May 9-10, 2016
May 09 07:11 Trump's act of war May 09 12:52 Sarah Palin vs. Paul Ryan May 09 14:17 The DFL's slight of hand trick May 09 14:59 Laura Ingraham's dishonesty May 10 02:54 Wolgamott's dishonest op-ed May 10 03:20 Met Council vs. accountability May 10 03:46 Paul Ryan swats Palin like a fly May 10 11:18 Pat Buchanan's hubris
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Trump's act of war
Walter Hudson's Facebook post is a brilliant call-to-arms for principled conservatives and Republicans. At a time when the thoughtful center-right are despondent, Walter's battle cry is inspiring. I can't recommend Walter's post enough. If you aren't a Trump cultist, it's today's must reading.
Walter's post starts with him laying out the stakes, saying "Civil war has broken out within the Republican Party. Long-standing divisions have led us to this point." While that paragraph defines what's at stake, what follows is a brilliant battle plan. For instance, Walter rightly said that "In war, the rules which govern in peacetime go out the window. In war, the object is the destruction of the enemy and the preservation of our way of life. These are the metaphorical stakes we face now. That is why the traditional expectation that Republican officers and delegates fall in line behind Trump will not be met. We will not cede our party to a leftist authoritarian pretender. We've worked too hard to build it. We've fostered too many relationships. We've created too much value to let it all disintegrate on account of one man."
Let's be clear about something. Trump's supporters made it exceptionally clear that their primary goal is to blow the GOP up and rebuild it in Trump's own warped image. Constitutionalists and principled conservatives like Walter Hudson and, to a lesser extent, me have gotten accused of being part of the GOP establishment. That isn't a joke. That's proof of the Trumpians' own intellectual dishonesty.
Trump has already abandoned conservatism from a policy standpoint. He's backing away from his own tax plan. This week, he's come out in favor of raising the minimum wage. He's always opposed entitlement reform. In all the talk about party unity, activists have never been told what they'd be uniting behind. Uniting behind a left-leaning vulgar authoritarian isn't appealing to me. Based on the fact that Trump still has only garnered 40% of the primary vote, uniting behind Trump isn't appealing to a huge part of the GOP.
From a founding principles standpoint, Trump's never been part of the GOP. I've written about how Trump is anti-free speech . Trump isn't a fan of the Second Amendment, either:
It's often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Trump isn't a fan of the Fifth Amendment , either:
Trump, Coking and the casino authority pounded away at one another in court. Then, one day in the summer of 1998, the Superior Court of New Jersey put an end to the conflict. The court ruled that the casino authority and Trump were wrong. The government couldn't take Coking's house and let Trump have it.
The widow had won.
She lived there for about another decade, happy to boast about her triumph over a man she despised. From across a parking lot, she saw Trump's casino fizzle. Last year, Trump Plaza closed its doors, another in a long line of casualties in the precipitous decay of a once-sizzling casino strip.
In addition to supporting eminent domain abuse, Trump's fight with Vera Coking highlighted another thing conservatives should run from. Trump's casino went bankrupt. It's virtually impossible to bankrupt a casino but Trump 'accomplished' it.
These cries for party unity ring hollow in light of the fact that Trump's flip-flops happen at a faster rate than Mitt Romney's happened. Trump's supporters don't care because, apparently, a significant portion of them want to blow the Republican Party up. Thanks to principled conservatives like Walter Hudson, the Branch Trumpidians will have to fight to win that battle.
Posted Monday, May 9, 2016 7:11 AM
No comments.
Sarah Palin vs. Paul Ryan
This weekend, Sarah Palin told CNN's Jake Tapper that Paul Ryan was "soon to be Cantored, as in Eric Cantor." Predictably, RightWisconsin responded , asking "So how much clout will Caribou Barbie bring to the anti-Ryan crusade? Not much."
Let's be blunt about a couple of things. First, Sarah Palin has said so many foolish things that she simply isn't respected by mainstream Republicans. And when I say mainstream Republicans, I'm not talking about the GOP Establishment. I'm talking about the hard-working GOP activists that volunteer countless hours building the Republican Party only to watch crackpots like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin tear it apart.
Second, Mrs. Palin's stupidity was highlighted when she predicted Speaker Ryan's defeat. RightWisconsin noted that "The last Marquette University Law School Poll showed Paul Ryan had a 76 percent approval rating from Wisconsin Republicans." When Cantor lost his primary, voter discontent was widespread. Voter discontent for Speaker Ryan is virtually nonexistent in Speaker Ryan's district.
Finally, this is the last impression Mrs. Palin left with Wisconsin Republicans:
It wasn't a positive impression.
Posted Monday, May 9, 2016 12:52 PM
No comments.
The DFL's slight of hand trick
After reading this DFL puff piece , it would difficult to prove that it wasn't written by ABM's spinmeisters and given to these Strib stenographers. (They aren't reporters because they didn't question any of the DFL's statements.)
For instance, the title is intellectually dishonest. The Strib's title is "There's no evidence that ultra-rich are fleeing Minnesota." Nobody said the ultra-rich would leave Minnesota. That's because the ultra-rich have much of their wealth hidden from taxation. The Strib is wrong, too, when they said that "Critics predicted that the ultra-affluent would flee after Gov. Mark Dayton secured 2013 passage of a new income tax tier of 9.85 percent on individuals who make more than $156,000 a year."
It's insulting that the Strib reporters got this information that badly wrong. Republicans said that small businesses and entrepreneurs would leave the state. I wrote this article to highlight the brain drain that Minnesota is experiencing. While the article's focus was on the number of Minnesotans leaving for Wisconsin and the Dakotas vs. the number of students moving into Minnesota from Wisconsin and the Dakotas, I also highlighted the amount of capital flight that's happening and that accelerated following the Dayton/DFL tax increase of 2013.
That capital flight isn't just a statistic. It's something John Christianson has witnessed firsthand:
John Christianson, an accountant in Willmar, said he's aware of 12 wealthy people in his community who moved away, and six who expanded their businesses in other states. "People are at least considering it," he says. "Ten or fifteen years ago, it wasn't as prevalent."
It isn't a secret that Minnesota is losing out on tons of income. According to Peter Nelson's study , most of the people leaving Minnesota aren't snowbirds heading to Florida or Arizona:
One might think that most high-earning families who leave Minnesota are retirees moving to Florida or Arizona but this is not the case. Working-age people between 35 and 54 account for nearly 40 percent of Minnesota's net loss of tax filers for the 2013-2014 period.
Shouldn't Minnesota insist on pro-growth economic policies that attract the best and the brightest rather than chase them away? At some point, the capital flight from Minnesota and the brain drain Minnesota is experiencing will catch up with us. This isn't a bold prediction. It's just simple math.
Posted Monday, May 9, 2016 2:17 PM
No comments.
Laura Ingraham's dishonesty
Saying that Laura Ingraham isn't honest isn't easy for me to say. Still, it's what I must do after reading her latest pro-Trump spin piece . It isn't that I disagree with everything in her article. I'd be lying if I said she's constantly dishonest. Still, I can't sit silent after she said "I, too, would have preferred an ideal candidate who would unite us and cruise to an easy win over Hillary. Unfortunately, the conservative movement failed to field such a candidate. Much of this is due to the fact that many so-called conservatives, and their enablers in the donor class, wasted their time and money promoting the candidacies of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, two men who were, and are, utterly unacceptable to almost all actual voters in the Republican Party."
While there's no disputing the fact that large parts of the GOP rejected Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, it's equally true that they were significantly more qualified, and more honest, than the GOP's presumptive nominee. Further, Trump has been rejected by a large percentage of "actual voters in the Republican Party." He just wasn't rejected by as many people as Bush or Rubio.
This paragraph can't go unquestioned:
First, some NeverTrumpers (like the Bush family) violently disagree with Trump on issues relating to immigration, trade, and foreign policy. In each of these key issues, however, Trump represents the traditional views of conservatives like Ronald Reagan, while the supporters of Bushism are locked into an extremist ideology that makes no sense in theory, and has been a disaster in practice.
That's breathtakingly dishonest. The only other explanation is that Ms. Ingraham is just stupid. Since she once clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, it's a safe bet that she isn't stupid.
Saying that Trump's foreign policy is identical to Ronald Reagan's foreign policy is like saying that an arsonist's goals are essentially the same as the firefighters' goals. First, when did President Reagan ask President Gorbachev to squash America's enemies? When did President Reagan think it was wise to give the Soviet Union free run in the Middle East? When did President Reagan insist that we were getting screwed by other countries? When did President Reagan insist that America couldn't compete with the world if our taxes were low and our regulations were reasonable?
The answer to these questions is simple: never.
Further, saying that Trump's foreign policy is virtually identical to President Reagan's is saying that Trump has carefully thought through what he'd do. How does that square with Trump telling a rally that he'd "bomb the s---" out of ISIS, then telling a national audience during a debate that he'd get President Putin to take ISIS out?
The reality is that Ms. Ingraham isn't being honest with her readers or with us. That's a sad thing because she used to be a person of integrity. I wish that woman hadn't disappeared.
Posted Monday, May 9, 2016 2:59 PM
No comments.
Wolgamott's dishonest op-ed
Dan Wolgamott's op-ed in tomorrow's St. Cloud Times isn't a portrait in honesty. Then again, that isn't my expectation from Wolgamott.
It isn't that Wolgamott told some outright whoppers. It's that he omitted the most important details from his op-ed. Wolgamott started by criticizing retiring Sen. John Pederson. In the interest of full disclosure, John represents me in the Minnesota Senate. I consider him to be a friend, too. But I digress.
The opening paragraph of Wolgamott's op-ed says "Once again, Republican Sen. John Pederson has turned his back on our community. He cast the tie-breaking vote last week to defeat the Senate bonding bill, which would've created 39,000 jobs across the state and invested more than $24 million locally in job creation, veterans and making our area safer."
Wolgamott's missing integrity is exposed by the fact that Wolgamott didn't mention the fact that the bonding bill that Sen. Pederson voted against was the biggest in Minnesota history at $1,800,000,000. That's more than $750,000,000 bigger than the biggest bonding bill in state history. It's bad enough to pass the biggest bonding bill in state history if it's bigger by $100,000,000. It's quite another to attempt to pass a bonding bill that's almost twice the size of the biggest bonding bill in state history.
Then there's this cheap shot:
Unfortunately, Pederson chose partisanship over progress and voted against $19 million for needed upgrades and safety measures for the St. Cloud correctional facility. He voted against $1.5 million in economic development money for Friedrich Regional Park in St. Cloud. He even said no to veterans, $3.5 million for the St. Cloud Armory.
Let's turn the tables on Wolgamott. Is he saying that he wouldn't have hesitated in voting for a bill that's that big? Would he hesitate in voting for a bill that would tax the 'state credit card' to the max?
Those are examples of deception by omission. This is an example of outright BS:
As your next state senator, I will be a tireless advocate for our community, and the priorities we share, over partisan games and gridlock.
Last year, I wrote this post to highlight Wolgamott's willingness to spend recklessly:
It's time for us to invest in our roads and bridges, which is why St. Cloud needs better leadership than State Sen. John Pederson. As made clear in two recent articles in the St. Cloud Times, Pederson has some thoughts on the state's transportation network. As the Republican lead on the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee, he could play a vital role in providing St. Cloud the comprehensive transportation investment we need.
Instead, Sen. Pederson backs a plan that not only shifts money away from our schools and services for our most vulnerable residents, but relies heavily on borrowing for our roads and bridges, putting the costs on the state's credit card. This plan depends on action to be taken by future legislatures. However, there is no guarantee future legislatures will make those decisions. Instead of stability, this is another example of politicians promising something in the future to justify ducking their responsibilities now.
Back then, Wolgamott advocated for a middle class tax increase to pay for fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. That's besides Wolgamott's advocating for additional middle class tax increases to pay for transit projects.
To summarize Wolgamott's limited history, he's advocated for middle class tax increases to pay for fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. Wolgamott has advocated putting nearly $2,000,000,000 on Minnesota's credit card rather than fixing Minnesota's economic fundamentals. Those aren't solutions. They're gimmicks.
Finally, does Wolgamott really think that Sen. Pederson wouldn't have voted for a responsible bonding bill that included fixing the St. Cloud Armory and the St. Cloud prison? If Mr. Wolgamott is peddling that BS, then he isn't honest enough to represent St. Cloud in the State Senate.
Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:54 AM
No comments.
Met Council vs. accountability
Saying that the Met Council is accountability's enemy isn't just conservative consensus anymore. Thanks to Katherine Kersten's reporting , we know that Jim Nobles, Minnesota's Legislative Auditor, declared that the Council lacks "accountability," "transparency" and "credibility." Further, thanks to Kevin Terrell's report , we know why the Council lacks accountability, transparency and credibility.
For those who haven't given the Met Council much thought, it's time to start thinking it through. For instance, how would the average citizen feel if they found out that "nearly all other large metro regions are governed by a 'Council of Governments, composed predominantly of local elected officials accountable to the voters. Yet none of these COGs has the breath-taking power of the Met Council'"? How upset would people be if they found out that the "Met Council is the only regional authority that can independently increase taxes" but doesn't "[provide] direct representation"?
Kevin Terrell's report is as fascinating as it is infuriating. On pg. 25 of the 42 page report, Terrell lays out what's at stake and some options:
GOVERNANCE: If you err, err on the side of more democracy, more local involvement, more elected officials. Every other council has more democratic governance than MSP.
Sample alternative governance structures
Gubernatorial appointees
Description: ?Leave the Council 100%, or a majority, appointed by the governor.
Advantages: Some believe this model defeats parochial interests in favor of regional "needs" and "efficiency."
Disadvantages: We continue to have an unaccountable body with authority over duly elected officials.
That's one option. Next, think of replacing the Met Council with an elected body like they have in Portland, OR:
Advantage: We would have representatives who are directly accountable for regional policy, spending decisions and outcomes.
Disadvantage: We already have local representatives who are charged with, and capable of dealing with the issues at hand. Why do we need another layer of government?
Another option is called the "Council of Governments" model:
Description: ?An assembly of existing elected officials, with representatives from counties and municipalities.
Advantages:
- We would have directly accountable and existing elected officials responsible for decisions.
- It mirrors the structure of other major regional authorities and would allow the region to eliminate several layers of inefficiency in transportation planning.
Disadvantage: Like most democratic processes, it can be a noisy and messy path to compromise and progress.If accountability is important to you, the current Met Council structure is the worst governing model imaginable. Saying that the Met Council "defeats parochial interests in favor of regional 'needs' and 'efficiency'" is code for saying they prefer going through the motions so they can rubberstamp the governor's agenda. They love being able to raise taxes without having to face the voters whose taxes they raised. It's a liberal's dream job.
Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:20 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 10-May-16 08:57 AM
I understand the State Legislature is attempting to force a switch to the council of governments model, which is the only thing that really makes sense-- call it "regional cooperation."
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 12-May-16 06:02 PM
The Federal Government is allowing the unelected Met Council to exist via a waiver and non-enforcement of the law. When they stop funding MN because the Met Council is unelected, then maybe something will happen but until then, the lack of accountability and transparency will continue.
Paul Ryan swats Palin like a fly
This weekend, Sarah Palin said that Paul Ryan's political career was essentially over. Mrs. Palin predicted that Ryan was about to be "Cantored", a reference to former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who was defeated in a GOP primary. At the time, I said that Mrs. Palin had started believing her press clippings a little too much.
While Speaker Ryan didn't respond Sunday after Mrs. Palin's interview, that doesn't mean he didn't take time to swat her aside later , saying "Look, people in Wisconsin know me well, I really don't have anything to say only that my focus is on the people of this district and unifying the Republican Party on a core set of principles."
People do know Speaker Ryan well. In Wisconsin's First District, which Ryan represents, the latest Marquette University Poll, Speaker Ryan's approval rating is 76%. As I've written consistently, the Marquette University poll is the gold standard in Wisconsin, just like the Des Moines Register Poll is the gold standard in Iowa. Later still, Speaker Ryan took another swipe at Mrs. Palin:
People know me really well in Wisconsin, they know I am going to stand up for my principles that are conservative principles no matter how popular that may be on a given day. They know me personally very well. I don't really worry too much about outside agitators .
Mrs. Palin is a fading star in the GOP. Though she's still got a following, that following keeps getting smaller and closer to the political fringe each time they make an appearance. It won't be long before she'll be a footnote whose fifteen minutes of fame ran out of the hourglass.
Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:46 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 10-May-16 08:54 AM
Paul Ryan recently said he was preparing a sort of new "Contract with America." With Trump the "presumptive" nominee, that would be highly helpful to keeping the general electorate on board with Republicans, and that includes Mr. Trump. :-)
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-May-16 11:24 AM
Trump wants the GOP's loyalty. It's only fair that we, the GOP's foot soldiers, demand loyalty to us. If Trump isn't willing to fight for conservative priorities, then I won't feel obligated to support Trump. Period.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 11-May-16 09:35 AM
I tried to imply that we need to stay engaged with Mr. Trump and get him to give at least lip service to a more detailed conservative agenda, such as Paul Ryan has said he will create. That will help Trump earn our vote and that helps him win the election because, if he doesn't, we lose everything. I don't think Hillary is going to listen to us.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 11-May-16 10:27 PM
Hillary won't listen to us but she isn't as radical and as hair-brained as Trump. Plus, if I support Trump, I'll be accused of supporting all of his hair-brained statements. I won't do that. I don't want lip service, either. I want the real thing. Settling for someone who's a conspiracy theory nutjob and who doesn't intend on serving us isn't what I'll sign up for.
Comment 3 by eric z at 13-May-16 10:26 AM
Sarah Palin is a fly. Not hare-brained. Fly-brained.
Comment 4 by eric z at 17-May-16 03:39 PM
I don't recall that Carthage set terms and conditions after Rome won.
Pat Buchanan's hubris
Pat Buchanan's hubris really shined through in this hit piece attacks the Speaker of the House as being a nobody. That's rich considering the fact that Buchanan once was the Reform Party's presidential nominee but only after he won a lawsuit to defeat a candidate whose platform was based on Transcendental meditation. Then, after winning the Reform Party's nomination, Buchanan endorsed George W. Bush.
That's why it's rich that Buchanan said "Ryan is a congressman from Wisconsin. He has never won a statewide election. As number two on Mitt Romney's ticket, he got waxed by Joe Biden. He was compromise choice as speaker, only after John Boehner went into in his Brer Rabbit "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah" routine. Who made Ryan the conscience of conservatism? Who made Ryan keeper of the keys of true Republicanism?"
With all due respect to Buchanan, who is he to question Ryan's credentials? Buchanan is a natural Trump supporter because, like Trump, he's a international trade defeatist. Unlike economic giants like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and Ronald Reagan, who were enthusiastic free trade advocates, Trump and Buchanan think that American workers can't compete with workers in China, India and South Korea on a level playing field.
Then there's this:
He is pandering to the Trump-hating Beltway media and claiming the leadership of a Republican establishment routed and repudiated in the primaries, not only by that half of the party that voted for Trump, but also by that huge slice of the party that voted for Ted Cruz.
It's kinda embarrassing to watch a former presidential candidate resort to name-calling in his attempt to win an argument. What's worse is that Buchanan actually thinks that Paul Ryan panders to the "Beltway media" on anything.
It's one thing to disagree with Speaker Ryan's policies. It's another to think he's a natural-born panderer.
Finally, there's this:
The hubris here astonishes. A Republican establishment that has been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War is now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans.
The hubris that's most on display is Buchanan's. It's especially on display when he said that "Paul Ryan is the Nelson Rockefeller of his generation." Buchanan's always been a bit off but he's really gone round the bend this time.
The Rockefellers are bigtime environmentalists. Ryan isn't. The Rockefellers lived in ivory towers far removed from the hoi polloi. Ryan's lived his entire life in middle class neighborhoods. The Rockefellers got rich by violating this nation's anti-trust laws.
While it's true that Trump isn't an environmentalist, it's definitely true that he's lived separated from blue collar people. There's little question whether Trump would exploit this nation's anti-trust laws if given the opportunity.
In short, Buchanan's statements are severely lacking in accuracy.
Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:18 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-May-16 10:28 AM
Paul Ryan is the Dan Quayle of his generation.
