March 6-10, 2014
Mar 06 06:18 To: The Times Editorial Board Mar 06 06:27 Yield rates Mar 06 13:57 Dahlberg weighs in on Ortman Mar 06 14:49 Julianne Ortman sets record straight Mar 07 03:40 Fournier's political circus Mar 10 01:27 Gingrich rallies CPAC faithful with optimism Mar 10 02:58 SC Times: a portrait in selective journalism Mar 10 13:10 Dayton's MnSCU bailout
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
To: The Times Editorial Board
I wish I didn't have to continually criticize the SC Times for publishing this outlandish editorial. It's just that I find their intellectual dishonesty that repulsive. This paragraph is especially repulsive:
Faculty and staff leaders need to get engaged, too. They must start by demanding accountability of employees who seek anonymity in making potentially damaging claims but offer no proof of what they are saying.The Times didn't write about a specific person who's allegedly making these claims. They wouldn't even talk about what claims were supposedly made. They didn't even offer proof that this anonymous troublemaker was making things up. Instead, they talked about anonymity and not offering proof.
That's the picture of gutlessness and hypocrisy. That's called accountabilility for thee, just not for me.
Aside from that, it's time for someone to hold the Times accountable for not living up to its promises. For instance, John Bodette has promised that the Times would do more investigative reporting than the year before. He's done that each of the last 2 years.
What's interesting is that I haven't seen proof that a Times reporter has submitted a data practices act request, aka a DPAR, to the University to dig into a controversial subject?
Thus far, I haven't seen anything resembling an investigative article from the Times on the transcript scandal. I wrote here about how "the St. Cloud Times couldn't be bothered with dispatching one of their education beat reporters to the campus to cover the student transcript fiasco." Instead, they ran Conrad Wilson's MPR article.
Why hasn't the Times dug into the Coborn's Plaza financial fiasco? It's been open more than 3 years. SCSU lost #2,250,000 the first 2 years it was open. At a SCSU Budget Advisory Committee meeting this year, the Committee members were told that the University hoped to keep the losses to "only" $980,000 this year.
When the Times reported on the University's fall semester enrollment, the Times 'reported that enrollment was down 1.3%. That was the administration's figure. The MnSCU FYE figure, which gives the accurate picture of the University's enrollment health, was significantly different:
The MnSCU website on the thirtieth day classes showed enrollment at SCSU to be down 5.6% in FYE (full-year equivalent).
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:18 AM
No comments.
Yield rates
Are Yield Rates Important?
by Silence Dogood
The Office of Strategy, Planning & Effectiveness maintains a public website that contains a wealth of information about SCSU.
The website may be accessed here. If you click on the link for Applications/Admissions, you obtain the following document.
One of the key pieces of information is the number of matriculating students. Essentially, this represents the incoming freshman class of students. With the scale used in the figure above, you can see the numbers of students matriculating is declining. However, when plotted on a separate plot, the data shows the decline more clearly.
From Fall 2006 to Fall 2008, the number of matriculations increased. However, from Fall 2008 to Fall 2013, the number of matriculations decreased from 2,403 to 1,703, representing a decrease of 700 matriculations, which corresponds to a decrease of 29.1%. The lost tuition from these 700 students represents a decline of $4,900,000 (assuming $7,000 per FYE).
Just in case someone wants to argue with the assumption of $7,000 in tuition for an FYE, the figure below shows the MnSCU website that documents the revenue summary for SCSU for FY13 of $7,600 per FYE:
One of the key points to recognize from this data is that Dr. Mahmoud Saffari, who was hired as Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management in 2003, was dismissed in the fall of 2011. Essentially, Dr. Saffari was the administration's scapegoat for the decline in enrollment in the fall of 2011. However, he was also here while the enrollment went up from Fall 2006 through Fall 2008. More importantly, he hasn't been here for the declines for Fall 2012 and Fall 2013. Perhaps the administration needs to find another scapegoat.
Further analysis of the data, which perhaps is only something of interest to data geeks, is calculating the "yield rate" of the application/admission process. Essentially, the yield rate is the percentage of those students offered admission who then matriculate. The following figure shows the yield rate from the data above:
Not to ascribe too much to the visible decline because if you make a lot more admissions offers the percentage may decline but the number of actual matriculations may increase. However, the number of matriculations has declined significantly and the data does not show an increase in admission offers. The data clearly shows that, for whatever reasons, fewer students are choosing to attend SCSU. The data also shows that blaming Dr. Saffari for the enrollment decline in Fall 2011 doesn't seem to be supported by the data.
Unfortunately for SCSU, the data shows a problem and the administration has not put forth much of a plan for reversing the decline in enrollment. Hopefully, the administration is not counting on
to actually make a difference.
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2014 2:23 PM
No comments.
Dahlberg weighs in on Ortman
Last night, Chris Dahlberg criticized Julianne Ortman's statement that she "isn't a full repeal person" in this tweet:
#Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. It's a shame Sen. Ortman is standing with Sen. Franken against repeal.
I don't know whether Sen. Ortman is honestly against repealing Obamacare or if she's simply pandering to moderate voters. What I'm certain of is that Sen. Ortman's statements aren't winning her votes with GOP delegates.
I know that because the vast majority of delegates to the GOP State Convention hate the Affordable Care Act with a passion. Further, they understand that it's impossible to fix a couple parts of the bill without throwing other parts of the bill totally out of whack. Finally, they know that sounding like Al Franken won't help Republicans defeat Franken.
Mike McFadden favors repealing the ACA :
America's health care system is broken, but Obamacare is not the answer. Before we can make the kind of changes Americans deserve, we need to repeal the 'Unaffordable Care Act' and replace it with a patient-centered, market-based solution that will lower costs and increase accessibility for all Americans. Minnesota has some of the best health care minds in the entire world. Instead of looking to bureaucrats in Washington, we can take charge and develop homegrown solutions for health care. By restoring power to the states, we can free Minnesota to become a laboratory for innovation and a standard-bearer for health care solutions that work.
That's the type of strong statement it'll take to defeat Al Franken. Mr. McFadden would put physicians and families in charge of their health insurance. It wouldn't let the federal government dictate to families.
I've met Sen. Ortman. She's an honorable public servant. Unfortunately, she's wrong on this issue. To defeat a well-funded Democrat incumbent, Republicans can't afford to make this type of major mistake.
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:57 PM
No comments.
Julianne Ortman sets record straight
Over the past week, I've highlighted the fact that Julianne Ortman said she didn't favor repealing Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. Since one of the quotes was from the Star and Sickle, aka the Star Tribune, it's fitting that conservatives question whether the Strib got the quote wrong. This video should dispel any worries that they misquoted Ms. Ortman:
If that doesn't satisfy people that Julianne Ortman doesn't favor repealing Obamacare, nothing will. Defeating Franken is one of Minnesotans' top priorities this November. We won't have a chance to fire Franken this November if our candidate sounds like Al Franken.
We know this because Mitt Romney couldn't carry the attack to President Obama on Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, because Obama would hit him on Romneycare each time Romney brought up the ACA. Does anyone think that Franken and his allies won't highlight these statements if she's the candidate? Of course they will.
If we want to deal with this from a position of strength, we can't have a compromised candidate. It's that simple.
Posted Thursday, March 6, 2014 2:49 PM
Comment 1 by Von den Hinterweltlern at 07-Mar-14 06:50 AM
As poll after poll has demonstrated, a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS don't want Obamacare completely repealed! So, in your eyes, a candidate that sides with the majority on an issue -- let alone an issue as big as Obamacare -- makes for a bad candidate?!? Might that be the very mindset which leads Republicans to inevitably lose elections in Minnesota, do you think?
And what of the issues beyond that of Obamacare, like guns, immigration, the deficit, Iran's nuclear program, Russia, taxes, right to work, NSA, student loans, inter alia? Would you prefer a self-proclaimed "centrist" like Mike McFadden to represent the future of our nation on those issues? And where exactly does he stand on any of those issues considering the only time he opens his mouth is merely to tell everyone how much money he has raised even though in this day and age of Super PACS money means less for a candidate than ever.
And your mentioning of Romney here is replete with irony, in that Romney didn't lose the State of Minnesota over Obamacare/Romneycare (for god's sake, REAGAN couldn't even win MN!). Romney didn't win Minnesota because he let Obama define him as nothing more than an uncaring WEALTHY BUSINESS MAN that middle-class voters -- the majority of which Minnesotans are -- couldn't trust. If that sounds at all familiar it's because Democrats are planning on running that EXACT SAME PLAYBOOK against McFadden. (See http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/198158-can-republicans-clone-coleman-to-beat-franken#ixzz2tGV7N0Oq: "'Mike McFadden made his millions on the backs of Minnesotans he helped fire,' said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Justin Barasky. 'He makes Norm Coleman look good.'")
Nor is Obamacare going to be the most prevalent issue in November... not in MINNESOTA, it's not. This isn't Oklahoma... this isn't even Colorado! The number one issue WILL BE the deterioration of the middle class. (See http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-is-the-gop-launching-a-new-anti-poverty-campaign/article/2541749.) IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE-CLASS. Until Republicans understand that, they'll continue to lose elections and by greater margins. And how is McFadden -- as the "wealthy businessman" he's going to be painted as -- going to talk to and about the middle-class?
This is MINNESOTA... the home of Wellstone!... unless your name is Dayton, no rich guy can beat Franken... no chance! McFadden wouldn't even break 42% of the vote -- waste of time/money/effort. He'd be better off donating all that campaign cash to one of Minnesota's fabulous children's hospitals rather than pissing it down the drain on a race he stands no chance of even competing in.
On the other hand, you need to do a little research on how FEMALE candidates have fared against MALE candidates in this state going back, say, the last ten years (and make sure to pay special attention to the Minnesota state Senate and House races in 2012 where female candidates pummeled their male opponents... like, for example, Keith Downey's seat). The female vote in MN especially tends to gravitate towards female candidates, and that is the very demographic a Republican candidate needs to peel a percentage of away from Franken if they have any shot at all of beating him. Franken has no idea how to run against a female... the 'ole "War on Women" playbook might as well be reading material for the public restroom at DFL headquarters.
If you armchair politicos want to see elections won you better wise up and start to understand HOW they are won. Ortman's position on Obamacare is the more popular position and is the best chance of attracting the most swing voters. Period. To deny that is to deny reality. If it isn't good enough for you, well, you can move to Oklahoma or you can vote for Franken... you know where he stands on Obamacare.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-14 12:57 PM
I approved this message because it shows some people's foolishness. First, the thought that a woman who sounds like Franken is the ticket to victory is foolish. That's the intellectual equivalent of saying Republicans can't win in Minnesota. I vehemently disagree with that. I'll agree that Republicans can't win if they do the same things that they've done in the past while losing.
Next, the thought that women will only vote for women candidates isn't tethered to reality. Women have always been attracted to solutions-oriented candidates who explain how they'll make life better for their families.
This commenter missed my point. When I talked about Romney's inability to make a dent on Obamacare, I wasn't talking about Romney not winning in Minnesota. I was talking about him being a fatally flawed messenger incapable of drawing important distinction between himself and Obama. Romney's message didn't resonate in Ohio, Virginia & Florida because he was a flawed messenger, just like Ortman is a flawed messenger in Minnesota.
Finally, it's insulting that someone thinks that ideas, principles & solutions aren't important to women voters. That type of disrespectful, neaderthal attitude shouldn't be allowed in campaigns.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 07-Mar-14 02:26 PM
Ron:
When you site polling data I don't remember hearing a question asked like this, "President Obama promised us that if we passed the bill known as Obamacare that you will be able to keep your plan if you like it, you will be able to keep your doctor, premiums will go down by something like $2,500 a year. Based on the bill known as Obamacare if it has achieved or not achieved these things should the bill be repealed?"
Or maybe, "Are you in favor of President Obama going to Congress and asking Congress to pass the changes including some which Republicans had called for and passed in the House, but the Democrat Senate helped by the vote of Al Franken stopped from being sent to President Obama?"
If you didn't notice in 2012 the Republicans lost in part because Democrats got people to the polls under the guise you have to support gay marriage (so that wasn't Obamacare), you don't want blacks not to vote because they don't have ID (so that wasn't Obamacare), and because Democrats said we want to spend more money (once again not Obamacare). Sounds like we can run on it especially if the candidate can make a clear difference between themselves and their democrat opponent which Ortman isn't doing! The point of the original post.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 07-Mar-14 03:48 PM
A "MAJORITY OF AMERICANS" don't want the ACA repealed? I don't THINK so.... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html
"Romney didn't win Minnesota because he let Obama define him..." and you really think Franken (and his sycophants in the media) isn't going to try to define ANY GOP candidate as a wealthy out of touch whatever....I can go back into the archives to show just HOW BADLY local media slimed Julianne when she was a state senator over a multitude of issues - because I defended her against those attacks. Honestly, if she and her supporters can't handle THIS, they are really going to be reeling when the Red Star gets going on her.
"the 'ole 'War on Women' playbook..." the old war on wommins playbook is going to be re-written this year BECAUSE of the ACA. What's more important to women right now - being able to abort a child or feed her family? I'll give ya a clue - it's NOT the former! Any candidate that can talk intelligently about creating good paying jobs (like at PolyMet or Cargill etc) is going to come out smelling like a rose against Franken because he has a great record of BLOCKING job creation. A business man like McFadden (or anyone else who has created jobs) will do better on that front.
Seriously, Von den Hinterweltlern, you have a mindset that really IS of those in backwaters (yes I DO spreche Deutsch). This is a MAJOR unforced error on Sen Ortman's part. The Franken campaign will use this video in ad after ad after ad to pummel Sen. Ortman for the very reason Gary laid out above - it worked VERY WELL for Obama in 2012.
Even in purple Minnesota, a clearly laid out difference with a compelling message WILL WIN over more of the same.
LL
Comment 4 by H at 08-Mar-14 07:04 AM
Gary,
I think you missed some points yourself. Could you point out, please, where the post indicates, or even implies, that "ideas, principles [and] solutions aren't important to women voters." The post merely states the "phenomenon" that you see all over the U.S. right now that the electorate seemingly prefers female candidates over male candidates. Exhibit A:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/a-womans-edge/309284/
As for Minnesota, The Cook Report highlighted numerous factors in reporting Ortman as a "potentially strong candidate", one of which was that she, obviously, is a female running for office in a state where female candidates outperform the national medium. In fact, Ortman even quotes that Cook Report excerpt in her direct mail flier, so it's not like no one else hasn't considered the exact points made in the above post. Whether you understand what it all means is an entirely different question.
Is it possible that you're deliberately distorting the post with ad hominem hyperbole so you don't have to address the valid points made therein? And where exactly does Mike McFadden stand on Obamacare or... well, anything? Might make for a good blog post if the mystery is ever solved.
And the sad truth is that, no, elections are not won on "ideas, principles [and] solutions". If that were the case, more politicians would be propounding them... If that were the case, Obama would never have been elected... If that were the case, Democrats would never be elected. At present, elections are won with micro-targeting, metadata and an efficient ground game--none of which the GOP has or even subscribes to.
I would strongly suggest that you read Sasha Issenberg's "The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns". Matter of fact, you can read the first chapter of it right here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Victory-Lab-Science-Campaigns/dp/030795479X. Starting on page 10 it discusses how Franken used this "technology" to win the recount while Coleman sat by and proved himself so incompetent as to have his lawyers argue for votes to be included that actually were votes for Franken!
The moral of the story: Yes, Republicans can win elections in Minnesota. But they will never have sustainable success at winning elections in Minnesota because the GOP keeps running the same old candidates who utilize the same old tactics. MNGOP doesn't have a state voter file, it does not have a feel for Minnesota demographics, it has no sense of what's truly important to Minnesotans (see 2012 Marriage Amendment), and most important, it has no ground game. Until it does, all it can do is nominate the person who stands the best chance of winning (and hope). And the candidate with the best chance of beating Franken is Ortman.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/248396891.html
The fact that you want to choose a candidate based solely upon where they stand on the issue of Obamacare is what most people would deem foolish. BREAKING: As Long As Obama Is In The White House Obamacare Will Not - Repeat - Will Not Be Repealed! Repeal has been rendered a moot issue, and most people understand that. Republicans are in no position to repeal anything. They can shut the government down again over it as much so as Charlie Brown can take another run at kicking that football. It - Is - Not - Going - To - Be - Repealed - Period. And even if the GOP could, they wouldn't (http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-gop-wouldnt-repeal-obamacare-even-if-they-controlled-everything/). So you better start looking at where a candidate stands on other issues, because the voters are and will and they like plenty of what Ortman has to say about those other issues.
And thanks for "allowing the post", Gary. It's nice to see that you value other people's First Amendment rights at least as much as you enjoy deciding whether they get to exercise them or not.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Mar-14 11:56 AM
H, I know that the ACA won't be repealed while President Obama is in the White House. That's why I opposed Sen. Cruz's strategy. I thought it'd be counterproductive. I was right.
As for female candidates faring better, that's true as a generalization. It isn't true when women say foolish things, which Sen. Ortman did in saying she isn't a full repeal candidate. When she said that, she said something that's made it impossible to attract volunteers & delegates to her campaign. Without volunteers, she's dead in the water. Period.
Finally, it'd be nice if you didn't jump to conclusions. I didn't say that I only support Mike because of his position on the ACA. I support Mike because he's actually helped create jobs. The key to winning the middle class is by having a candidate that the people trust about creating jobs. That's Mike's strong suit because he's done it. It isn't a theory with him. It's what he's done.
Should we trust someone who's been a mediocre comedian & a mean-spirited talk show host to create jobs? Should we trust an attorney to create jobs? Or is it best to trust someone who's created jobs for a living to create jobs? That's the range of choices in this election.
Comment 5 by H at 08-Mar-14 07:16 AM
LL,
1) Minnesota isn't a purple state, it's a blue state. Could you please proffer an instance in, say, the last 30 years that would infer that Minnesota is a red state just waiting to happen? (Please note: If you wish to cite Arne Carleson and Tim Pawlenty as examples, by that same logic, the states of Maine and Delaware would also be "purple states".)
2) "What's more important to women right now - being able to abort a child or feed her family?" Which do you think was more important to women in 2012? Here's a clue: I think it's pretty safe to surmise that a women's desire to feed her family is more important than just about anything--even that of abortion, which the vast majority of women neither experience nor is it an issue that affects how they vote.
3) Actually, "Von den Hinterweltlern" is the second structure in Richard Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra, Op. 30. If you had any knowledge of it and its significance as it relates to the above post you would be utterly embarrassed by your myopic comment. And, do you mind explaining what exactly is the "mindset...of those in backwaters"? For that matter, would you please explain who these people are that live in "backwaters" and how ever do they find a way to function in every day life despite their faulty "mindset"? By chance do they vote? By any chance do they belong to the NRA? Please explain. If you cannot, don't worry about it. At least you speak German... you have that going for you.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 09-Mar-14 12:14 PM
Gary:
On one key point yes while Obama is President it won't be repealed unless we have 67 Senators and 290 House members to override the veto unless Justice Roberts comes to his senses and over turns it when another Obamacare case hits them. The only way to make the repeal issue an issue for 2016 is to force Obama to veto it at least once if not more (remember Clinton vetoed welfare reform something like three times before he signed it so Dole couldn't have it as an issue). But the big point which is why I'm disappointed by what Julie has said is that President Obama has been rewriting the law left and right on his own without changing including in effect doing what Ted Cruz did. The difference being Obama did it in a way that was illegal and not to give Cruz the credit he deserved.
You're a smart thinker how do we solve that major problem? It starts by removing the shield Obama has with the US Senate so real laws actually get to his desk.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 09-Mar-14 12:29 PM
H:
I agree with you that there is an organizing problem. In part that exists because Democrats are very good to get people out to vote on just one issue even though their votes help create an environment where their lives are being harmed. Just asked those poor miners who can't work because Polly met won't be approved. On top of it the Republicans are hurt because they can't get some voters to be willing to set aside one issue to vote for a Republican who will agree with them on nine issues. Senator Coleman is a former Senator today just because thousands of his potential voters walked away from him on one issue. In each case by the way Franken is voting for things worse than Coleman was voting for.
Keep in mind that organizing problem masks Minnesota being a "purple" if not a "red" state. Look at 2012. Minnesota had a stronger economy then most states, Obama benefited from a large black population, a nonexistent US Senate race so it wasn't a thorn in his side, Democrats mobilizing to death in the 6th and 8th district to try to get rid of Congress people out of office, mobilization of their voters to support gay marriage yet Obama won by just 240,000 votes. He should've done a whole lot better.
So if Republicans do a whole lot better on organizing then this is truly a "purple" state or even a "red" state.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Fournier's political circus
Ron Fournier's article about Wednesday's IRS hearing is sloppily written. It doesn't show he's interested in accuracy:
Conservatives are applauding Issa for shutting down a Democrat. Without evidence, the Right has convicted Lerner, the IRS, the White House, and President Obama of abuse of power.
Conservatives like me applaud Chairman Issa for shutting off Rep. Cummings' microphone in the middle of a political stunt aimed at deflecting attention from the latest Lerner emails:
I might be crazy but I'll bet most judges would admit that as evidence. That's Mr. Fournier's accusation of convicting Lerner without proof just disappeared. That's before talking about how Ms. Lerner said something that sounded like a motive for targeting TEA Party organizations.
BTW, that dismisses the Democrats' protestations that progressive c(4)'s were targeted with equal vigor. Prior to the Citizens United ruling, progressive organizations had applied for and been granted c(4) status. They'd been operating under that part of the Internal Revenue Code for decades. The biggest influx of c(4) applications came from TEA Party organizations and organizations like True the Vote.
That's before talking about the fact that no progressive organizations have filed a lawsuit demanding that the IRS hadn't approved or rejected their application for c(4) status. If Lerner and the IRS had applied the same policies equally to both parties, shouldn't these progressive organizations be complaining about inaction on their applications, too?
The dog that isn't barking often speaks loudest.
The kid that cries wolf the loudest often isn't credible. In this instance, Mr. Fournier is crying wolf. Clearly, he isn't paying attention to the proof that Chairman Issa asked Ms. Lerner about. While Ms. Lerner took the Fifth, Chairman Issa read into the record emails showing Ms. Lerner expressing her worries that she didn't want Cincinnati working on the TEA Party organizations' c(4) applications. Additionally, she didn't want it to look too political while DC fiddled with the TEA Party organizations' c(4) applications.
That's what I'd call getting trapped in God's little acre -- east of the rock, west of the hard place. At this point, I'd certainly take the Fifth if I were in Ms. Lerner's predicament. Thankfully, I'm not foolish enough to put myself in such a difficult position.
Posted Friday, March 7, 2014 3:40 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Mar-14 11:05 AM
Gary:
Lets remember if Lois is really worried about incriminating herself why is she talking to the Justice Department without asking for any legal protection. That's because she doesn't fear criminal prosecution (not to mention the incorrect division of the AG's office is handling it).
Now if Lois answers the questions for the committee like she must be doing for the AG it will totally expose what the Obama administration was doing to try to cripple Tea Party groups. Not to mention as long as the Democrats pretend every thing is settled she doesn't have to worry about telling everything.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Gingrich rallies CPAC faithful with optimism
First, I'll stipulate that Newt Gingrich is a flawed man who's paid a hefty price for his mistakes. Next, I'll state what I emphatically believe: that Newt Gingrich the visionary isn't just the right tonic for what's ailing the GOP. He's the perfect strategist to lead Republicans to victory. Newt's speech at CPAC this year is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about:
The reason why Newt's got the right strategy is because his speeches aren't about politics. They're about improving life with a political twist. Check out this part of Newt's speech:
NEWT: We must stop being the opposition movement. We must become the alternative government movement that will help make the life of every American better so that they would understand what we would do that we would do right, not just what the left is doing wrong.
The biggest thing that conservatives can do to guarantee the best shot at victories this fall is telling the American people that a) we're the solutions party and b) we trust families and small businesses to make great decisions.
That necessarily means trusting people with lots of options. If we trust families, we should be the party whose health care reform legislation gives families tons of options to fit their families' needs. By doing that, Republicans will highlight the difference between Harry Reid's and Al Franken's one-size-fits-all plan, aka the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and Republicans' legislation that trusts families.
That's a perfect segue into another major point in Newt's speech:
The smartphone will be the leading public health device of the 21st Century. It'll be the leading learing device. It'll be the leading management tool. Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess has a smartphone that has 8 medical applications on it. He can do an electrocardiogram with his smartphone. Now the Food and Drug Administration, seeing the dramatic rise in applications that improve your health, now wants to take over approving applications for smartphones.
Now if you want to see a fight where we can be on the side of young Americans and the left is hopeless, you just go out to any college campus and you say 'how would you like Washington bureaucrats slowing down the number of new applications you can get, most of them, by the way, are free'?
The party of excessive government can't control its appetite for controlling people's lives. Young people naturally love lots of options. In that fight, Democrats lose bigtime.
If Republicans become the party that trusts small businesses to innovate and make families' lives better, they'll win decisively because people of all demographic backgrounds will want what we're selling.
If conservatives return to Reagan's and Kemp's and Thatcher's belief that great ideas that make families' lives better also makes for great politics, then conservatives will win decisively.
The point isn't about sounding more conservative or more moderate. It's about who has great ideas. I'm not advocating for moderation. I'm advocating that makes families' lives better through entrepreneurship and innovation. Conservatives will jump all over that because it's from the private sector. Apolitical people will jump all over it because their lives will be improved by the innovations that's only possible through entrepreneurship.
Watch Newt's entire speech if you want to see how to win the future. You'll want to hear Newt's connecting the dots between the Bakken and defeating Putin. Newt's speech isn't getting the buzz like others' speeches. It's just the blueprint that'll make the GOP the dominant party again.
Posted Monday, March 10, 2014 1:27 AM
No comments.
SC Times: a portrait in selective journalism
John Bodette's column would be funny if the Times' inactions weren't so serious. This is the paragraph that caught my attention:
During the past couple weeks, we have worked hard to protect the public's right to see important data tied to hiring decisions regarding key figures in two of our communities.
Then Bodette highlights 2 instances where the Times' reporters appear to have done their jobs. Here's the first example:
The Sartell-St. Stephen school board was working on a final contract offer to present to the person board members decided was their best choice for the job of superintendent.
It is our position that the proposed contract should be public. Taxpayers and citizens deserve to see what is in the contract proposal so they can give their feedback to board members before a final vote is taken.
Here's the other example:
Our second challenge revolved around the Cold Spring City Council's efforts to decide whether to offer a contract to its selection for police chief. The council held two closed meetings on the subject. We protested the closure. We have concerns about some of the actions that appear to have been taken during those meetings. We will pursue efforts to see if the council's actions were in compliance with the state's Open Meeting Law.
It isn't that the Times reporters shouldn't demand transparency from school boards and city councils. It's that the Times' consistency in demanding transparency apparently stops when the subject turns to St. Cloud State. Last Sunday's Times Our View Editorial talked about the Great Place to Work Institute's survey:
The next step in addressing those challenges is for Potter's administration to begin releasing results of an employee attitude survey it conducted through a private company known as the Great Place to Work Institute.
Potter said more than 150 pages of written comments were compiled along with other findings, all of which the administration plans to examine and address through listening sessions and employee meetings in the coming months.
While the university has yet to officially release findings, it's a safe bet they resemble a recent Inter Faculty Organization survey that found more than half of St. Cloud State faculty have a negative perception of the university.
That's sloppy journalism. Why think that the GPTW survey would have similar findings to the IFO survey done more than 2 years earlier? Why shouldn't the Times' journalists think that the results would be worse? After all, the editorial hinted that morale on campus was low:
Vowing to improve workplace morale is always a big challenge. That's an understatement at St. Cloud State, where the past several years have seen drastic budget cuts and program closures happen alongside tens of millions of dollars in campus expansion projects.
Why isn't the Times interested in the negative things happening on campus? Doesn't the public have a right to know that, too? The Times ran one story on the transcript scandal. Even then, it didn't bother sending its own reporter to cover the story.
St. Cloud State is a major employer in St. Cloud. Its budget is north of $210,000,000. Those facts can't be denied. It's easy to deny, though, the fact that the Times' coverage of St. Cloud State has been spotty at best. LFR has gotten more exclusives about what wrong at SCSU than the Times has. In fact, it isn't that close.
Finally, it's time the Times stopped playing its games about how both sides are to blame for the morale problems at SCSU. They aren't. Next week, I'll show proof that SCSU's morale is the result of the Potter administration's mismanagement.
Posted Monday, March 10, 2014 2:58 AM
Comment 1 by wonderer at 10-Mar-14 12:38 PM
It is really puzzling. The two examples they cited are maybe worthy but are not very difficult. Sort of like the front-page attention they are devoting to the VA wind generator.
Seems they prefer the "tempest in a teapot" stories instead of something that is ... well ... complicated. It will be interesting to see if the results of the contracted "Great Place to Work" survey will get their attention. It is a scorcher. It should meet their test for "substantiated evidence" by miles and miles. Who needs to go "on the record" when this (and the MnSCU data) ARE the record. It's all there.
They should look at the results of this study and FINALLY start asking questions and looking into all the warning signs and MnSCU data they have been ignoring. All the pieces have, as you said, been given for them. It's not that difficult and could become some exciting, useful, and professional journalism.
If demanding that the hiring contract of a public official is a big deal, how can they ignore SCSU's mismanagement?
Somebody at the Times has decided to protect the SCSU administration at all costs. One of the costs is the credibility of the Times. The community deserves to know, not necessarily for playing a "blame game" (although that may be an obvious part) but also so concerned and creative minds can really focus on some solutions to ward off continued negative impact on the community and region.
Dayton's MnSCU bailout
When I read this article , I thought "Dayton's MnSCU bailout." Here's why:
The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) system would get $17 million, and the University of Minnesota-Duluth would receive $5 million, with both amounts meant to help those schools avoid faculty layoffs.
Moorhead already announced that it's laying off professors, aka retrenchment. St. Cloud State can't be far behind because of its financial mismanagement issues and its shrinking enrollment. The other thing I'd take out of this is that this is a quiet admission that the DFL's tuition freeze was a political ploy.
Freezing tuition sounds great but it isn't the right policy without MnSCU reform. It also can't work if the House and Senate Higher Education committees don't seriously police the universities budgets. I'm not talking about micromanaging the universities. I'm talking about intervening, though, when a university signs an ill-advised contract that's losing them over $1,000,000 a year . The only thing worse than that is when the president calls the contract a success:
What's frightening is that losing $50,000 and $150,000 a year under the best of circumstances is considered "the right decision" by that university's president.
The legislature is spending lots of time this session undoing the damage they did last year. Unfortunately for Minnesota taxpayers, they aren't undoing the damage that they've caused through years of neglect to MnSCU.
Thanks to the mismanagement at Moorhead, Mankato and St. Cloud State that I know of, taxpayers apparently will be bailing those universities out. Apparently, Gov. Dayton isn't hesitating in spending other people's money.
There's nothing structurally sound about MnSCU. The trustees don't want to protect taxpayers. The presidents don't seem to embrace fiscally responsible policies. Chancellor Rosenstone won't intervene in a university's misconduct until it becomes a political liability to him.
If the Higher Education committees wanted to do something meaningful this session, they'd scrap MnSCU, then commit to regular reviews of the universities' finances. If Gov. Dayton wanted to do the right thing for once, he should unpropose his MnSCU bailout that taxpayers will have to pay for.
Posted Monday, March 10, 2014 1:10 PM
Comment 1 by Yeager at 11-Mar-14 08:43 AM
SCSU will *not* be laying people off this year, and there are no plans to do so in the future. The ISELF grand opening was held far too early but the building is quickly gaining use and occupancy. While certainly one can question any large institution's financial decisions, I'm not sure why this blog continues to try to make any charge that it can make stick. It smacks of desperation.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 11-Mar-14 09:22 AM
What smacks of desperation is Yeager's generalized statements that are devoid of substantiated data. This blog has consistently cited MnScu or SCSU data. If that is not good enough, just look at the videos of Potter at war with himself trying to get his story straight on various issues. The 10 count indictment against the Potter administration that cites credible sources makes it clear that SCSU is in real trouble. That's a nice audio tape of a former administrator explaining how to make F's disappear off transcripts. President Potter yelling and swearing at a minority employee and yelling at sudents is classic. Nice try, Yeager. Your silence in these matters suggests you are either in agreement with these behaviors or don't have a problem turning a blind eye. Do you honestly think most people will disregard MnSCU//SCSU data in order to believe your data free arguments? Any casual observer who follows this blog knows that SCSU has been putting a lot of lipstick on a pig.
http://www.examiner.com/article/indicting-earl-potter-s-administration
http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-scsu-transcript-scandal-exposed
Comment 3 by Concerned at 13-Mar-14 11:27 PM
What mismanagement are you referring to at Mankato?
