May 7-9, 2018
May 07 01:41 Tim Walz's disastrous interview May 07 03:20 Defining the legislature's job May 08 09:46 Is Minnesota redder now than 2010? May 08 23:20 Trump exits JCPOA May 09 00:44 Morrisey wins West Virginia primary May 09 10:44 Theocrats vs. idiots: Iran vs. Obama administration May 09 13:40 DFL: pro-union or pro-child care May 09 23:35 Trolling Obama on North Korean hostage release
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Tim Walz's disastrous interview
Today on At Issue, Tim Walz tried sounding reasonable about Second Amendment issues while preaching the mantra of 'common sense gun laws'. During the interview, Walz claimed that he's uniquely qualified to get gun control legislation passed because he's had an A rating from the NRA. After that, Walz immediately reminds lefty voters that he's still on their side, that he's the only person who can navigate that minefield without getting blown to smithereens.
Among the 'common sense' gun bills that Rep. Walz has proposed is an assault weapons ban . That isn't common sense. It's just politically popular within the DFL:
As recently as 2016, Guns and Ammo magazine called Walz one of the 20 best lawmakers on gun rights. He said in an interview Tuesday that his relationships with gun owners would allow him to bring them into the conversation. "This is about bringing in responsible gun owners who understand something's got to be done," Walz said.
Bryan Strawser, chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said Walz is mistaken: "Tim Walz's relationship with gun owners was directly related to his strong advocacy for gun rights. He will soon learn how little of their support he has since he has forsaken them for political expediency."
Gun rights advocates won't waste their time on a politician who's flip-flopped on this issue while pandering for votes. Gun rights advocates want someone who's rock-solid in their beliefs, someone who's thought these things through. Clearly, Tim Walz is just a cheap politician who will say anything to get elected. That isn't a principled man who will fight for people's constitutional rights. That's just a politician who will sell his soul to the devil.
Tim Walz had credibility with guns rights advocacy. Then he sold his soul to the devil to win an election. Now, he's a man without a country, metaphorically speaking. Once, he had credibility with gun owners. He's always had credibility issues with gun-grabbing Metrocrats. Now he's got credibility issues with both groups.
First, Tim Walz wanted to be the man who made Minnesota a sanctuary state:
[Video no longer available]
Now, he's trying to weasel his way through this fight with gun owners. That's what I'd call a politically disastrous week for Walz.
Posted Monday, May 7, 2018 1:41 AM
Comment 1 by Lol gop at 07-May-18 04:28 PM
lol
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 07-May-18 05:15 PM
When are people going to understand that it is not the gun, it is the person. England banned guns, now they are trying to bam knives. Next it will be pipes and on and on it goes. I hope he keeps talking stupid because he'll be just be that much easier to beat.
Defining the legislature's job
According to the St. Cloud Times' editorial board, the legislature's responsibility is to keep students warm, safe and dry . According the Editorial Board, Devinder Malhotra, the newly-named chancellor of the Minnesota State system, told their editorial board that "Asset preservation is our top priority. We need to give our students a quality educational experience. ... We also need to keep them warm, safe and dry."
With St. Cloud State's on-campus enrollment shrinking annually and with the University running multi-million dollar annual deficits, you'd think that getting St. Cloud State's financial and enrollment situations turned around would be high on Malhotra's list. Despite the fact that Dr. Malhotra once was St. Cloud State's provost, turning around the University isn't part of his focus.
Then again, straightening out the University hasn't been a priority for MnSCU in years. They ignored the mismanagement of the University's finances. They didn't intervene when the University's enrollment problems became chronic. They didn't bother to inquire as to why St. Cloud State sent $1,000,000+ checks to the Wedum Foundation each year .
To be fair, though, MnSCU wasn't the only institution that failed the University. The St. Cloud Times did little more than publish St. Cloud State's press releases. Investigative journalism was left to LFR and, occasionally, to MPR.
The St. Cloud business community were enablers for St. Cloud State, too. As long as President Potter stayed engaged in the community, the business community turned a blind eye towards St. Cloud State. Other institutions that let SCSU down were the IFO and the Faculty Association.
The problem within the Faculty Association is that too many of them want to be administrators. That's caused some in FA leadership to turn a blind eye towards the University's health in the hopes of getting that last high-paying job of their professional career.
[Video no longer available]
The IFO, the union representing the professors at MnSCU's 4-year universities, has done little in terms of putting pressure on the legislature. As a direct result of the IFO's inaction, dozens of faculty have either gotten laid off or have accepted early retirement packages.
What's stunning is that Chancellor Malhotra hasn't offered a plan to turn St. Cloud State around. He hasn't even insisted that St. Cloud State's next president have a specific plan to turn St. Cloud State around. I know this because the 'finalists' for the job don't have much of an understanding of the University's difficulties. For that matter, the University doesn't even have a CFO who can tell the next president just how awful of shape the University is in.
Posted Monday, May 7, 2018 3:20 AM
Comment 1 by Rexnewman at 07-May-18 07:05 PM
MnScu needs to right-size, yes, CLOSING several campuses. I'd keep SCSU but jettison the useless degree programs.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-May-18 05:30 AM
Rex, I agree but that's just the starting point. We must clean up the spending decisions. Some of the things that they've spent money on are totally indefensible. It's like they don't care that it's someone else's money. A very wise man once told me that spending Other People's Money, aka OPM, is addicting if you don't pay attention. It's as addicting as opium.
If the legislature mandated that Minnesota State's universities got rid of their victimology degrees (pretty much defined as any degree that ends with the word studies), I'd be a happy camper.
Is Minnesota redder now than 2010?
Prof. Steven Schier's op-ed asks a fundamental question that might determine whether Minnesota Republicans will experience a good year in 2018. There's no question whether Minnesota is a redder state now than when Tim Pawlenty won re-election in 2006. What's still in question is whether Minnesota will return to electing Republican governors.
Buried inside Prof. Schier's op-ed is some information that's gotten my attention. For instance, Prof. Schier notes that "the steadily more progressive profile of the DFL is hurting the party in greater Minnesota. Minnesota Democrats are increasingly defined by strong environmentalism and assertive social liberalism that does not receive a warm response in places such as Redwood Falls, Roseau and Blue Earth and among the state's farm population. An increasingly progressive DFL creates many electoral opportunities for the state's GOP. That is reflected in the trends noted above. Metro DFL activists are among the most progressive in the country, and their agenda puts substantial political distance between them and residents of most counties outside of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area."
It isn't that Republicans have suddenly gotten popular, though it's indisputable that they're more popular than Democrats. What's most true is that the DFL is much less popular in rural Minnesota than at any time in my lifetime. A look at the Secretary of State's website shows how the DFL went from having an 89-45 majority in the House in 2008 to a 63-71 minority in 2010. Republicans go into this election with a 76-58 majority in the House. With the margin of victory being large in most of those seats, it's difficult not picturing Kurt Daudt as speaker again in 2019.
Further, it's difficult not picturing Republicans being super-motivated this fall to elect a Republican governor to go along with GOP majorities in the House and Senate. It might not finish that way but Republicans must have that as their goal. That's because it's such a realistic goal.
This is an unexpected burst of honesty:
It's easy to miss the recent "reddening" of Minnesota because the state's media is heavily concentrated in the heavily blue enclave of the MSP metropolitan area. Analysis and coverage of political trends in greater Minnesota receive sporadic and often superficial coverage.
It isn't that I think Prof. Schier isn't trustworthy. It's that such candidness isn't that common. To be certain, turning Minnesota from a deep blue state to a purple state on its way to being a semi-red state is taking time. There still aren't any conservative superstars from Minnesota.
Tim Pawlenty is the closest thing to a Republican rock star but he isn't a superstar by any stretch of the imagination. Jason Lewis has a legitimate shot at becoming a conservative superstar because of his intellectual heft. BTW, ignore the nonsense that Angie Craig will defeat him this year. He'll have to work hard but Jason will win re-election.
Posted Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:46 AM
No comments.
Trump exits JCPOA
Giving perhaps the strongest speech of his presidency, President Trump outlined Iran's transgressions, highlighted the ways in which Iran causes trouble throughout the Middle East, supports terrorists while threatening our allies. Leftist pundits are already criticizing President Trump's decision, with Juan Williams saying that "When the President spoke today, he didn't say 'Oh, yeah, here's a major violation that proves these people are not to be trusted."
Actually, included in President Trump's speech was a paragraph where he said "Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents long concealed by Iran, conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons."
Shortly thereafter, President Trump said "In the years since the deal was reached, Iran's military budget has grown by almost 40 percent, while its economy is doing very badly. After the sanctions were lifted, the dictatorship used its new funds to build nuclear-capable missiles, support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the Middle East and beyond."
[Video no longer available]
President Trump wasn't gentle with the Obama administration or the Kerry State Department:
At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.
With this speech, President Trump locked President Obama and John Kerry together in the history books as the people who agreed to and negotiated the worst foreign policy/national security deal in US history. Only desperate or foolish people negotiate a sweetheart deal like this with treacherous people who support terrorists and who want to destabilize the entire Middle East.
That's right. The only man for a job like that is John Kerry, the only person who is more inept at negotiating important national security deals than Hillary Clinton.
Over the past few months, we have engaged extensively with our allies and partners around the world, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We have also consulted with our friends from across the Middle East. We are unified in our understanding of the threat and in our conviction that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. After these consultations, it is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.
The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world's leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapons. Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.
President Obama has already criticized President Trump for pulling out of the deal :
There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That's why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.
The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working; that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America's interest; it has significantly rolled back Iran's nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish; its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes, with Iran, the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.
Had John Kerry negotiated a worthwhile deal, President Obama could've sent that treaty to Congress for approval. The deal that Kerry negotiated was so terrible that Democrats rejected it . It was so bad that President Obama couldn't have gotten it approved as a treaty if his life depended on it. As for our European allies urging us to stay in the deal, their motivation is simple. They want to do business with Iran. The more telling reaction is how the Saudis and Israelis reacted. First, here's John Kerry's reaction:
Let's be clear about something. This isn't the case of the United States backing out of one of its treaties. It's a rare case of a president telling other nations that he isn't bound to keep the personal promise that a previous president made.
Had President Obama tried to get the JCPOA approved as a treaty, it would've been rejected on a bipartisan basis. While President Obama is upset that another piece of his legacy just got thrown into history's dumpster, President Trump won't care because he knows a terrible deal when he sees it. Trump is intent on demolishing Obama's legacy and getting the US back on the right track. Based on what he's accomplished thus far, I'd say that he's accomplishing his plan.
Posted Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:20 PM
No comments.
Morrisey wins West Virginia primary
Tonight, West Virginia Republicans took a major step towards replacing Joe Manchin in the US Senate by picking West Virginia State Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (not to be confused with HotAir blogger Ed Morrissey) to represent them in this fall's general election.
Don Blankenship received the most coverage the last week of the race but it wasn't enough. In an interview with Fox News , "Blankenship told Fox News that he thinks the 'overhang' of bad headlines about the Upper Big Branch explosion had the biggest impact." It probably didn't help that President Trump tweeted his support for either Morrisey or US Congressman Evan Jenkins, saying "To the great people of West Virginia we have, together, a really great chance to keep making a big difference. Problem is, Don Blankenship, currently running for Senate, can't win the General Election in your State...No way! Remember Alabama. Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey!"
To the great people of West Virginia we have, together, a really great chance to keep making a big difference. Problem is, Don Blankenship, currently running for Senate, can't win the General Election in your State...No way! Remember Alabama. Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2018
This officially puts Sen. Manchin's seat in danger of getting flipped. Manchin has tried portraying himself as a moderate. Unfortunately, he voted against repealing Obamacare and against the Trump/GOP tax cuts. It's virtually impossible to portray yourself as a moderate when your votes on the 2 biggest agenda items are identical to Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' votes.
[Video no longer available]
David Avella's op-ed provided some worthwhile insight on how to win going into this fall:
Accordingly, Patrick Morrisey in West Virginia, Mike Braun in Indiana, and Jim Renacci in Ohio each followed the Trump playbook and won the Republican Senate nominations in their states Tuesday. They understood that connecting with voters on the issues that mattered most in deciding how to cast their ballots was the key to victory. In West Virginia, Morrisey's campaign pushed his support for lowering taxes, eliminating regulations put in place by President Obama and creating jobs.
Unlike the Obama coalition, which turned out to belong only to President Obama, it appears as though President Trump's coalition is transferrable as long as the candidate promises to push President Trump's agenda if elected.
This isn't good news for Sen. Manchin:
GOPAC Election Fund polling found that 87 percent of Republican voters in West Virginia were less likely to vote for Manchin when they learn that he voted against President Trump's tax cuts. This issue presents problems for Manchin with his own supporters, as 12 percent of Manchin voters are less likely to support him based on his tax vote.
Call me crazy but it sounds like there's trouble ahead for Sen. Manchin. Finally, there's this:
In Ohio, Renacci's first ad promoted his experience, stating his business was responsible for creating 1,500 jobs.
In Indiana, Mike Braun talked about bringing jobs that were lost to foreign countries back to his state and touted his success at creating hundreds of jobs.
The question now becomes whether Republicans in the House and Senate use tonight's results to win seats that nobody's predicting as battleground districts or states. I'm betting the NRSC, the NRCC and organizations like GOPAC will help candidates run smart campaigns.
If that's the case, predictions of a big blue wave might turn into this year's version of Dewey defeats Truman.
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2018 12:44 AM
No comments.
Theocrats vs. idiots: Iran vs. Obama administration
After President Trump officially announced that he was pulling out of the JCPOA, President Obama criticized him , saying "today's announcement is ... misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America's closest allies, and an agreement that our country's leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals." Actually, the JCPOA wasn't negotiated by "our country's leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals." It was negotiated by dimwits like John Kerry, John Brennan and Susan Rice. I'd hardly call them the best and brightest of our diplomats. I'd call them the Three Stooges.
Included in President Obama criticism was the statement that "First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution." That's precisely what it was. It wasn't a treaty ratified by the Senate. If it had been a negotiated treaty, it would've been subjected to a humiliating bipartisan rejection of President Obama's national security policy towards Iran.
John Brennan criticized President Trump in this barely lucid diatribe:
Today, Donald Trump simultaneously lied about the Iranian nuclear deal, undermined global confidence in US commitments, alienated our closest allies, strengthened Iranian hawks, & gave North Korea more reason to keep its nukes. This madness is a danger to our national security.
- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) May 8, 2018
Again, this wasn't US agreement. That status is only conferred with treaty ratification. Without the Senate's advice and consent, the agreement is nothing except an agreement between an idiot masquerading as a commander-in-chief and a room full of Islamic theocrats.
Further, President Trump's decision instructs the world's despots that he won't tolerate wink-and-a-nod deals that don't protect the American people. Like Charles Krauthammer once said, "it isn't that there's a new sheriff in town. It's that there's a sheriff in town." President Trump's official announcement sends the strong message that he's putting a higher priority on national security than on weak-kneed diplomacy.
This paragraph illustrates how big of a liar President Obama is:
Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust - it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran's nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.
The inspection regime was virtually nonexistent. Inspectors couldn't go anywhere at any time. They had to get permission from the IRGC. Then there was a thirty-day waiting time. That isn't the definition of "far-reaching inspections." That's the definition of wimpy inspections agreed to by a weak-kneed American president and his pathetic 'national security team'.
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2018 10:44 AM
No comments.
DFL: pro-union or pro-child care
Ron Latz isn't just about criminalizing law-abiding gun owners. He's also into making 12 to 17 year olds feel like criminals .
Monday, "senators overwhelmingly approved three bills written to help reduce regulations home-based child care providers say could drive them out of business." Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer "said the No. 1 problem with home-based child care is an existing state rule requiring family members ages 12 to 17 to undergo a criminal background check, including being fingerprinted and photographed. 'This is frightening for them,' Kiffmeyer said, and makes the youths feel like criminals. The bill provides for a simpler background check for young people."
The legislature took up this bill because "94 percent of the home child care providers say they are thinking about closing" and because "in rural Minnesota, the lack of child care has become a crisis", according to "Sen. Bill Weber, R-Luverne."
Ron Latz has a different take:
Sen. Ron Latz, D-St. Louis Park, said he is concerned that easing the background checks for youths could allow some dangerous people near children. Kiffmeyer, however, said the Human Services Department considered her bill a good balance between safety and privacy.
That's BS. Sen. Latz is simply carrying the unions' water. It isn't that he's worried that 12 to 17 year-olds pose a major risk to children. It's that he's intent on making life miserable for child care providers who rejected union representation.
It's apparent, too, that Sen. Latz cares more about unions than he cares about the child care crisis. That's a sick puppy.
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2018 1:40 PM
No comments.
Trolling Obama on North Korean hostage release
This morning, President Trump had the privilege of announcing the release of 3 North Korean hostages in this tweet . This is fantastic news for the hostages' families and a victory for newly-installed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Trump.
It wasn't that long ago that the Democrats and hard-left organizations like Indivisible were frantically predicting nuclear war with North Korea . Today, those Democrats and Indivisible are eating crow while people ask whether President Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize if he closes the deal that denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula.
Here's Trump's tweet announcing the release of the hostages:
I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting. They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 9, 2018
Later, Mike ' Pampeo ' (Twitter ID of SecOfState70) tweeted this:
I can confirm that no pallets of cash were given in exchange for these 3 gentleman. https://t.co/KnM6HRtO5r
- Mike Pampeo (@SecOfState70) May 9, 2018
It's still prudent to view the denuclearization deal with skepticism. Kim Jung-Un is still a shifty dictator. That being said, it's possible that President Trump's good cop-bad cop behavior might have Un worried that he's dealing with a madman. History shows that dictators and autocrats make more concessions when they're frightened by Republican presidents, especially if Democrats accuse that Republican president of wanting to start WWIII.
The truth is that everyone understands that the US is the world's only superpower. In 1990, during the buildup to Operation Desert Storm, the media talked about the powerful Iraqi military, calling it a regional superpower. Within minutes of the start of the air war, the war was essentially over. The regional superpower was in shambles. The world superpower was proud of its first night accomplishments and hungry for more destruction to Iraq's command-and-control capabilities.
The 'conventional wisdom' is that the US military has more to lose in a fight than Iran. That's foolish thinking. I'm not saying the US should start a war with Iran. I'm saying that Iran would be decimated within moments if that confrontation started. Iran knows it, too.
That's why I'm betting that, in the long run, Europe will side with the Trump administration in imposing new, tougher sanctions. When those sanctions hit Iran's already-weak economy, Iran's mullahs will pay a heavy political price.
North Korea already understands what it's like to get pushed around by muscular US diplomats, aka President Trump and Mike Pompeo. Prior to the Trump administration, the North Koreans toyed with President Obama and John Kerry. Those days are over.
Originally posted Wednesday, May 9, 2018, revised 10-May 11:22 AM
Comment 1 by Margaret at 10-May-18 10:49 AM
Is that supposed to be President Obama or President Trump in the first sentence?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-May-18 11:22 AM
Good catch. It's now been corrected.
