March 1-5, 2016
Mar 01 07:53 SCSU's precipitous enrollment drop Mar 01 09:37 Defining racism, Part I Mar 03 13:10 Thissen's transportation troubles Mar 03 16:28 Child care providers reject AFSCME Mar 04 08:53 Stopping Trump at the Convention Mar 04 11:39 Pro-Trump whiners whining Mar 04 23:55 Ingraham, Trump vs. the Establishment Mar 05 11:09 Thissen throws Bakk under DFL bus Mar 05 17:00 Trump exposed at CPAC
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SCSU's precipitous enrollment drop
Six-Year Enrollments: It Doesn't Look Good For SCSU
by Silence Dogood
Tom Fauchald, a faculty member from Bemidji State University, regularly posts updates about MnSCU enrollments and the concomitant budget implications. His latest update on February 24, 2016, includes the data for the FYE enrollments comparing the data for FY11 and FY16. The enrollment for FY16 will not be final until 45 days after the end of the semester. However, the numbers will not change a significant amount and will likely decline slightly over the remainder of the semester as a result of late student drops.
The data for the seven MnSCU universities is shown in this table:
NOTE: All of the data shown in the Table is available from the MnSCU Data Warehouse.
Over this time period, of the seven state universities, only Metro State shows a change in the positive direction. Upon further inspection, the winner in the race-to-the-bottom is MSU-Moorhead with a whopping drop of 22.0%. Two years ago, the MSU-Moorhead President was forced to retire as a result of declining enrollments and the new President inherited a 'sinking ship' so it might take a bit of time to turn things around.
Following closely behind MSU-Moorhead is St. Cloud State University with an astounding five-year drop of 21.2%! Dr. Earl H. Potter was appointed SCSU's President in the summer of 2007. At the time, enrollments were increasing and continued to increase until FY10 when the enrollment peaked at 15,096 FYE. Since that time, the drop in enrollment has been spectacular. From the high in FY10, enrollment has dropped 3,289 FYE. That corresponds to a drop of 21.8%! In fact, the drop in enrollment at SCSU (3,289) is nearly equal to the total enrollment of Southwest State University (3,692)!
In an email to the campus community, President Potter recently announced he has accepted a three-year contract extension good through FY19. It's difficult to understand how a six-year decline of 21.2% in FYE enrollment and multiple multimillion-dollar budget deficits warrants a contract extension. It is also important to understand that during this six-year enrollment decline the concurrent enrollment (students in high school receiving college credit for their high school classes) has grown to nearly 10% of SCSU's total FYE enrollment. From the latest budget information, the administration lists a loss of $200,000 on concurrent enrollment. Essentially, high school students who are not physically on campus generate 10% of the credits at SCSU. As a result, since these high school students do not live in the dorm, eat in the dining hall, or attend classes on campus, the decline of actual on campus students will be larger than 25%. That decline will have significant ripple effects throughout the St. Cloud community.
Additionally, since for each student involved in concurrent enrollment the university is losing money, I guess President Potter is trying to grow the program hoping to make up for the loss from each student by increasing the volume. Unfortunately, this strategy has failed in the past and is not likely to succeed in the future.
Albert Einstein once said:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Perhaps someone should tell President Potter.
Posted Tuesday, March 1, 2016 7:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Mar-16 01:50 PM
What has been the trending site by site on tuition increases, and is part time work availability on campus or in the community a factor? Is night school enrollment a factor within or outside of the posted numbers?
Comment 2 by Nick at 02-Mar-16 02:13 PM
I heard that SCSU is cutting 6 sports. I am really starting to hate my alma matter.
Comment 3 by eric z at 02-Mar-16 06:33 PM
Nick - It was on Strib, "9 minutes ago" from the timestamp of this comment:
http://www.startribune.com/st-cloud-state-dropping-6-sports-programs/370796061/
I just saw it, and remembered Gary had posted.
Comment 4 by eric z at 02-Mar-16 06:38 PM
Nick and Gary and others - what I did not see there in Strib coverage, dropping programs, contracting, can mean equipment and facility and coaching - payroll savings, but not letting those on scholarship suck eggs. Or it can mean, see you guys and gals to the door unless you pony up tuition now. The latter change would really be raw.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Mar-16 11:57 AM
Eric, retrenchment is imminent. Retrenchment is just a fancy way of saying termination.
Comment 5 by Crimson Trace at 02-Mar-16 11:27 PM
$10 million in the hole equates to a lot of ponies.
Comment 6 by jarrett at 04-Mar-16 04:20 AM
Arrogance and ruling with condescension will never turn around St Cloud State...EVER. This guy should have been gone after the first 10 million deficit, like ANY other CEO on earth.
Comment 7 by Crimson Trace at 04-Mar-16 09:01 AM
Well said, Jarrett. Only in Minnesota would Chancellor Rosenstone not only renew the SCSU CEO, but award an excellent performance bonus for these enormous budget deficits. Where are the legislators these days?
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 04-Mar-16 09:08 AM
The legislators don't care at this point. It's disappointing.
Defining racism, Part I
To hear the St. Cloud Times talk about it, you'd think that St. Cloud residents are the vilest of bigots. While this LTE wasn't written by the Times' Editorial Board, it certainly uses the language the Board uses. It assumes that "white cultural norms" are automatically racist. They aren't.
Prof. Tripp wrote that "But these racial incidents are merely symptoms of institutional racism in the St. Cloud public school system, a system that operates on white cultural norms, which are reinforced by a white standard code of student conduct. The rules are enforced in a racially biased way to exclude many black youth from the public school system." It's worth questioning Prof. Tripp's judgment in this matter, especially considering the fact that he's a professor in the "Racial Issues Colloquium" at St. Cloud State.
A quick perusal of the Racial Issues Colloquium website reveals that "the Racial Issues Colloquium comprises faculty from the College of Liberal Arts and School of Education committed to providing courses that offer students a critical analysis of the effects of racism, discrimination and oppression in the lives of African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans and Chicano/as in the United States."
That sounds like an interesting description. Unfortunately, there's no indication that these concepts/principles can be objectively defined. Without objective definitions, this is just a bunch of words that don't have a meaning. There's more to this subject than just this. See Part II this afternoon.
Posted Tuesday, March 1, 2016 9:37 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Mar-16 01:45 PM
What are "white cultural norms?"
What would the man substitute for Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton? For Greek art and architecture, Michalango, Rembrant, or Picasso? For Euclid, Newton, Einstein, and Copernicus? For Madison, the Roosevelts, or Jefferson? For Bach or Mozart?
If he does not like Milton Friedman or Katherine the Great, Karl Marx, or the Marx brothers that's something else, but Europe was what it was, over time, and European culture, while including much vile warfare, has sustained a quality over centuries.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Mar-16 08:35 AM
Eric, those are all legitimate questions. I wish I could give you a politically correct response but I can't.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-Mar-16 07:22 AM
Super Tuesday - Gary, knowing you as a Rubio supporter, I expect you are independently working on a post, but in anticipation, congrats on the Rubio plurality in Minnesota caucusing. Marco can say he's won a state, and with Trump having moved to Florida we can see if Rubio gets the plurality there as Cruz did in Texas yesterday.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Mar-16 08:32 AM
Good guess Eric.
Comment 3 by eric z at 02-Mar-16 07:37 AM
Rubio got double digit votes in all the Super Tuesday states in play, and if you add the other candidates' delegate counts together they are almost equal to Trump's which to me says there may among the trailing contestants, at the convention, be enough spread votes to deny Trump a first ballot victory. Obviously if Trump trends better by March 15, and Rubio does not take Florida, it could be over quickly. Clinton took the South, but not Minnesota in the caucus straw polling. Correct me if wrong, but proportioning in accord with the caucus results was made binding on the Minnesota GOP side but not the DFL, so that Bernie, by the time of the Minnesota state convention could see defeat snatched from his victory. If that happens it might anger some people, as Trump support might react if a brokered GOP convention denies Trump.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Mar-16 08:33 AM
Bernie is toast, though it's certain that he'll continue. The only way Hillary wins is if Trump is GOP nominee.
Comment 4 by eric z at 02-Mar-16 06:28 PM
Gary, I found an MPR answer, GOP caucus proportioning is binding, the DFL has its superdelegates, etc., and the item was a bit more vague. Also The Greenpapers
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MN-R
indicated GOP results were binding [MPR said for the first time].
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/02/27/state-presidential-caucus-guide
I hope that clarifies things. Bernie likely will trail and lose at the convention, but there are some big full slate to the winner [winner take all] states to come, and if the superdelegates are cognizant to see a split and look to who, apart from their votes would win, and are fair, who knows. The winner take all situation in remaining states might help Trump, where a plurality takes all instead of a split allowing a
brokered convention.
I expect either party monkeying around at a convention will cause hard feelings, and coming together in solidarity depends on trust that a slate was treated and lost fairly, and not by contravention.
Thissen's transportation troubles
Rep. Paul Thissen specializes in hot partisan rhetoric. Unfortunately for Minnesotans, he's a disaster when it comes to solving Minnesota's biggest problems. Rep. Tim Kelly, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, called Thissen out on Thissen's failure in this op-ed when he wrote "Do you recall Thissen's 'comprehensive transportation solution that truly fixes the problem long-term' from two years ago? Me either, because it didn't exist ."
In 2013, Thissen was too busy bragging about the DFL's historic investment in education to pay attention to transportation, saying "We kept the promises we made to the people of Minnesota to complete our work on time, balance the budget honestly, and invest in priorities Minnesotans broadly share like education, property tax relief and job creation."
Rep. Thissen won't like talking about how the DFL's "historic investment" in education resulted in gigantic property tax increases in places like Princeton and St. Cloud .
This picture is a list of then-Speaker Thissen's official statements:
Conspicuously missing from those archived statements is something expressing the DFL's prioritizing transportation. In fact, it's nowhere to be found. It's interesting that then-Speaker Thissen had time to praise Gov. Dayton's Unsession :
Governor Dayton has rightly put a focus on ways we can make our government work better for the people of Minnesota with his 'unsession' legislative agenda. We will work with the Governor and with legislators on both sides of aisle to move forward with common sense ideas to make our government more 'user-friendly' to the people and small businesses of Minnesota.
Again, the DFL had the time to hold an Unsession but they didn't put a priority on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. It's appalling that the Twin Cities media hasn't pressured Rep. Thissen into giving an answer as to why the DFL put a higher priority on holding an Unsession than they put on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges.
Perhaps it's because Thissen, like the DFL, isn't interested in fixing Minnesota's problems.
Posted Thursday, March 3, 2016 1:10 PM
No comments.
Child care providers reject AFSCME
In the end, in-home child care providers rejected AFSCME's forced unionization plan. In fact, the vote wasn't that close. According to this article , the "vote was 1,014-392 in a Tuesday count by the state Bureau of Mediation Services from ballots mailed to providers last month."
Don Davis, who wrote this article, is right in saying that the "election was a defeat for Gov. Mark Dayton and other Democrats who promoted the unionization effort. Republicans declared the results show that childcare providers do not want state interference."
When the DFL pushed the forced unionization vote down the child care providers' throats, LFR reported on the fight between the child care providers and the DFL's special interest allies. Though I wasn't there at the Capitol, I watched until 6:00 am via the House's livestream. That's how I gathered the information that went into this post.
The DFL loves to talk about how they're the party of the little guy. That's BS. Child care providers rejected AFSCME unionization by a 72%-28% margin. The only time they side with the little guy is when the little guy agrees with the DFL's special interest allies. Period.
Senate Minority Leader David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, said Dayton administration "did not follow the law" when it set up the election, ruling that many providers did not qualify for ballots.
"This vote should be the final word on Dayton's shameful effort to pay back the AFSCME union for their early support of his campaign for governor," Hann said. "Senate Republicans will now push to have the law repealed in the face of such strong opposition from providers and parents.'
House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, joined Hann in delivering harsh reaction. "Gov. Dayton tried and failed to rig an election that would have increased childcare costs for hardworking parents and caused headaches for independent providers."
Sen. Bakk will block the GOP's attempt to repeal the law because he can't afford to piss off AFSCME in an election year. It's that simple. Sen. Bakk isn't about to fight the special interests that contribute to DFL campaigns and comprise the DFL's GOTV operation.
Originally posted Thursday, March 3, 2016, revised 28-Sep 5:12 PM
No comments.
Stopping Trump at the Convention
Jonah Goldberg's article highlights the transition that's happening within the Republican nominating race. Goldberg rightly highlights the fact that candidates are starting to use reality TV tactics against the reality TV star. Goldberg also highlights the fact that Mr. Trump doesn't like it when the tactics that he's used against his opponents are used against him.
When Mr. Goldberg wrote about shows like Survivor, The Bachelor and The Apprentice, he said that "in many of these shows, the game is played the same way: Groups form alliances. Sometimes these alliances are formal, often they are tacit and voluntary - but they are all temporary." Then he said "Trump has been playing the game all along, and now that he's ahead, he doesn't think anyone should be allowed to change their tactics to beat him."
It isn't surprising that Mr. Trump doesn't like having his tactics turned against him. That's because Mr. Trump doesn't like losing. That's tough. It isn't required that he like having the tables turned on himself.
The race has hit a potential tipping point. If Trump wins Ohio and Florida, he'll be the GOP nominee. After last night's debate, it isn't as likely to go Trump as it was the night of Super Tuesday. That's partially because John Kasich had a solid performance, partially because Sen. Rubio and Sen. Cruz beat up on Trump last night.
Further complicating matters is the #NeverTrump movement on Twitter. It would be deliciously ironic if Twitter took down the Twitter gutter snipe. In state after state, politicians and conservative activists are putting together a movement that's opposing Mr. Trump. They're saying that they'll never vote for Trump, even if he's the GOP nominee. That gives activists in the upcoming states a base of support to vote for the Republican not named Trump with the most support in that state.
In Florida, that means the #NeverTrump forces should rally to Sen. Rubio. In Ohio, they should support John Kasich. The first goal of the movement is to deny Trump a first ballot victory at the Republican National Convention. The next goal is to pick a candidate that Republicans can unite around.
Trump's supporters won't like it if he's denied the nomination but that's tough. At this point, we should admit that the GOP won't be a portrait in family harmony. The good news is that they don't need to be. The GOP won't be running against a juggernaut. They'll be running against Hillary Clinton, who is a mediocre candidate.
I won't predict that #NeverTrump will tip the nomination in the direction of Cruz, Kasich or Rubio. I will say, however, that it isn't the longshot that Charles Krauthammer and Laura Ingraham think it is. It doesn't help Trump that he's constantly changing positions on important policies. In this instance, he changed his position on H-1B visas twice in a night:
Posted Friday, March 4, 2016 8:53 AM
No comments.
Pro-Trump whiners whining
Donald Trump has used one of the central tenets of reality TV to jump into the lead in the race to be the GOP presidential nominee. That's fine. All's fair with tactics as long as they aren't illegal. The old saying that "politics ain't beanbag" is still true. What's funny is that Trump's supporters are whining that Trump's GOP opponents have picked up on Trump's reality TV tactics and are starting to use Mr. Trump's tactics against him.
Based on Jonah Goldberg's article , Trump's supporters, especially those in talk radio, have a glass jaw. If you don't believe that, just read my article about Sen. Ben Sasse confronting Sean Hannity at CPAC yesterday. According to this Blaze article , "Sasse confronted Sean Hannity Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, chastising the Fox News host for suggesting his refusal to vote for Donald Trump was equivalent to a vote for Hillary Clinton."
Trump himself started the whining during an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
Jonah Goldberg highlighted the Trumpians' glass jaw with this observation:
'How dare you try to tell voters how to vote!' cried countless pro-Trump cable-news commentators, pundits, and radio hosts. It's a fascinating complaint coming from people who make a living by offering their opinions on how voters should vote. It's also nonsense. If opposing Trump is now the definition of the establishment, then roughly 66 percent of GOP primary voters are members of the establishment. The 'silent majority' isn't a majority and most certainly isn't silent. Alas, 'The Loud Plurality for Trump!' doesn't look as good on homemade signs at rallies.
That's proof that whiners will whine, especially when they don't win.
I'd suggest that conservatives in the #NeverTrump movement should prepare for a lengthy period of whining from the Trumpians.
Posted Friday, March 4, 2016 11:39 AM
No comments.
Ingraham, Trump vs. the Establishment
Laura Ingraham has apparently named herself the determiner of who is the GOP establishment and who is part of a populist movement of, by and for the people. In one of her articles, she throws the kitchen sink at the GOP establishment. (I won't supply the link because I don't want to drive traffic to her website.)
According to Ingraham's article, the "takeaway for the GOP Establishment, and its enablers at places like National Review and RedState, will be that Marco Rubio's win in Minnesota, combined with Cruz's victories in Texas and Oklahoma and the close-ish race in Virginia, show that Donald Trump can be stopped. They just have to keep going negative."
First, it's frightening to think that Ms. Ingraham thinks of RedState is part of the GOP establishment. While I haven't always agreed with RedState's beliefs and political analysis, I've never questioned their commitment to TEA Party principles. Second, while I agree that NRO is GOP Establishment-ish, I can't say that they're card-carrying members of the GOP establishment. Writers like Jonah Goldberg, Jim Geraghty and Kevin Williamson are thinkers who don't take their marching orders from anyone, much less from the ever-morphing GOP Establishment.
This statement is utterly mindless:
There's no point in complaining about this. Trump represents a potentially existential threat to the Donor Class.
When Trump told Bret Baier that soldiers would obey his illegal orders, did that represent a "potentially existential threat to the donor class" or did it represent that rantings of a lunatic who didn't care about the rule of law? Trump didn't reverse himself until after conservatives wrote negative articles criticizing Mr. Trump for his willingness to order troops to commit war crimes.
At the same time, this primary season has demonstrated that the Establishment has some real problems. It's clear that Rubio is a deeply flawed candidate. It's clear he struggles to reach people who aren't already committed to the Establishment Agenda. It's clear that the voters are screaming "NO!" to the Establishment's agenda; they have rejected it in almost every state by almost overwhelming numbers.
What's equally clear is that conservative activists, like the activists populating CPAC, have noticed that Mr. Trump "is a deeply flawed candidate" who "struggles to reach people who aren't" repeating Mr. Trump's cliches.
The GOP Establishment didn't start the #NeverTrump movement. Sen. Ben Sasse, (R-NE), is the spiritual leader of the movement. Calling a freshman senator from Nebraska who confronted Sean Hannity at CPAC , "chastising the Fox News host for suggesting his refusal to vote for Donald Trump was equivalent to a vote for Hillary Clinton." Here's the set of questions Sen. Sasse posed to Mr. Trump that have gone unanswered:
Q1: You said you want single-payer 'govt pays4everyone" [health care]. If that isn't your position now when did it change? Why?
Q2: You've said you 'hate the concept of guns.' Why the change? When did it happen? What's the 2nd Amendment mean to you?
Q3: A few yrs ago u proposed $6trillion tax hike. Still want to do that? Agree w/ Biden that higher taxes=more patriotism?
Q4: You brag about many affairs w/ married women. Have you repented? To harmed children & spouses? Do you think it matters?
Q5: I believe 1 of the most damaging things POTUS Obama did is ignore Constitution, act on his own,& bypass Congress Next GOP POTUS must roll this back & reaffirm a Constitutional system b4 we lose this special inheritance forever. Do you agree that exec unilateralism is very bad? Because you talk A LOT about 'running the country' as though 1 man should 'run America." Will you commit to rolling back Exec power & undoing Obama unilateral habit?
Do those sound like questions that the GOP Establishment pose on a daily basis? Of course they aren't, which proves my point that populists mindlessly use the term GOP Establishment whenever their indefensible positions are questions. (They'll use the term elitist, too. The words are interchangeable.)
Opposing Trump isn't part of a GOP Establishment conspiracy to thwart the will of the people. It's the re-invigoration of the TEA Party movement after high-profile TEA Party activists sold out TEA Party principles for high-paying positions with politicians. We're opposing Trump because he's the embodiment of the corruption known as crony capitalism.
Posted Friday, March 4, 2016 11:55 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 05-Mar-16 09:03 AM
"We're opposing Trump because he's the embodiment of the corruption known as crony capitalism."
That's a fascinating way of saying it, and not necessarily wrong. If he were a local candidate, I would say that he "lacked Republican bona fides." That is, he does not have a good record in the past, or at the present, of fighting for Constitutional conservative principles. His one great virtue has been calling out the "stupid people in Washington" (the establishment) while failing to advance a credible alternative. Even with the right message, he's the wrong messenger.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Mar-16 09:06 AM
An awful lot of people conveniently ignore the precedent set to use executive orders, where Reagan did it and W did it to an unprecedented level. That's like hiding from an inconvenient truth.
Comment 3 by eric z at 05-Mar-16 09:09 AM
JerryE9 - Can one be more establishment than Marco Rubio? And he's not one of the "stupid people in Washington" only because he's not there doing his job as Senator.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Mar-16 09:58 AM
I won't speak for Jerry so I'll speak for myself. Sen. Rubio isn't part of the GOP establishment. He's a TEA Party conservative who's getting blistered for participating in the Gang of Eight immigration bill. Beyond that, he's a strong conservative.
Thissen throws Bakk under DFL bus
Last night, Almanac did a segment previewing the Minnesota Legislature's agenda. Included in that segment was video of a fight between Speaker Daudt and Rep. Thissen. It wasn't a fair fight, which is why Rep. Thissen got his butt handed to him.
Rep. Thissen said that "tons of controversial stuff were thrown into big bills right before the end of session." Speaker Daudt immediately pressed Rep. Thissen, asking "like what?" Undeterred, Rep. Thissen repeated his assertion. Immediately, Speaker Daudt asked again "like what? Like the Senate Office building because that was controversial?" Rep. Thissen replied "No, that wasn't last year." After that, Rep. Thissen just repeated his line about "tons of controversial stuff were thrown into big bills" without naming any specific things.
Without thinking, Rep. Thissen walked right into that one. (That's what happens when you're experienced at repeating focus group-approved lines but inexperienced at thinking for yourself. The DFL is definitely inexperienced at thinking for themselves. Without thinking about it, Rep. Thissen essentially admitted that he was lying about the controversial things accusation. Further, Rep. Thissen threw Sen. Bakk under the DFL's bus.
I wrote this post to highlight the bipartisan budget agreement that Speaker Daudt and Sen. Bakk negotiated early in the last week of the legislature's regular session. At the time, I highlighted the fact that Rep. Thissen and Gov. Dayton didn't like the bipartisan bill. They immediately started trying to blow the deal up. Twin Cities Metrocrats didn't like the budget agreement because it didn't include Gov. Dayton's universal pre-K plan.
This will be a tumultuous session. Gov. Dayton is insisting on passing his universal pre-K plan. Opposition for universal pre-K is bipartisan. Art Rolnick blistered Gov. Dayton on Gov. Dayton's proposal:
Rolnick (and many other early-childhood education advocates) thinks Dayton has seized the wrong high ground. For the governor's plan 'is only for 4-year-olds,' Rolnick said on Minnesota Public Radio last week. 'We really have to start much earlier.' Plus, 'it's a public-school-only approach,' which would rob parents of their ability to choose. 'We don't think one size fits all parents.
'And unfortunately, the governor's new program - which we are strongly questioning - is very expensive,' because it calls for schools statewide to hire unionized pre-K teachers. Far better to use the money to finance scholarships for low-income children - scholarships that could pay for quality pre-schools long before the youngsters turn 4. 'The governor's plan is universal in the sense that it includes all 4-year-olds,' he said. 'Our scholarships can be universal, too. But the first dollars - we should make sure we first fund all our at-risk kids.'
That's a big issue but it isn't the only issue that's controversial. Check back to LFR next week for additional updates on what will make this session hotly contested.
Posted Saturday, March 5, 2016 11:09 AM
No comments.
Trump exposed at CPAC
According to this article , Donald Trump opted out of speaking at CPAC because he "will be in Witchita, Kanasas for a major rally on Saturday prior to Caucus." Don't criticize my spelling of Wichita, Kansas. I just copied/pasted the quote from Trump's statement. Apparently, making America great again doesn't mean you've passed a fifth grade spelling class.
The implication of the Trump campaign's statement was that Trump simply had to cancel his CPAC speech to win in Kansas. So much for that myth:
Will Katrina Pierson, Trump's mouthpiece, insist that Trump had to cancel his speech to preserve a resounding defeat? Surely, she can't argue it was because Mr. Trump was competitive.
UPDATE: With 23% in, Sen. Cruz leads Mr. Trump 49.0%-26.0%. Trump has closed the gap from 25.8% to 23%.
Trump skipped CPAC because he anticipated getting booed frequently during the speech. That isn't new for Trump. What's new is that he can't blame getting booed by lobbyists. Everyone knows that CPAC isn't filled with lobbyists. It's filled with activists, many of whom are young and idealistic. The truth is that Trump doesn't like conservative principles.
Trump has frequently talked about making the federal government run better. That isn't a conservative principle. Limited government conservatives want as many responsibilities and decisions dealt with at the state, local or family level. Conservatives don't have faith in the federal government getting things right. They'd rather have local units of government make decisions than have the federal government put together a one-size-fits-all plan that isn't a solution.
UPDATE II: With 61% in, Sen. Cruz leads Trump 51.1%-24%, with Sen. Rubio getting 14.5% and Kasich getting 9%. That pretty much verifies, not that there was much doubt, that Trump skipped CPAC because it would've looked bad for him to get loudly booed at the biggest conservative event before the convention.
UPDATE III: It's official. Cruz wins the Kansas caucus.
Posted Saturday, March 5, 2016 5:00 PM
No comments.
