain, then we should just shut up because we're getting the government we deserve.
Posted Sunday, June 7, 2015 12:29 PM
No comments.
Walker rips Obama's foreign policy
During Scott Walker's appearance on ABC's This Week, Jonathan Karl played a clip of President Obama's cheap shot about Scott Walker's foreign policy. Here's the partial transcript of that exchange:
SOT OBAMA: Perhaps Mr. Walker, after he's taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.
KARL: President Obama said you needed to bone up on foreign policy. And I guess you've been doing it? I mean you've been traveling, you've been talking to foreign policy experts.
WALKER: Yeah. I thought it was interesting for the president to say that, the guy who called ISIS the JV squad and Yemen a success story somehow suggesting that someone else should bone up on foreign policy. But we have. We've been to Israel, I've talked to David Cameron in the UK, we've been elsewhere. My belief is if I'm gonna even think about running for president of the United States, it's not about preparing for debates, it's about being prepared to be the president of the United States.
Now that's a zinger. It's great to see that Gov. Walker isn't putting up with President Obama's flippant statements. It's wonderful to see Republicans throwing this stuff back in President Obama's face. President Obama is the worst foreign policy president in the last 100+ years and it isn't even close.
Before ISIS, President Obama decided that it was more important to pull troops from Iraq than it was to stabilize the region. That wasn't unwise. That was stupid. It led to the vacuum that ISIS and Iran are fighting over. That's a heads, they win, tails, we lose scenario.
President Obama's decision to abandon its allies in the Middle East is causing regionwide instability, which is being fomented by Iran. Our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. If I got paid $10 each time that sentence was repeated on TV, I'd be as overpaid as the Clintons.
KARL: Okay, you've been very critical about how the president handled ISIS. Some are out there like Lindsey Graham saying we should send 10,000 U.S. ground troops right now to Iraq to help with this fight. Do you favor that?
WALKER: I think we shouldn't rule anything out. It's a big mistake this president has made here and elsewhere about saying how long we would go or how much we would invest.
KARL: I'm not talking about ruling it out, I'm saying would you do that, would you send...
WALKER: No, I'm not arguing that's the first approach. But I'll tell you three specific things I think we should do in Iraq. First we should re-engage the strength of the American forces that are there. Once you do that, you empower our allied forces that are there on behalf of Iraq to reclaim the territory that ISIS has taken. And third, you just need to do it in a way that doesn't provide safe haven in the places like Syria as you push them out.
The Obama administration sends weapons to the Kurds through Baghdad. That's a mistake because the Iranians don't want the Peshmerga to get the weapons. They want to eventually overtake Kurdistan. They don't want a strengthened Kurdish nation.
The Peshmerga are skilled, willing fighters that've gotten starved by the Obama administration.
If Gov. Walker gets elected president, he would be a dramatic upgrade in terms of foreign policy over President Obama.
Posted Sunday, June 7, 2015 1:05 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Jun-15 03:15 PM
Gary:
A couple of days ago I thought I heard ISIS called Obama the JV President. It will be nice if the main stream media will circulate that if they think Obama knows what he is doing.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gretchen Leisen at 07-Jun-15 05:12 PM
I like Scott Walker's style in answering the media. He does not accept the premises that the interviewer makes; but rather will answer as he sees fit, or reword it to be a clearer question and answer session. He avoids ambiguity in most instances.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 07-Jun-15 06:09 PM
Gretchen, Scott Walker is my first choice. Marco Rubio is my 2nd choice, with Carly Fiorina being my third choice.
All 3 of those candidates are great on the stump. Rubio's story is so compelling & he's the best communicator in the field. Walker has such a lengthy list of accomplishments and he's totally likable.
Hillary, the vincible?
(H/T: Gateway Pundit ) This weekend, Wisconsin Democrats sent a distinct message to Hillary :
The breakdown of the straw poll vote, which was conducted by the well-regarded politics website www.wispolitics.com, was:
Hillary Clinton 252
Bernie Sanders 208
Joe Biden 16
Martin O'Malley 16
Jim Webb 8
Lincoln Chafee 5
No vote 1
(Write-ins:)
Elizabeth Warren 4
Tom Vilsack 1
This isn't to suggest that Hillary won't win the nomination. The odds of that happening are miniscule. It's to suggest that Hillary isn't the beloved candidate that Barack Obama was in 2008. Getting 49% of the vote against this field should frighten Hillary. They're sending her the message that she isn't far enough left for their liking. The further that she gets pushed left, the more difficult it'll be to win independents.
That's terrible news for Hillary in light of this information :
But Clinton has lost support among independents. In March, 45 percent had a favorable view and 44 percent had an unfavorable view, for a net approval rating of +1 point. That has now fallen to -14 points (37 percent-51 percent). Craighill notes that the sample size of pure independents is small (86 in the March survey and 97 in the May survey). So take this trend with a grain of salt.
The margin of error on a sample that small is undoubtedly high. Still, 37% is terrible. If it's even 43%, that means Hillary will need a massive turnout of the Democrats' base. Because Hillary is a known quantity, the likelihood of Hillary gaining large numbers of voters isn't high. In fact, it's a good rule of thumb to think that Hillary's numbers have a definite chance of dropping but little chance of improving.
That's because a) she's had 100 name ID and b) everyone has an opinion of her. Republican candidates like Scott Walker and Marco Rubio have room to grow as they become more well known. Considering the fact that they're both within the margin of error in a head-to-head matchup against Hillary, she's got every reason to panic.
Posted Sunday, June 7, 2015 7:28 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Jun-15 07:44 AM
I think it's simply funny. Apparently Hillary is too young and not wacko socialist enough, so we need Bernie Sanders. Gitcher popcorn here!
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 08-Jun-15 08:31 AM
Part of the left's move to the far left is because with Obama winning two terms they think they are the majority of the country. What won Obama reelection in 2012 wasn't so much as the policies he supported well, but he out organized Mitt and Mitt was tarred and feather to be a horrible person. Hillary has lightly been tarred and feather already.
A lot of these leftists might be surprised on the night of November 8th that Hillary or Bernie isn't President.
The fact that Walker has been elected governor twice in Wisconsin should be a warning sign to these Wisconsin leftists.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 08-Jun-15 08:49 AM
The GOP is doing the right thing in vilifying Hillary. Bill Whittle gave a speech this winter in which he said that "people don't vote for Darth Vader."
We know that the left will vilify our nominee. That means we have to vilify Hillary to have a shot. It's important that a) Republican women do the criticizing and b) they don't pull their punches.
Let the nominee lay out his vision while taking the high road. Women like Joni Ernst, Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte and Carly Fiorina should do the criticizing.
Men can't hit women candidates hard. Let's do this right and fight smart for a change.
