May 27-28, 2015
May 27 04:44 Yesterday's DFL package of lies May 27 15:48 Rand Paul's frightening ignorance May 27 23:14 Tucker Carlson's Rand Paul moment May 28 02:38 Yesterday's DFL lies, Part II May 28 06:44 Times' special session complaint May 28 08:12 Carly Fiorina's moment might last May 28 14:14 Letter to the editors May 28 14:53 Behind Rand Paul's folly May 28 20:47 Baltimore's leadership deficit
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Yesterday's DFL package of lies
Yesterday morning, another DFL LTE lied to the public in the DFL's attempt to appease Education Minnesota. Here's Kat Harrison's LTE , complete with highlighted DFL propaganda:
Anyone trying to portray Senate Democrats as opposed to Gov. Mark Dayton is flat out wrong. Majority Leader Tom Bakk, Assistant Majority Leader Katie Sieben, education chair Sen. Chuck Wiger and many other senators have been very vocal about their support for the governor's plan.
The reason why they weren't able to pass a bill including pre-K for our youngest learners was due to the refusal of House Republicans. Why did they block this opportunity for Minnesota's kids? It's thanks to their quest for, above all else, tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. They'd rather sacrifice our kids than the wealthy donors they bow down to.
First, Harrison's assertion that Senate Democrats support Gov. Dayton's plan is a fanciful portrayal of the truth. I wrote this post , complete with a picture of the voting board in the Senate, that showed the Education Bill passing by a vote of 52-14. If Ms. Harrison thinks that Democrats supported Gov. Dayton's education proposal, why didn't Gov. Dayton's proposal pass the Senate? His proposal was defeated. Also, if Democrats supported Gov. Dayton's proposal, why did the conference committee report, which rejected Gov. Dayton's proposal, pass with a veto-proof majority in the Senate?
Second, Republicans didn't reject Gov. Dayton's proposal to pay for tax cuts for "the rich." That isn't saying Republicans didn't want to pass tax cuts. It's just that they weren't for "the rich." Republicans rejected Gov. Dayton's early childhood learning proposal because it's terrible policy. Why would a sane person pass a bill that's filled with unfunded mandates and a hidden $2,200,000,000 property tax increase? Why would sane people vote for legislation that isn't financially sustainable?
The Association of Minneapolis School Districts (AMSD) rejected Gov. Dayton's proposal. The Minnesota School Board Association rejected it , too.
If the DFL insists on lying about tax cuts to "millionaires and billionaires", then it's time to tell the DFL to produce proof that substantiates their accusations. This Friday night, I hope a Republican panelist on Almanac's Roundtable insists that the DFL legislator produce proof of their accusation. If they make that accusation, insist that they tell you what section of the tax bill the tax cuts for big corporations and "the rich" are located in. Tell them firmly that you're rejecting their accusations as lies until they can cite which section of the tax bill these tax cuts for the wealthy are in.
Embarrass the DFL legislators if it's required. Teach them the lesson that their reckless accusations comes with a price. Pitchers throw a pitch inside to a batter leaning out over the plate to stop them from getting an advantage on pitches to the outside corner of the plate. Republicans should apply that principle with Democrats by exposing their lies with facts.
It's time to give the DFL an incentive to not lie. That doesn't come by gently disagreeing with them when they're lying through their teeth. It comes by exposing them as outright liars.
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:44 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-May-15 07:25 AM
I have always advised Republicans to "let no truth go unspoken; let no lie go unchallenged." The only problem is how to get the truth past the Praetorian guard of the major media.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 27-May-15 01:01 PM
I agree with J. Ewing that they need to get the truth out there but it is not just getting it past the Praetorian guard of the major media, it is also being able to articulate that truth and look confident and knowledgeable while doing it. Ken Martin was filleting Keith Downey on CH. 2 the other night with lies and half truths and Downey looked like a scared little girl responding to the smug and confident Martin.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-May-15 03:58 PM
Chad, that happened because Downey's been told (and he believes) that people don't like confrontation. Whether that's true or not, it's irrelevant. Personally, I think confrontation done right is exceptionally effective.
For instance, if Martin was accusing Republicans of hating school, Downey could effectively shut him down by asking this simple question: 'If Republicans hate public schools so much, how do you explain Kurt Daudt negotiating a budget deal that passed the DFL Senate by a 52-14 margin? How do you explain all but 7 Democrats voting for that bill'? If he did that, Martin would choke on his own words for a minute or more.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 27-May-15 05:37 PM
If Downey and the GOP have been told no one likes confrontation, then they've been lied to. Confrontation is all the DFL does and liberals love that so if it is good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
I agree that you just can't go out and smack someone in the mouth but being able to counter the opposition with knowledgeable and confident people should be a number one priority for the GOP.
As you have said in a previous blog post, if if's and but's..... Downey didn't say anything like what you suggested because he either wasn't prepared to fight or was unwilling to do so because some PR group told him not to and he looked like a fool while Martin just sat there with that smug little grin on his face. Of course it doesn't help that he was in the lion's den at ch. 2 where no there one likes a conservative.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 27-May-15 06:14 PM
I know that Downey is a capable fighter because I watched him take Ryan Winkler apart in the State Gov't Finance Committee so let's rule that possibility out.
I think it's that he believes what a PR person told him.
Rand Paul's frightening ignorance
Initially, I thought that Rand Paul's foreign policies weren't as ignorant as his dad's. While I still think that it's impossible to get more whacked than Ron Paul's foreign policy views, his son's view of things is getting more frightening by the day. This video provides proof:
Here's the key part:
"Graham would say ISIS exists because of people like Rand Paul who said, 'Let's not go into Syria.' What do you say to Lindsey?" said Scarborough.
"I would say it's exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS," said Paul. "These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS's job even easier. They created these people."
Thank God Sen. Paul will never be the Republican nominee. That type of stupidity is frightening.
First, which generals gave weapons "indiscriminately" to Iraqis? Second, doesn't Sen. Paul know that pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is why ISIS formed and grew? It's indisputable that the most important pivot point was President Obama pulling the last U.S. troops out of Iraq. Prior to that, the Sunnis felt like Ambassador Crocker was keeping al-Maliki in check. Sunnis also knew that U.S. forces had their backs because they were fighting side-by-side.
Sen. Paul's belief that ISIS was created by the U.S. is fantasy. Whether they're called ISIS or al-Qa'ida in Iraq, terrorists essentially owned western Iraq, especially Anbar Province. That's why the Surge became synonymous with the Anbar Awakening. If Sen. Paul wants to dispute that, let him argue with the military's timeline of events. Good luck with that.
Sen. Paul's fanciful statements undoubtedly satisfy his father's followers. They just aren't the truth.
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:48 PM
No comments.
Tucker Carlson's Rand Paul moment
Anyone watching this video has to wonder whether Tucker Carlson has paid attention the last 12 years:
Here's the transcript that calls his analytic skills into question:
CARLSON: The question I would ask, and I'm not endorsing Rand Paul, but I do think you need a moment of national reckoning where we ask a simple question: what is the lesson from the last thirteen years of Iraq? Have we learned anything? How would we proceed differently based on what we just saw? And the other candidates, most of them I would say, are committed to this 'We've learned nothing. The world's exactly as it was on September 12, 2001. That is not...I don't think that's a recipe for success. I ...
BRET BAIER: But do you think that this is a pathway to the GOP nomination?
CARLSON: I don't. I absolutely don't. Laura is absolutely right. He's getting hammered. You're pro-terrorist. Again, I'm not defending Rand Paul. I'm not an advocate for his campaign. But I think the question hangs in the air what have we learned?
LAURA INGRAHAM: There's a big debate out there that has to be had. Will it be had? Will it be had when there's just one person making the case and an entire field saying 'Oh no. It has to be this way. It's an interesting debate. We should have it.
CHARLES LANE: I listened to that soundbite of Rand Paul and was just reminded of why he's not...of why he's getting criticism. The things he says are sloppy and superficial. To literally blame the rise of ISIS on the hawks in the Republican Party is just ridiculous. Let's face it. There are so many other factors that've gone into it and furthermore, it isn't about how do we unring all the bells that were run in the past that may have led us to this point. The problem now is how do we deal with this menace?
If Carlson wants to re-litigate whether we should've invaded Iraq, he's free to do so. It's just that that's a waste of time for policymakers. If historians want to debate it, fine. That's their responsibility.
If Carlson wants to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes again, the big picture answer is exceptionally straightforward. Don't elect a person who thinks that fighting terrorists is an afterthought. Don't elect a person who isn't committed to winning.
One straightforward lesson worth learning is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton told us in 2007 and 2008 that they weren't qualified to be commander-in-chief. President Obama has been a terrible commander-in-chief. If she got elected, Hillary would be just as terrible as commander-in-chief as President Obama is because they're both committed, as they've said repeatedly throughout the years, to "ending wars responsibly."
The biggest lesson Republicans need to learn is to a) trust their generals more and b) loosen up the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that U.S. military forces can efficiently kill the terrorists as quickly as possible. The other shift that's imperative is that they must make clear that the Sunnis and Kurds will be protected and that Iran's generals won't be permitted as military advisors to Iraq.
The biggest reason why the Sunnis didn't fight in Ramadi is because they were stuck in a lose-lose situation. If they defeat ISIS, Iranian Shiites would wage war against the Sunnis. If the Sunnis waged war against the Shiites, then Iran and President Obama would persecute them.
During the Anbar Awakening, U.S. soldiers fought alongside the Sunnis. They established a trust with the Sunni soldiers. The result was the Sunnis running AQI, ISIS' predecessor, into Syria. We don't need to send 150,000 troops into Iraq to obliterate ISIS. Military experts say that 20,000-25,000 troops, combined with an aggressive bombing campaign, should devastate ISIS and restore Iraqi trust in the United States. This time, though, it's imperative that we negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep a stabilizing force in Iraq. That stabilizing force would keep the troops and the Iraqi government in line, prevent the Iranians from spreading their influence in the region and prevent the return of ISIS.
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:14 PM
No comments.
Yesterday's DFL lies, Part II
This picture shows just how disgustingly dishonest the DFL is:
The agenda for this year's special session is still being negotiated but the Alliance for a Better Minnesota is already lying about Jim Knoblach's votes. In the interest of honesty and integrity, I'm proposing that the Alliance for a Better Minnesota be renamed. I'm open to suggestions, especially if they feature alliteration.
The ABM functions as the DFL's clearinghouse for focus group-approved lies. Their interest in the truth is minimal at best. The education bill that Rep. Knoblach voted for was the Bakk-Daudt omnibus bill that Senate Majority Leader Bakk voted for, too. In fact, 7 Democrat senators voted against the omnibus bill as did 7 Republican senators.
I have visual proof that the bill that ABM says shortchanged schools passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority of 52-14:
I wrote this post to highlight this quote from ABM Executive Director Joe Davis:
'Minnesota Republicans - especially in the House - need to be held accountable for putting corporations ahead of working families' priorities,' says Alliance for a Better Minnesota Executive Director Joe Davis. 'The GOP repeatedly pushed for special treatment for big business, but shortchanged our schools.'
MPR's Catherine Richert exposed ABM's lie, saying "Of course, this being politics, the story the Alliance for a Better Minnesota is trying to tell in its ads is more complicated than that. House Republicans and Senate Democrats agreed to put $400 million more into K-12 education. Dayton wants $150 million more than that to fund pre-kindergarten in public schools, and says he will veto the bill as a result."
The DFL is a morally bankrupt political party. Their interest isn't in setting good public policy but rather in dictating to people what they can and can't do. If that requires lying to the people, then that's what ABM will do ... without hesitation.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:38 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-May-15 08:20 AM
How about just referring to them as "A BM" as in, "did you have a good BM this morning?"
Times' special session complaint
In this Times Our View editorial , the Times is upset because there might be 6 bills voted on during the special session:
Plus, with the indication the session will last only one day, it's clear their deal-making will be done behind closed doors. How else are you going to get a divided Legislature to approve what could be six bills in less than 24 hours?
Yes, we said six bills - which raises another unsettling development about this special session. Shouldn't its agenda be limited to the three bills Dayton vetoed?
Apparently that's not what key leaders are thinking. As of Wednesday, reports indicated a bonding bill, a legacy bill and a tax bill could be taken up, along with the three bills the governor vetoed: the education bill, the environment-agriculture bill and the jobs-energy bill.
There's nothing unsettling about voting on more bills than Gov. Dayton vetoed, though I'll admit that I wouldn't lose a split-second of sleep if we limited most bonding bills to fixing up universities and other public buildings. No, fixing up hockey arenas, civic centers and gorilla cages shouldn't get a dime.
The truth is that Gov. Dayton pissed an entire week of negotiations away without putting together a budget. Speaker Daudt and Sen. Bakk broke off talks the last Friday of the regular session and put a budget together in 2 hours. The result of all those wasted hours of negotiations led to the Legacy Act funding bill not appropriating money to projects because they didn't pass the bill before midnight.
Similarly, the Tax Bill didn't need to get finished during this session. I suspect that there won't be a Tax Bill if Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk don't cough up money for the Republicans' middle class tax relief.
This hissy fit is befitting of the Times:
Central Minnesotans should be truly astounded by the ineptness displayed on both sides of the aisle in this 2015 session. The state's 201 legislators, along with Dayton, not only had more than four months to craft a two-year state budget, but they had an extra $1.9 billion to help negotiate their way through any hurdles.
Instead, they followed a path that's become all too familiar the past decade or so. First, each side staked out its political grounds. Then they all dawdled for a few months while awaiting official budget projections. Finally, a handful of elected officials spent the last few days of the regular session behind closed doors trying to create - ahem - compromises from their original positions.
First off, the Times is careless in its description. The first few weeks of the session, as with all budget sessions, start with picking off easy policy bills, which the governor usually signs. Testimony was taken as a preliminary step to getting into the budget bills. This might be news to the Times but it's impossible to create a budget until it's known if there's a deficit. This time there wasn't, which posed its own dynamics.
Once the legislature got the February budget projection, they got to work and produced a budget. The lion's share of the blame that it wasn't completed on time can be placed on Gov. Dayton's and Lt. Gov. Smith's desks. They insisted steadfastly that we fund Education Minnesota's universal pre-K initiative. That was easily the most ideological fight of the session. The proof is that they're still haggling over it even though Republicans and Art Rolnick have shown Minnesotans the specific flaws in the Dayton-Smith-Education Minnesota plan.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:44 AM
No comments.
Carly Fiorina's moment might last
The national media, like the Washington Post, thinks that Carly Fiorina is having a moment . What will they think if Ms. Fiorina's moment lasts? Imagine their disgust if they had to start reporting that she's a policy wonk and a great communicator.
Clinton is Fiorina's foil and chief raison d'etre in the crowded Republican primary field. The only woman among the Republican candidates, she tells crowds that her business background makes her the more accomplished choice to become the first woman president.
And she is having a moment this week, trying to capitalize on Clinton's frequent reluctance to take questions at her campaign events and on general press grumpiness. Clinton is avoiding questions about Iraq, her family foundation and her record at the State Department, Fiorina said Wednesday. "The Republican Party needs a nominee who will ask these questions on a general debate stage" and answer them from reporters, Fiorina said outside the hotel.
This isn't a prediction but I wouldn't be surprised if Ms. Fiorina wound up being the fourth (and last) top tier candidate. She's a great communicator. She's a policy wonk that's especially well-versed in explaining the negatives about regulations. The other thing she has going for her is that she can rip on Hillary without coming across as mean. The fact that she's shadowing Hillary and grabbing lots of free press tells me that she's a savvy media person, too, which is important.
One thing that's clear is that Ms. Fiorina isn't a sliver candidate like Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum or Chris Christie. Earlier this week, Rand Paul made another foolish accusation against his presidential opponents when he accused Republicans of creating ISIS. Statements like that immediately identify him as a fringe candidate. The GOP won't nominate someone who is to the left of Hillary on national defense.
Rick Santorum doesn't bring anything special to the field. On the positive side, he's pro-life. On the negative side, he's lost like his last half dozen elections, usually by wide margins. Simply put, people won't take a Johnny One-Note candidate who hasn't won an election since 2000. He won the Iowa Caucuses in 2012, defeating Mitt Romney by a handful of votes. To tell you how pathetic that is, Mike Huckabee defeated Mitt Romney by almost 11,000 votes and by 9 points. In 2012, Rick Santorum defeated Romney by 34 votes .
When your signature victory is by 34 votes over a candidate who didn't work the state that hard, it's a telling sign.
Carly Fiorina is a talented politician with lots of smart. That isn't just my opinion. It's shared by Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air, too:
I'm waiting to see some fresh numbers either nationally or in the early primary states which is less than a couple of weeks old. I don't know how much Fiorina has moved the needle yet - assuming there's been motion - but she's picking up a ton of earned media everywhere she goes. And yet again, the way she's doing it isn't by starting a private, internecine grudge match such as the one between Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham. She's taking the battle to Hillary Clinton's doorstep: literally in this case.
I couldn't put it better myself, Jazz.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:12 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 28-May-15 01:00 PM
Gary:
Didn't Rick win the Minnesota caucus which means his last win wasn't Iowa and it was more than the couple of votes for Iowa?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Letter to the editors
This Our View editorial isn't worth the bandwidth it's printed on. It's time for amateurs and busybodies to stop pretending that they're policymakers. Listen to this gibberish:
But whatever the legislative machinations that resulted in the final vetoed education bill, Dayton's determination to fund pre-K is the right way to go.
No it isn't. It's a terrible idea. I'm not opposed to early learning. I'm just opposed to poorly designed early learning initiatives. Gov. Dayton's plan must improve to a poorly designed early learning initiative. It's expensive, filled with massive property tax increases and unfunded mandates. What part of a $2,200,000,000 statewide property tax increase sounds appealing? FYI- That's just for the infrastructure, aka adding classrooms. That's before talking teachers and transportation for these preschoolers.
Whoever wrote this editorial should get paid by the DFL.
Minnesota, allegedly a national leader in public education, has been behind the curve regarding pre-K opportunities. Some districts fund it on their own, others do not, usually because of budget constraints. The governor's optional state funding plan at least would allow more districts to offer pre-K.
Why does anyone think that public schools are best equipped to handle this responsibility? What proof is there that they public school teachers are trained and equipped to handle this responsibility? Does that type of proof exist?
Assuming that public schools are equipped to handle these responsibilities is taking too much for granted.
Dr. Rolnick is right. Considering the fact that there isn't a limitless supply of money for this program, shouldn't we first make sure that the at-risk children get taken care of first?
Maybe the squabbling legislators needed a little break. Maybe a few weeks to consider their failures, and to hear from their head-shaking constituents, will help focus their minds when they return to St. Paul. And maybe that pre-K bill, which is so important to the children and families of Minnesota, will get the OK.
Or perhaps they'll hear their constituents insisting on not getting another gigantic property tax increase.
At some point, DFL legislators will have a tough decision to make. They'll have to decide if they're willing to fight for Gov. Dayton and Education Minnesota and accept defeat in their next election or if they're willing to abandon Gov. Dayton and stand a chance of winning re-election.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:14 PM
No comments.
Behind Rand Paul's folly
When I wrote this post about Rand Paul's foolishness about ISIS, I stuck mostly to highlighting why Sen. Paul's opinion is dangerous. Today, it's time to attack the beliefs that form the foundation for that wrongheaded thinking.
Like his lunatic father before him, Sen. Paul thinks that ISIS won't hurt us if we just leave them alone. That's projection based on their capital-L Libertarian beliefs. It's also lunacy that isn't based in facts.
ISIS's beliefs are based on a messianic worldview. If ISIS didn't use the U.S.'s presence in the Middle East as a rationalization for attacking us, then they'd find a different, equally dishonest, excuse to kill people who don't agree with them 100% of the time.
The proof of this is the fact that hundreds and thousands of Muslims have been murdered because they didn't subscribe to ISIS's beliefs. Their crime wasn't that they were an occupying force in the Middle East. Their 'crime' was that they weren't, in ISIS's opinion, Muslim enough. If it wasn't that, ISIS would find a different excuse to rationalize their actions.
Rand Paul isn't qualified to be the next commander-in-chief. He sees the world as he wants it to be. He doesn't see the world as it actually is. That's President Obama's fatal flaw. That's one of Sen. Paul's fatal flaws, too.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:53 PM
No comments.
Baltimore's leadership deficit
When Marilyn Mosby won an indictment against 6 police officers in the death of Freddie Gray and when Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake watched Baltimore descend into chaos, they became the public face of Baltimore's political and legal leadership. Now that violence engulfs Baltimore , it's clear that this disastrous duo deserve the criticism they're getting.
In most instances, I'd argue that Marilyn Mosby deserves the lion's share of the blame for Baltimore's problems. This isn't like most situations, though. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake first gave the thugs permission to loot stores and destroy buildings. She told police officers to "Let them loot. It's only property":
As amazing as that sounds, it's gotten worse since :
BALTIMORE (AP) - Antoinette Perrine has barricaded her front door since her brother was killed three weeks ago on a basketball court near her home in the Harlem Park neighborhood of West Baltimore. She already has iron bars outside her windows and added metal slabs on the inside to deflect the gunfire.
"I'm afraid to go outside," said Perrine, 47. "It's so bad, people are afraid to let their kids outside. People wake up with shots through their windows. Police used to sit on every corner, on the top of the block. These days? They're nowhere."
This explains why the officers aren't there:
Police Commissioner Anthony Batts said last week his officers "are not holding back" from policing tough neighborhoods, but they are encountering dangerous hostility in the Western District. "Our officers tell me that when officers pull up, they have 30 to 50 people surrounding them at any time," Batts said.
This doesn't help, either:
At a City Council meeting Wednesday, Batts said officers have expressed concern they could be arrested for making mistakes. "What is happening, there is a lot of levels of confusion in the police organization. There are people who have pain, there are people who are hurt, there are people who are frustrated, there are people who are angry," Batts said. "There are people, and they've said this to me, 'If I get out of my car and make a stop for a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause but I make a mistake on it, will I be arrested?' They pull up to a scene and another officer has done something that they don't know, it may be illegal, will they be arrested for it? Those are things they are asking."
Marilyn Mosby's hostility towards the police has accelerated the mistrust between City Hall, her office and the police officers. The police officers don't know whether they'll get arrested for making a mistake because Ms. Mosby and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake will take the thugs' side or the officers' side.
Two of the things that are fundamental to city governance is public safety and law enforcement. These ladies are failing to produce on either count. Based on their hostility towards police officers, it's unrealistic to think they'll suddenly change their policies and start making the streets safe or prosecuting the thugs that are murdering people.
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:47 PM
No comments.
