May 12-13, 2014
May 12 06:31 Al Franken through the years: coke addict to Koch addict May 12 07:58 Chris Wallace trips up Xavier Becerra May 12 09:05 Hillary's testimony raises new questions May 13 05:04 GPTW figures tell the story May 13 07:36 Kasich cruising to re-election? May 13 08:58 DFL facing tough campaign battlefield
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Al Franken through the years: coke addict to Koch addict
Al Franken's fundraising letters focus on the Democrats' favorite boogeymen, the Koch brothers. Here's the latest example of Franken's paranoia:
The Kochs just announced they're going to spend $125 million between now and Election Day -- and I need your help to fight back. A group with ties to the Kochs has already come after me once this year, and it's only a matter of time before the next smear.
Will you make an immediate $10 contribution right now to help us reach our $200,000 goal and prepare for the Koch brothers' attacks? It's not like these guys don't have the cash. Remember, in 2012, they spent $400 million on elections.
First, it's dishonest for Sen. Franken to say that Charles and David Koch spent $400,000,000 on elections during the last cycle. Then too, Sen. Franken isn't honest . Here's what Andy Barr, the director of Franken's PAC, said during the 2008 campaign:
"It's deeply unfortunate, kind of pathetic, and completely unsurprising that Senator Norm Coleman and his Republican allies are already dragging out decades-old quotes and taking them out of context to suggest that Al is a homophobe and a crack addict."
Unfortunately for Barr, there's a witness who testified against Franken:
"People used to ask me about this and I'd always say, 'No, there was no coke. It's impossible to do the kind of show we were doing and do drugs.' And so that was just a funny lie that I liked to tell. Kind of the opposite was true, unfortunately - for some people, it was impossible to do the show without the drugs. Comedians and comedy writers and people in show business in general aren't the most disciplined people, so the idea of putting the writing off until you had to, and then staying up all night, was an attractive one. And then having this drug that kept you awake in an enjoyable way was kind of tempting too. But I only did cocaine to stay awake to make sure nobody else did too much cocaine. That was the only reason I ever did it. Heh-heh."
There's no denying that Sen. Franken admitted he used cocaine in a book before denying he used cocaine when asked on the campaign trail.
Likewise, there's no denying the fact that Sen. Franken is lying about how much money Charles and David Koch spent on elections in 2012.
Al Franken has changed throughout the years. As a comedian, he was a coke addict. As a politician, he's still addicted to Koch. What hasn't changed is that he's still running from the truth.
Posted Monday, May 12, 2014 6:31 AM
No comments.
Chris Wallace trips up Xavier Becerra
This transcript from Sunday's Fox News Sundays shows how Chris Wallace caught Xavier Becerra's spin. Here's a perfect example of that:
WALLACE: Congressman Becerra, you have been talking about the committee as a kangaroo court, your words. First of all, how do you know that before it even begins meeting? And do you really believe that all the questions about Benghazi have been answered?
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS CHAIRMAN XAVIER BECERRA, D-CALIF.: Well, what leads us to believe it could be a kangaroo court or a smokescreen from having to deal with the real issues Americans want to deal with like job creation and so forth, is that we've done these investigations some seven times, five of the investigations coming out of five of the House Republican committees.
Rep. Becerra's logic is that the Select Committee on Benghazi is a kangaroo court because Republicans won't change the subject to the topics Democrats prefer talking about. Wallace called Becerra and the Democrats out for this spin because Democrats want people to be prejudiced against the committee before the committee has met.
This exchange is telling:
WALLACE: Let me ask you a question and maybe you can answer it for me. Where was the president? And what did he do the night of the attack?
BECERRA: I believe the president was at the White House and he was in communication with some of the folks with his administration in and around time of the attacks.
Becerra insisted earlier that we knew everything we needed to know because there'd been in his words, 7 different investigations. Clearly, those investigations weren't proficient because the best Becerra could do when asked about President Obama's actions during the terrorist attack was say what he believed, not what he knew. That's rather instructive. Compare Becerra's answer with Chairman Gowdy's reply:
WALLACE: Do you -- do you know, Congressman Gowdy, where the president was and what he was doing during the seven hours of the attack?
GOWDY: No, sir, I do not. Nor do I know what communication if any he had with Secretary of State Clinton, nor can I tell you why we were still in Benghazi despite the fact that there was an escalation in violence in the months leading up, nor do I know whether or not the president called any of our allies in the region and said, can you get any assets to Benghazi? We're under attack. I have more questions than answers despite the fact that committees of Congress have looked at this attack for 19 months now.
Chairman Gowdy's honest response highlights the important things we still don't know about the Obama administration's decisions. Still, no exchange caught Rep. Becerra than this one:
WALLACE: Wait. Wait. You keep pointing to that. We didn't find out. and they have subpoenaed all the State Department documents -- excuse me, sir -- they had subpoenaed all the State Department documents, and it took until last week for the administration finally to release the Ben Rhodes e-mail in which two days before Susan Rice appeared on this show, he was suggesting that she'd say that it was because of the video, not because of a policy failure.
BECERRA: You got juiced (ph). You know that that email shows nothing new . It simply -- WALLACE: I don't agree with that. I think it shows something dramatically new . It shows that despite what the White House -- it shows despite what the White House has been saying for the last year and a half, it shows that inside the White House, they were telling Susan Rice what to say.
That's what I'd call a classic slapdown. Saying that the email didn't showing anything new is Democrat spin. Saying that the email showed "something dramatically new" is the truth. This 'closing argument' by Chairman Gowdy must've stung, too:
GOWDY: Yes, which is exactly why I said I will never and have never sent out any fund-raising literature trying to raise money in the grief and tragedy of four dead Americans. I have asked my colleagues to follow suit.
But my friends and colleague Tommy Cotton from Arkansas did a magnificent job on the House floor of pointing out the duplicity and hypocrisy of Democrats all of a sudden concluding that certain things are above politics. They raise money on Sandy Hook. They raise money on Katrina. They raise money on Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, for me, I will not raise money on Benghazi just like I never raised money using crime victims when I was a prosecutor and I've asked my colleagues to follow suit. But it would be helpful, it would be helpful if our colleagues on other side of the aisle did not have selective amnesia when it comes to what's appropriate to raise money off of and what is not.
After watching that closing argument, I'm reminded of G. Gordon Liddy's comment that he "wouldn't fight a battle of wits with an unarmed man." Clearly, Becerra was outmatched against Chairman Gowdy.
Posted Monday, May 12, 2014 7:58 AM
No comments.
Hillary's testimony raises new questions
According to Sam Stein's article for the Huffington Post, Hillary has already answered questions that Trey Gowdy wants to ask her. Specifically, Hillary has said why the State Department hadn't abandoned Benghazi:
But I was also engaged, and I think this is what Deputy Secretary Burns was referring to, in the issues related to the deteriorating threat environment, particularly in Libya. There were other places across the region. We were also watching to try to see what we could do to support the Libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country to deal with the many militias. We have many programs and actions that we were working on. I had a number of conversations with leading Libyan officials. I went to Libya in October of 2011. In fact, shortly before the attack on Benghazi we approved Libya for substantial funding from a joint State/DOD account for border security, CT capabilities and WMD efforts.
Earlier in her testimony, Hillary said that she'd been fully briefed on Benghazi's deteriorating security situation. Combine that information with this information and another important question jumps to mind. Here's the specific question: Given the fact that Hillary had been briefed on Benghazi's deteriorating security and given that Hillary said that the administration was working to "improve the overall stability" in Libya, why wasn't Africom prepared to respond to a crisis on the anniversary of 9/11?
Here's another important question that hasn't been answered: Did Leon Panetta pre-position and alert troops prior to the anniversary of 9/11? If not, why not? If he didn't pre-position and alert troops, was it because President Obama told him not to?
I'd love knowing which programs the administration implemented prior to the ambassador's assassination. Did they reflect the Obama campaign's rhetoric of al-Qa'ida being on the run? Did they reflect the reality of the "deteriorating threat environment"?
Finally, shouldn't the fact that the administration knew of a "deteriorating threat environment" have instructed them to question the story that the terrorist attack started as a protest that turned violent? The first question I'd have in that situation would be why the administration, including Susan Rice, didn't immediately think this was a pre-planned terrorist attack.
Hillary's testimony raises more questions than it answered.
Posted Monday, May 12, 2014 9:05 AM
No comments.
GPTW figures tell the story
Is SCSU a Great Place to Work?
by Silence Dogood
In reviewing the complete data set for the Great Place to Work Trust Index survey, five statements relating to the management of the "organization" were omitted from the data presented in the PowerPoint presentation on February 20th, 2014 (released on March 5th, 2014). There was likely no attempt at deception at work here; more likely, there was simply enough bad news that more really wasn't necessary.
"Employees are instructed to respond to each statement by selecting one of the following five choices, most accurately reflecting his or her experience in the workplace.
1 = Almost always untrue
2 = Often untrue
3 = Sometimes untrue/sometimes true
4 = Often true
5 = Almost always true
The five statements are related to the management of the "organization":
Figure 1. Five additional statements relating to the management of the organization not included in the PowerPoint presentation on February 20th, 2014.
For all of the data in Figure 1, the red bar represents the average value for the "100 Best Companies." All of blue bars represent the derived values from those who completed the survey at SCSU.
The results for these five additional statements are essentially analogous to those of the fifteen statements previously released relating to the management of the organization - they all look just as bad!
A closer look at the detailed response data allows calculation of a true average value, which is shown in the last column in the following table:
Table 1. Complete data for the five additional statements relating to the management of the organization not included in the PowerPoint presentation on February 20th, 2014 including a calculation of a true average value.
Only one value has an average above 3.00 and that just barely! The Dogood Factor, which is the ratio of the least favorable (Almost always untrue) to the most favorable (Almost always true) is shown in the following table for these five statements about the management of the organization.
Table 2. The DGF for the same five statements in Table 1.
The 'best' DGF is for the statement "Management hires people who fit in well here" where only 1.37 times as many people think this is almost always untrue as compared to the number who think this is Almost always true. However, what is astounding is that, for the statement "I can ask management any reasonable question and get a straight answer", the DGF is 2.80, which means nearly three times as many people think this is almost always untrue compared to almost always true. Remember this is an administration that prides itself on saying that it is "open" and "transparent." Clearly, these results show that the administration is neither "open" nor "transparent." The 'worst' DGF is for the statement "Management does a good job of assigning and coordinating people." Over three times as many people think this is almost always untrue compared to almost always true. Clearly, the respondents are questioning the administration's competence!
There were also three other statements relating to the organization that were omitted from the PowerPoint presentation. The results are shown in the following figure:
Figure 2. Three additional statements relating to the organization not included in the PowerPoint presentation on February 20th, 2014.
The values for SCSU range from a low of 17 to a high of 25. The results themselves are abysmal but when compared to the 100 best companies clearly shows SCSU comes up way short if it aspires to ever be a "Great Place to Work."
The numerical averages for these statements from the complete data set, as shown in the Following Table, also bears this out with averages, which are shown in the last column, substantially below 3.00.
Table 3. Complete data for the three additional statements relating to the organization not included in the PowerPoint presentation on February 20th, 2014 including a calculation of an average value.
However, when you see the DGF for these three statements, it clearly says something about SCSU!
The DGF for the first statement shows that nearly nine times as many respondants think politicking and backstabbing are the ways to get things done! Another way to look at this is that only 3.33% of those responding think politicking and backstabbing is not the way to get things done! Clearly, this sentiment is carried over in the statement about "Promotions go to those who deserve them," where over five times as many responded that this is almost always untrue compared to almost always true.
During President Potter's "Listening Tours," he has frequently asked what "we" can do to be better. These two items show that the survey respondents feel a significant lack of confidence in the administration. It's hard to believe that President Potter is asking for suggestions about fixing the 'problem' because only the administration can fix these problems. It's pretty clear that to fix these problems, President Potter and his administration need to stop doing those things that lead people to believe that:
- they can't get straight answers to reasonable questions they ask;
- promotions don't go to people who deserve them; and
- to stop allowing politicking and backstabbing as the normal way of doing business!
The last statement: "This is a psychologically and emotionally healthy place to work" has a GPTWI score of 25 compared to the 100 Great Places to Work average of 85, an average of only 2.65 from the complete data set, and a DGF of 2.85 meaning that nearly three times as many think this statement is almost always untrue compared with almost always true. When people ask why the enrollment at SCSU is in a tailspin, one needs to look no further than the circumstances that make only 8.16% of the respondents think that this statement is almost always true compared to 23.78% who think this statement is almost always untrue! A total of 44.79% think this is almost always untrue or often untrue. Students and parents are more perceptive than they are sometimes given credit. It is reasonable to assume that they can pick up on this lack of confidence of the employees at SCSU in the administration.
If the administration were capable of learning from their mistakes, one might reasonably expect that it could correct these issues going forward. However, if there is no possibility of admitting a mistake, progress is simply impossible!
"Change is inevitable, progress is optional." Tony Robbins
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:04 AM
No comments.
Kasich cruising to re-election?
The RealClearPolitics average of polls appears to indicate that Gov. John Kasich is well-positioned for re-election:
Rasmussen
Kasich 45%, Fitzgerald 38%
SurveyUSA
Kasich 46%, Fitzgerald 36%
Magellan Strategies
Kasich 47%, Fitzgerald 41%
Each of these polls are large samples of likely voters, which means they're highly predictive. While it'd be foolish for Gov. Kasich to assume he'll win re-election with this polling, it isn't foolish to think he's well-positioned for re-election.
That isn't good news for Democrats in 2016.
If Gov. Kasich wins re-election, he'll immediately become a frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination. Here's the bio Gov. Kasich could tout in a White House bid: popular governor in an important swing state, strong job creation record as governor, reformer, former chairman of the House Budget Committee.
That last title is especially important because then-Chairman Kasich authored the budget blueprint that caused 5 straight federal budget surpluses while creating 22,000,000 jobs in 8 years.
Another thing Gov. Kasich has going for him is his blue collar background. He loves telling the story about how his father was a postal carrier in the quintessential blue collar city of Youngstown, OH. FYI- Gov. Kasich was born in McKees Rocks, PA.
One thing that Gov. Kasich will undoubtedly highlight is his Office of Workforce Transformation , which "identifies businesses' most urgent job needs," then "aligns the skill needs of employers with the training offerings of the education system."
In other words, Gov. Kasich has taken a proactive approach to prevent longterm unemployment by helping people acquire the skills they need to transition into a new career. That isn't just smart resource management. It's the right policy from a moral standpoint.
This is smart resource management, too:
Ohio's workforce development efforts are spread out across 91 programs in 13 agencies. We are committed to moving reforms to create more efficient, responsive and effective services for employers and workers. With better alignment, we will reduce redundancy, fragmentation and lack of coordination to improve the state and local programs that fuel our workforce system.
Too often, bureaucracies specialize in fragmentation and poor coordination in their attempt to help people. Apparently, that isn't a problem with the Kasich administration.
We're still 5+ months from election day, which is dozens of political lifetimes away. Still, there's no question that Gov. Kasich is well-positioned for re-election.
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:36 AM
No comments.
DFL facing tough campaign battlefield
Brian Bakst's article highlights some of the difficulties the DFL faces this election season:
Republicans want voters to hear about last year's tax hikes to feed spending that they warn will push the state onto the rocks, as well as Minnesota's complications in launching a health insurance exchange. Rep. Matt Dean, R-Dellwood, said he also thinks voters will punish Democrats for authorizing a new Senate office building.
'It just emphasizes that there is such a disconnect between the folks running the place and where the state is at,' Dean said.
Spending $90,000,000 on a building politicians will use 3 months out of the year won't help with the DFL's attempt to portray themselves as fighting for "the little guy". It'll send the message that they're interested in themselves first.
That'll be a tough topic of conversation for DFL politicians but it isn't the only obstacle they're facing. Here's another:
Democrats will tout a reinvigorated economy, an increased minimum wage and a new commitment to bedrock state investments like schools and the social service safety net.
If the economy is reinvigorated, why did revenues fall short?
Net general fund revenues totaled $1.738 billion in April, $12 million (0.7 percent) less than forecast. Individual income tax withholding in April was $19 million (3.2 percent) less than forecast. April sales tax receipts were $17 million (4.3 percent) more than forecast. For fiscal year 2014, year to date receipts are now $15.371 billion, $78 million (0.5 percent) less than forecast .
If an economy is truly reinvigorated, shouldn't revenues be more than forecast?
The biggest obstacle facing the DFL, though, is last year's tax increases, followed by this year's partial repeal of the DFL's tax increases. How will the DFL justify their actions? The DFL can't say that they raised those taxes, then repealed them after revenues came in better than expected. They can't say that they repealed those taxes because they have a big surplus, either. That's because they've spent most of the projected surplus this session. It's to the point that there's a strong probability of the next legislature facing a significant deficit next February.
In 2007, when the DFL took over control of the House, there was a $2.2 billion surplus according to the December, 2006 forecast. When the February forecast was published, the surplus was $2.163 billion. Immediately, the DFL spent every penny of the projected surplus. That fall, the DFL negotiated with then-Gov. Pawlenty to unallot money from the budget to avoid a significant deficit.
When the new legislature came in in 2009, the DFL faced a $4 billion deficit, which was cut in half by money from President Obama's stimulus payouts.
The reality is that Minnesota's economy could be significantly stronger if the DFL's policies didn't stifle economic growth.
At the end of the day, people get it that Minnesota's economy is underperforming, especially compared with North Dakota's, thanks in large part to the DFL's anti-business policies that are out of touch with Minnesota's main street.
UPDATE: Chris Cillizza's article doesn't tie directly to the DFL's challenges this election cycle but it's still an eye-opener. This chart is especially troubling to Democrats:
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:31 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 13-May-14 11:40 AM
Gary:
One constant reminder you might want to do is do a running comparison with Minnesota versus Wisconsin since 2011.
Scott Walker and Wisconsin balanced their budget, did real tax cuts, and has smaller spending growth.
I guess we know why Wisconsin is in far better shape than Minnesota.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
