May 6-11, 2014
May 06 06:56 ISELF Before & After May 06 16:30 DFL ties St. Paul potholes to state spending May 07 06:17 Kirsten Powers demolishes Obama administration May 07 06:54 Voting no on bonding bill May 07 08:41 Media whitewashing Benghazi May 08 04:24 Benghazi: Trey Gowdy vs. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff & Chuck Todd May 09 06:13 Silence speaks, GPTWI edition May 11 05:26 Will 'Seifert Fishing Opener' backfire? May 11 08:41 Vikings earn praise for draft
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ISELF Before & After
Prior to the ISELF building's approval, businessman Ned Tabat, the CEO of Semaphore Scientific, told legislators that ISELF had unique researchc capabilities that would help his company expand . Unfortunately, equipping ISELF hasn't come easy.
When I was interviewed by KSTP's Tom Hauser, I told him that I was skeptical that ISELF would be running by this spring. That's the target set by SCSU administrators. Based on these pictures, I'd say that my skepticism was justified. Here's a picture of a conference room in ISELF:
I'll grant that any room can be empty at any time in the day. Still, it doesn't look like anyone's sat in those chairs. That's more than an empty room. These workstations don't look like they've been used much either:
Eventually, these places will be utilized. When they're utilized, they'll be an asset to high-tech businesses and to students. Unfortunately, thanks to SCSU's incompetence, that day is farther off than it should be. Finally, here's the most unneeded sign in SCSU history:
Based on these pictures, it looks like even the mice will be lonely. That isn't the fault of the legislators who bought into the ISELF vision. That's the fault of SCSU's administrators. Specifically, that falls on President Potter's and David DeGroote, the former dean of the College of Science and Engineering, aka COSE.
Posted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:56 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 06-May-14 08:39 AM
The last sentence reported by KSTP 5 News is interesting: "The university says the ISELF building will be a much busier place in the spring 2014 semester and will eventually live up to its promise."
Well, at least this part of the statement provides a ray of hope: "will eventually live up to its promise."
Comment 2 by Overseas student at 07-May-14 02:06 AM
Well, to me, this is bizarre. The decision makers at SCSU are hypocritical with their decision to close aviation. They claim that the reason behind closing the aviation program is the low graduation rates in professional flight which, in turn, really means less income for the university by shutting down the other 3 aviation tracks. Investing in a multi-million dollar building such as ISELF needed a tremendous amount of taxpayer funding. Look at it now. It is empty. There's lots of expensive space and unneeded investment that could easily accommodate aviation which is a STEM discipline!
Another thing I would like to add is a question that I did not get an answer for: Why are the people behind this still in their positions and why aren't they being questioned by officials about their improper behavior?
DFL ties St. Paul potholes to state spending
This video shows how the DFL is attempting to distract attention from the pothole crisis by claiming the problem is part of a bigger spending problem:
Here's the stunt that the DFL is playing:
"It's a result of our road system in this state is more than 50 years old. More than half of our roads are crumbling as we drive over them every day," said Darin Broton, campaign manager for Move MN. "It's not until we get a broken axle or bent rim that people understand we have a bigger transportation problem we need to solve."
The problem is that the DFL didn't deliver on its promise of fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges after they increased transportation taxes by $6.6 billion in 2008. They complained about Minnesota's roads and bridges, then raised the gas tax by a nickel a gallon but raised taxes for transit by huge amounts.
The day after the tax increase went into effect, I predicted that the DFL would return soon to raise taxes again. Here's what Move MN identifies as their mission :
The Move MN coalition consists of a large, diverse group of advocates that knows that funding for transportation is critical to growing jobs, economic competitiveness and quality of life, and it directly impacts the missions of the diverse organizations and people we each serve. We believe it is crucial that the Minnesota Legislature pass a comprehensive transportation funding package in 2014 that requires additional transparency and efficiency for current resources and provides long-term sustainable funding for roads, bridges, transit, and bike and walk connections.
Here's my simple response to that BS: First, prioritize fixing potholes in the short-term. They're a crisis that needs fixing ASAP. People are getting injured because roads are in such disrepair. Second, it's time to stop directing existing taxes to transit. Fixing Minnesota's bridges is infinitely more important than spending money on another ribbon-cutting ceremony for another light rail project.
Third, Minnesota needs a comprehensive transportation strategy that sets new priorities based on a comprehensive plan. Putting a plan together that deals with issues on an ad hoc basis isn't what's needed. In fact, that's a major part of the problem.
This comprehensive transportation strategy must prioritize which projects are worthy of funding. That means telling the choo-choo activists that their priorities are lowest on the list. That means telling MnDOT that repairing our bridges is their highest priority starting ASAP. It means putting a higher priority on adding lanes to highways than on extending Northstar from Big Lake to St. Cloud.
This comprehensive transportation strategy must also include making better use of Minnesota's riverways and airports, too. In short, it must be a strategy that's driven by people's needs, not lobbyists' wish lists. It's time that people's needs are met. That's infinitely more important than fulfilling transportation lobbyists' wish lists.
Until the DFL gets serious about doing the people's business with transportation, they should be removed from that part of the decisionmaking process.
The problem isn't that Minnesotans aren't taxed enough for transportation. It's that Minnesotans are getting ripped off because the DFL's priorities are totally screwed up.
The key to getting Minnesota's transportation priorities right is figuring out what will help grow Minnesota commerce through roads, bridges, waterways and airports. Transportation strategies that focus primarily on social engineering are doomed to failure.
It's vitally important to get roads and bridges right because that's the heart of Minnesota's transportation system. That won't happen with the DFL in charge. The proof of that is in Minnesota's potholes.
Posted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:30 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 07-May-14 08:27 AM
Bad form, I assume an oversight. Audio / video clips should not start automatically.
Kirsten Powers demolishes Obama administration
Kirsten Powers column is devastating to Democrats attempting to paint the Republicans' investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack:
"Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. ...Why aren't we talking about something else?" House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week.
Here's why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs . He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to "underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Democrats have criticized the Benghazi investigation because it's been a disaster from start to finish. There isn't a part of this story that casts President Obama or Hillary Clinton in a positive light.
First, the State Department looks terrible because they ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens' repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi. This wasn't a systemic failure, as the Accountability Review Board's report said. This disaster happened because Hillary Clinton's leadership was missing throughout this disaster.
Next, the Obama administration's national security team looks terrible because they didn't pre-position the military so they could've responded to terrorist attacks, which they knew were imminent.
Third, the Obama administration's political team looks terrible because Ben Rhodes' email highlights the fact that their first priority was hiding the disaster. Their first priority wasn't to admit that theirajor mistake got 4 American patriots needlessly murdered.
Fourth, the "most-transparent-administration-in-history" kept lying for weeks after the initial pre-planned terrorist attack.
Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration's response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won't end well.
That's the understatement of the year.
Last week, Fox News' Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were "guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there." So much for operating on the best intelligence.
D-u-u-u-d-e, that's too much BS. That flimsy story shouldn't be believed.
White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask.
Dishonest people deserve to be investigated when their actions get people killed.
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2014 6:17 AM
No comments.
Voting no on bonding bill
Contrary to what this SC Times editorial says, St. Cloud legislators should vote against the DFL's pork-filled bonding bill. When you factor this information into the equation, it's the right thing to do:
Not quite so clear-cut are a mix of additional projects statewide proposed to be paid for with cash lawmakers want to pull from the state's projected budget surplus.
Unlike the bonding bill, any negotiated bonding deal using this money requires majority votes only, meaning the DFL controls the outcome.
Dayton's surplus-funded list totals about $126 million. The Senate plan pushes $200 million. And the House plan sits at $125 million, although House DFL leaders have talked of increasing that amount.
If the DFL insists on spending $200,000,000 of one-time surplus money in addition to the $850,000,000 bonding bill, then Republicans should vote no without hesitating. If the DFL wants to be that fiscally reckless, let them explain their actions. Republicans shouldn't provide political cover for DFL legislators.
The Senate plan provides $11 million for a parking ramp near the center. Plans released earlier from the House and Gov. Mark Dayton both provided $11.56 million, which equates to full funding for the ramp. Obviously, full funding is preferred. Regardless, inclusion in all three plans is the best sign yet that the state will finally contribute to this vital regional project.
There's no question that the St. Cloud business community and St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis want this project. Similarly, there's no question whether the DFL's additional nonbonding spending is a deal breaker, especially in light of the fact that none of the bonding bills includes much money for filling Minnesota's potholes or fixing Minnesota's bridges.
A bonding bill that prioritized fixing Minnesota's potholes and bridges would be a worthwhile investment. It's impossible to sell Minnesotans that a bill that's mostly about funding convention centers and renovating the Ordway isn't a Minnesota priority.
That's why voting no on the current proposal is imperative.
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2014 6:54 AM
No comments.
Media whitewashing Benghazi
Jane Mayer's post is filled with leftist propaganda. Check this BS out:
Ever since militant jihadists killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador, in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in that remote Libyan town two years ago, House Republicans have kept up a drumbeat of insinuation. They have already devoted thirteen hearings, twenty-five thousand pages of documents, and fifty briefings to the topic, which have turned up nothing unexpected. Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Clinton, has already accepted responsibility for the tragedy, and the State Department has issued a critical independent report on diplomatic security, resulting in the dismissal of four employees.
First, Hillary hasn't admitted that she saw the urgent cables from Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was needlessly murdered. She still insists that she never saw any of Christopher Stevens' urgent cables.
If Hillary won't admit that Christopher Stevens' urgent cables reached her, she couldn't have "accepted responsibility" for her failures.
Second, Hillary hasn't said where she was while the firefight was raging. The only thing we know about what she did during the attack is that she issued a statement about the anti-Islamic video triggering "protests" that led to Christopher Stevens' assassination.
Third, the only things we know about President Obama's whereabouts during the attack are that he never went to the the White House Situation Room and he was in the Oval Office for a briefing with Leon Panetta around 5:00 pm ET.
Contrary to Ms. Mayer's statement, not knowing where the top 2 national security officials were during the terrorist attack is, to use Joe Biden's language, a big effing deal. Saying that the hearings haven't "turned up anything unexpected" is an outright lie.
Fourth, calling the ARB report an "independent report" is whitewashing. It certainly wasn't a thorough investigation. Mostly, it was a sloppily-put-together report that insinuated, as Charles Krauthammer put it, that the State Department building caused the deaths of Christopher Stevens.
Further, the chanting points that the administration has given the various committees thousands of documents is insulting. If the Obama administration was so forthcoming with pertinent information, why did the committees just hear last week about the Ben Rhodes email instructing Susan Rice to lie about what triggered the Benghazi terrorist attack?
Testimony by Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, USAF Ret., the chief intelligence officer for AFRICOM during the attack, said that AFRICOM knew almost instantly that this was a pre-planned, precision military operation conducted by terrorists. Further, AFRICOM knew that the military operation didn't happen after protests turned violent.
In short, most of the things that the Obama administration told the various committees has either been proven unreliable, to put it politely, or they've been proven to be outright lies.
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:41 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-May-14 12:18 PM
Gary:
I'll add a very important fifth item which to the best of my knowledge hasn't been answered yet. If another US Embassy or consulate gets attacked do we have a plan that can be implemented within minutes to try to save people. One reason why the casualty count got to be four was that there was no military presence for hours to try to save those people. The count could've been worse than four if it wasn't for the heroic work of people in the CIA office.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Benghazi: Trey Gowdy vs. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff & Chuck Todd
The select committee tasked with finding out what happened in Benghazi is an intellectual mismatch. On one side, you've got MSNBC's Chuck Todd, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.) On the other side is Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-SC). While it's a mismatch in terms of intellectual heft, it wouldn't improve if the sides were evenly matched. Chairman Gowdy would still win the debate.
Make no mistake about this. Chuck Todd didn't attempt to hide his bias :
CHUCK TODD: Congressman Gowdy, you've heard that Nancy Pelosi would like it to be an even number on the select committee. Obviously some Democrats are even talking about boycotting it. But if you've got the House Democratic leader already willing to negotiate on the size of the committee, why not take her up on it? Why not-doesn't it help the credibility of your investigation if it is truly an even split between the two parties?
TREY GOWDY: Well Chuck, do you challenge the credibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee because it's certainly not evenly split? Neither is the House Judiciary.
TODD: Well this is different though. This is a select committee and select committees are different. Look I know what the previous history is. I understand that, but my point is--don't you want to -- this has a whiff of politics to it. To some people more than a whiff. Don't you agree that if you accept her terms you actually get more credibility, which I assume is something you'd want.
It's sad that Todd bought into Ms. Pelosi's gimmick, though it isn't surprising. Democrats will consistently criticize the work of this committee because they want people distracted from the fact that
President Obama and Hillary Clinton couldn't be found while the terrorist attack was happening. Democrats certainly don't want people to notice that the Obama administration didn't properly deploy the military prior to the anniversary of 9/11.
Finally, Democrats can't afford to have it get out that President Obama and Secretary Clinton ignored Christopher Stevens' urgent cables asking for more security. If people notice that, they'll know that Hillary isn't qualified to be the next commander-in-chief.
The early signals from Chairman Gowdy indicate that there won't be lots of open hearings for the committee. Instead, it sounds like the committee's work will focus on getting important documents from the administration, then deposing witnesses based on the information they get from the administration.
I'm betting that most of the reporters covering Chairman Gowdy's press conference could answer Chairman Gowdy's questions:
Chairman Gowdy's last statement has some bite to it. The media deserve every bit of it.
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2014 4:24 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-May-14 02:28 PM
Maybe for fun the committee should invite some expert witnesses that the American people will want to hear from.
Candy Crowley can testify about why after she let the American people know in a presidential debate that on September 12th that President Obama said it was an act of terror why President Obama days later was blaming a video.
They can call the guy who did the video and show that he had made it years ago and get him a chance to say for the record he was falisly arrested to hide the blame from the administration.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Silence speaks, GPTWI edition
After a Closer Look at the Data,
It's Still not a Great Place to Work!
by Silence Dogood
Back in March, the administration released a partial data set of the results from the Great Place to Work Survey. Almost all of the data regarding the schools and colleges was redacted. The administration just released the complete data set from the recently completed Great Place to Work Survey. After looking at the data, it still appears that SCSU still isn't a "Great Place to Work." However, with the complete data set now available, a more meaningful analysis can be performed.
If you look at the information from the Great Place to Work Institute (GPTWI) explaining the Survey Methodology for their Trust Index Survey it states:
"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 untrueYour organization's results are calculated and reflect the percentage of respondents indicating a statement to be "often true" or "almost always true." For example, a result of 65 on a particular statement means that 65% of respondents that statement with either 4 or 5, and the remaining 35% rated it 1, 2 or 3. If a respondent did not rate a particular statement, it is excluded in the computation of the overall results for that statement. A rating of 4 or 5 reflects a consistently positive experience in the area the statement measures. The overall tally of 4s and 5s measures the consistency in employees experiencing the organization as a great workplace. Employees were asked to respond to each statement twice, once for their own work group and once for the organization as a whole. The following definitions of work group, organization and management are included in the instructions:
2 = Often untrue
3 = Sometimes untrue/sometimes true
4 = Often true
5 = Almost always true
Work Group refers to all people in your immediate unit or department. Management of your workgroup refers to immediate supervisor.All fifteen questions in the survey from the PowerPoint slides released on March 5th, 2014, which begin "Management: " are presented in what follows. Specifically, the results are presented for the response under the category of "Organization." As a result, the cumulative effect of these fifteen survey items serves as a surrogate for a simple vote of confidence or no confidence in the management of the organization. These fifteen questions are a direct evaluation of the President and his management team. The data presented have not been edited except in the format used in presentation.
Organization refers to your company as a whole.
Management of the organization refers to the President and Executive Management Group (or equivalent)"
For all of the data, 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. Where there are no red bars, the question was generated locally so the number must be interpreted without a comparison.
From the methodology used by the GPTWI to create its index, a comparison of the blue bars with the red bars clearly indicates that the employees at SCSU have little confidence in the Potter management team. For some of the faculty, these results just put a number to the growing dissatisfaction in President Potter and the team of managers he has assembled.
The methodology used by the GPTWI is outside the norm for surveys using scaled responses. In fact, it is hard to believe that this type of methodology would be acceptable for any peer-reviewed scholarly publication except as an example of a poor methodology. The good news is that, with the raw data now available, it is possible to perform a more 'standard' analysis of the data.
The table below shows the number of responses (1-5) for each of the questions selected above:
Table 1. Raw data for questions referring to the management of the organization.
The column to the far right shows the average value for the responses for each question. On the five-point scale, only two of the fifteen questions have an average above 3.00, which means that for thirteen of the fifteen questions, the unfavorable responses outnumber the favorable responses. There are multiple ways the data can be presented. The following figure shows the sum of all of the responses for each of the questions:
Figure 1. Sum of responses for the fifteen questions related to the management of the organization.
After a cursory look, it is clear that the number of responses for "Often untrue" (2) is slightly greater than the number of responses for "Often true" (4). However, what is eye-popping is the number of "Almost always untrue" (1) compared to "Almost always true" (5) - 1,870 to 815!
As it has already been said, there are many ways to analyze this type of survey data. One of the more common ways is to compare the "favorables" to the "unfavorables". The most common way is to simply divide the number of the most favorable responses (5s) by number of least favorable responses (1s). When you see the data, you'll understand why I think it makes more sense to divide the number of least favorable responses (1s) by the number of most favorable responses (5s). In this way, a value greater than 1 indicates the strength of the least favorable response compared to the most favorable response. The reverse of this would be the smaller the number below 1 the greater the strength of the most favorable response when compared to the least favorable response. For heuristic sake I have called this the 'Dogood Factor' (DGF).
The "DGF' for the fifteen questions relating to management of the organization, are shown in this table:
Table 2. The 'Dogood Factor' for the fifteen questions related to the management of the organization.
Only one item shows a larger number of favorables to unfavorables, which is indicated by a ratio less than 1. One item has a DGF of 1.00. The other thirteen of the surveyed items have DGF's ranging from 1.86 to 6.00! For the DGF of 1.86, nearly twice as many think the management is competent is "Almost always untrue" compared to "Almost always true."
For the statement management does a good job of recognizing good performers, the DGF is 6.00, showing that those surveyed certainly believe very strongly that the administration can't recognize good performance. Even in the middle of the pack with a DGF of 3.57, management shared information openly and transparently over three times as many respondents (3.5 to 1) say that this statement is "Almost always untrue" compared to every one respondent that said this statement was true.
If the management of the company is viewed by its employees as not sharing information, not recognizing its talented employees, not seeking suggestions, not delivering on promises, not involving people in decisions, not making sound financial decisions and is not viewed as being competent that is a strong vote of no confidence in the management.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. The recipe used over the past seven years has created these outcomes. Lots of listening sessions won't change the situation. It is clear from the charge for his listening tour that President Potter does not see himself as the problem. I don't think he has ever said the word "mistake" in public. The closest I've ever heard is that "some things are not where we would like them to be" and "we have a lot of work to do." Much of the problem is that President Potter doesn't understand that "we" haven't made the decisions that have gotten us to the place where 'we' are. He has made the decisions and he is responsible for the recipe and the outcomes.
Tammy McGee, the vice president for Finance and Administration, handed out information at the Budget Advisory Committee Meeting on Thursday, May 8, 2014 showing the financial implications of the first four years of operation of the Coborn's Plaza Apartments. It's hard to believe that it's actually worse than first believed! CFO McGee should be applauded for being 'open and transparent.' This is a real first for the Potter administration and is quite out of character. Hopefully, this will not be the beginning of the end for CFO McGee! The document presented by the administration is the first detailing the financial losses sustained operating the Coborn Plaza Apartments. A copy of the document is shown below.
The loss in the first four years totals $6,400,000. Hopefully, some of those denying the fact that the Coborn's Plaza has been losing large sums of money will now be silent.
Since the 'partnership' with the Wedum Foundation runs a minimum of ten years, if this trend continues out for that period of time it would project a loss of $11,700,000. Even being optimistic, it's hard to imagine that during that time, the total loss will not exceed $10,000,000. Can anyone make a case for this being a success? The document says it's a "Public Private Partnership." However, in this case since the loss is all absorbed by SCSU there isn't a whole lot of partnership. Perhaps the City of St. Cloud would be willing to cover half the university's loss as a way of partnering with the university? Wait a minute, doesn't the City of St. Cloud actually charge SCSU $240,000 for three additional police officers to patrol around the campus?
More than a year ago, an economist on campus stated that the university should tell the Wedum Foundation that SCSU is exercising its option to cancel the lease at the end of the tenth year unless they are willing to renegotiate the lease agreement with terms more favorable to SCSU. Perhaps even sharing the loss as indicated by a partnership? However, this is not part of the character of President Potter because it would mean that he made a mistake and admitting he made a mistake apparently is not something he is willing to do. Remember what he said about admitting a mistake and weakness.
"A man should never be ashamed to admit that he has been wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday." Alexander Pope
Originally posted Friday, May 9, 2014, revised 07-Jul 1:52 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 10-May-14 11:08 PM
The Coburn figures tell me this project would have lost money even at 100% occupancy from the start, close to $1 million over 10 years. Just what was the stated goal at the start?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-May-14 02:40 AM
Rex, Coborn's was one of Potter's 'visions' for SCSU. I can't tell whether Potter thought shiny buildings were his legacy or whether he's just a shitty financial decisionmaker.
What's totally possible to tell is that Potter is exceptionally stubborn. Those who know him can't picture him admitting that he's made mistakes.
Comment 2 by Overseas student at 11-May-14 10:22 AM
According to this video http://youtu.be/PCooO5sPgW0 a VP of finance at SCSU said that even if Coborn's apartments was full, SCSU would still lose anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. Who was the brain child behind this big money losing idea? I imagine the other landlords have to be furious.
Comment 3 by Minnesota Lady at 11-May-14 01:35 PM
I saw the video. Troubling to say the least. I see from the St. Cloud times interview, Mr. Potter said this: http://archive.sctimes.com/VideoNetwork/3242410283001/Times-Editorial-Board-interview-with-SCSU-President-Potter
"Landlords were concerned that we would subsidize the rent in order to fill the building. We have not done that. We've kept our promise with religious zeal. We've absolutely not varied that. All in all, it's a success. We're drawing on reserves. The cash flow isn't quite where it needs to be for the long term. But I think it's the right decision to make."
So losing $6.4 million dollars in the first 4 years is a success? Is Mr. Potter writing personal checks to the "reserves" to cover the losses?
Will 'Seifert Fishing Opener' backfire?
Now that the fishing opener is pretty much history, it's time to say that the Seifert Fishing Opener was a fiasco. This is what made it a fiasco:
It's one thing for a candidate to hold a mock fishing opener. It's a bit gimmicky but people aren't likely to remember a stunt like that a month from now. It's another to offer reporters free hotel rooms. That isn't a gimmick. That's a foolish stunt that's sure to get Capitol reporters upset.
Here's a little insight for Seifert's campaign: This was foolish on multiple fronts. First, if reporters were interested in attending, they wouldn't accept the offer for fear that they'd look compromised. Reporters have expense accounts for things like this.
Second, it's foolish because it's giving free ammunition to the DFL and the Alliance for a Better Minnesota. Even if Team Seifert made a sincere offer, which I believe they did, the reality is that the DFL and ABM don't care. They'll highlight this while they're smearing Seifert.
This too-clever-by-half stunt carried significant downside with it but little upside. Had the Seifert campaign just done the fishing opener, ABM would've had to make something up to smear him. Instead, the Seifert campaign gift-wrapped this present for them. The only thing they didn't do for the DFL is deliver it on a silver platter.
Third, this isn't a net plus for Seifert with the Capitol press corps. It's possible it'll have the opposite effect. The old saying that there's no such thing as bad press is BS. In this instance, the buzz won't help the Seifert campaign.
This alone won't prevent Seifert from winning the GOP endorsement. It just means people will enter the Convention questioning if he'll make other unforced errors.
Posted Sunday, May 11, 2014 5:27 AM
No comments.
Vikings earn praise for draft
Blogging has been light the last few days because I watched (obsessed over?) the NFL Draft. I'll admit that I'm a homer. That doesn't mean I'll just blindly trust that GM Rick Spielman and Coach Zimmer picked players that they couldn't believe were still there. Still, Spielman has built some trust with his last 3 drafts.
Let's see what others are saying about the Vikings picks, starting with LB Anthony Barr :
"He's only been a defensive end for two years. He needs experience. When you watch the tape, does he look like Jason Taylor or what? There's a lot of upside, and (new head coach) Mike Zimmer and his staff will get it out of him." -- Mike MayockBarr started his time at UCLA as a running back. The fact that he was a feared pass rusher the last 2 years tells me he's got great natural talent but that he'll become a great player with Zimmer's coaching. NOTEWORTHY: Anyone that's 6'5" and runs a 4.6 forty is a freakish athlete.
Teddy Bridgewater :
"That (pro day) workout is something I've been fighting for a couple months now. His pro day didn't confirm what I saw on the game tape. But he needs to get stronger. Bridgewater has the intangibles; he's smart." -- Mike MayockBill Polian, the guy who drafted Peyton Manning said that Bridgewater a) was excellent at manipulating safeties with his eyes" and that he was excellent with his pre-snap reads. Those statements tell me that Bridgewater a) is willing to work hard to be the leader of the offense and b) has the smarts to be a top quality QB. Finally, Bridgwater's character is off the charts outstanding.
David Yankey :
"This is a great fit for the Vikings. They believe in physical players and Yankey is a phone booth brawler. Trust me, I know (Vikings general manager) Rick Spielman and (head coach) Mike Zimmer, and this is the kind of player they bang the table for." -- Mike MayockSimply put, Yankey, barring injury, will be the starting left guard for the Vikings by midseason. He's a Stanford kid so he's smart. He's physical and he's played every position on the line except center. That they got him in the fifth round screams exceptional value.
Antone Exum :
"Exum is a well-built individual, and showed good fluidity in pass coverage and also an ability to track the ball well. Exum was a highly regarded player two years ago, but suffered a knee injury playing basketball in January of 2013. Exum came back to play in the 2013 season, but only played in three games and did not play at the same level as the previous season." -- Gil BrandtExum played the side opposite Chicago first round pick Kyle Fuller when healthy. He's considered to have great versatility because he can play in the slot in nickel packages or play safety. The other thing that's worth noting is that he isn't afraid to hit people in run support.
The Vikings did a great job the last day of the draft. Exum and Yankey are excellent examples of that but they aren't the only examples of how Spielman worked the draft for maximum value:
Shamar Stephen :
AnalysisAnytime a team picks up a third round talent at a position needing depth in the 7th round, that's an outstanding value pick. While it's impossible seeing him beating out Vikings NT Linval Joseph, it's easy to see him providing much-needed quality depth at the position.
Terrific size. Very athletic for a big man. Generally plays on his feet. Occupies blocks. Flashes the ability to lock out and reestablish the line of scrimmage. Has raw tools to work with. Scheme versatile. Solid personal and football character.
Draft Projection: Round 3
Brandon Watts, OLB Georgia Tech :
Rare timed speed. Very quick to the perimeter and covers a lot of ground. Easily keeps stride with tight ends in the slot and offers solid man-coverage ability on backs. Can carry receivers vertically and buzz the flats. Lines up on the edge and offers some pass-rush potential. Is fluid and loose-hipped dropping into coverage.If Watts makes the Vikings, it'll be because he impressed on special teams. Still, this is a worthwhile pick because it's a last round pick spent on a player who has the physical tools to work with.
Various websites have given the Vikings high grades for this draft class. They certainly sent a message to the NFC North QBs that they'd better prepare to get hit often under Mike Zimmer. They also solved their QB problems with Bridgewater. Finally, they stockpiled talent for their secondary in the 6th and 7th rounds, thanks in large part to the outstanding depth in this draft.
Let's remember that Kam Chancellor and Richard Sherman were fifth round picks for Seattle in years that weren't half as deep as this year's draft.
This draft, combined with the players the Vikings have picked in the first round in 2012 and 2013, will help the Vikings compete for the NFC North championship within 2 years. Let's remember that Spielman picked franchise left tackle Matt Kalil and cornerstone safety Harrison Smith in the first round in 2012 before picking DT Sharrif Floyd, CB Xavier Rhodes and WR/KR extraordinaire Cordarrelle Patterson in the first round last year.
Posted Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:41 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 11-May-14 12:11 PM
Gary:
I'll take your research on the Vikings as pretty good news. One thing I might add and with the Vikings probably having a healthy AP for at least few more years Bridgewater worked in a pro style at Louisville so he will be adjusted to trying to run that offense. Johnny M while maybe a great talent came from an offense system where he was probably expected to pass first, run second, and to get a rest hand it to a running back. Not to mention Bridgewater has been or will be handed an offense with lots of great weapons.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-May-14 01:22 PM
Going into this draft, everyone knew that they needed a QB. They got Bridgewater. Adding a future monster like Anthony Barr was positive. Finally, the Vikings made a ton of great picks on the final day.
Yankey will be starting at LG by midseason. Antone Exum will star as a special teams player immediately & he'll eventually start at safety.
Crichton will help, too.
