November 6-12, 2012
Nov 06 03:12 Why Mitt Romney will win big Nov 07 07:10 Historic voter participation rates? Nov 08 04:43 EDR, participation rate, wave elections and random electoral questions Nov 09 04:37 Winning takes superior messaging, money, organization Nov 10 07:34 No more dodging with Benghazi Nov 11 05:18 What's happening with Sitemeter? Nov 11 06:29 Let's pick the important fights Nov 11 09:38 The ACA layoffs begin...as promised Nov 12 00:57 Media 'expert' offers proof of GOP civil war
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Why Mitt Romney will win big
Newt Gingrich is one of the best political strategists of our time. Whether you agree or disagree with his policies, whether you think he's too temperamental or whether you think he's utterly brilliant, there's no denying the fact that he's got a fantastic knack of understanding main street. This video is a tour de force presentation by Newt:
Here's the first thing Newt said that caught my attention:
It's great. It's the American drama. After all the talk, after all the ads, after all the pontificating, the American people get to tell us.
I'll just say this. It's about time. Let's get this started. I've had enough of looking at deceitful polls. I'm tired of listening to President Obama's stump speech. It isn't time for the pontificators to leave the stage. It's just time for them to add insight into why the American people made the decision they made.
This is the next thing Newt said that caught my attention:
I'll give you one example. They're talking about Democratic early voting in Ohio but they're counting the counties along the Ohio River, which is coal country, which are Second Amendment gun rights country, which are God-fearing counttry, which are the very things that Obama had contempt for in San Fransisco. Those Democrats are going to vote against Obama.
It's wrong to think of these coal-mining Democrats as Romney Democrats, at least at this point. It's possible they'd be accurately described as Romney Democrats. It's entirely possible they'll just join the GOP.
At this point, though, it's best calling them anti-Obama Democrats. At this point, they're best described as people agitated that a Democrat wouldn't fight for the blue collar Democrats that once was the backbone of the Democratic Party.
This statement spoke volumes to me:
NEWT: I was struck by something Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times, hardly a right wing reporter, said that the states he'd been in this week, his phrase was "The organic enthusiasm was for Romney." There was a mechanical machine for Obama but there was an organic enthusiasm for Romney. My experience in politics is that organic enthusiasm,. the whole wave effect, always defeats the mechanical machine.
Notice that Newt didn't criticize the machine. He simply said that a mob of genuinely enthusiastic voters will defeat the machine every time. I couldn't dispute that if I wanted to.
Later, they talked about Todd Akin. Here's what Newt said there:
Well, first of all, Callista and I have both been out campaigning with him. I've really liked Todd Akin. He was given a very bum rap by the national establishment. She is a very Obama-like voter in a state that voted by 71% against Obamacare and then she voted for Obamacare six weeks later. And Romney's going to carry the state by 8-12 point so I think Akin wins by 3 points.
Frankly, I hadn't thought about the folks along Ohio River Democrats voting early for Mitt but it makes sense. If that's what's happened, then that drops Ohio comfortably into Mitt's lap. Similarly, if Mitt's winning Missouri by double-digits and if Missourans don't like Claire McCaskill like I think is the case, then I think Todd Akin wins.
Tags: Newt Gingrich , Predictions , Ohio River , Coal Country , Ohio , Pittsburgh , Enthusiasm Gap , Mitt Romney , Todd Akin , Missouri , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Nov-12 08:44 AM
"organic enthusiasm?"
Newt-speak, at its most creative?
The media always want to tout it as a horse-race to the wire.
I see this one as a bit of a dog race. Neither deserving to catch the mechanical rabbit.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Nov-12 09:11 AM
I see this as Mitt earning America's trust, then turning that into an economic upturn that gets America working again.
Wall Street banks appropriately regulated. Laws getting enforced, unlike with the Holder DOJ. Small business start-ups increasing dramatically. Jobs getting created & incomes rising.
Our not-brief-enough national nightmare is about to be over. Thank God.
Comment 3 by Nick at 06-Nov-12 11:34 AM
Discounting the Gary Johnson factor? Just 3 days before today, he polled at 4% in Colorado and Ohio (CNN/ORC poll). Word is that Johnson could swing Colorado to Romney and both New Hampshire and Ohio to Obama. Virgil Goode could swing Virginia to Obama.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 06-Nov-12 02:24 PM
I'm totally discounting Gary Johnson. He won't affect the outcome of any state.
Comment 5 by eric z at 06-Nov-12 04:48 PM
"... an economic upturn that gets America working again.
"Wall Street banks appropriately regulated. Laws getting enforced, unlike with the Holder DOJ. Small business start-ups increasing dramatically. Jobs getting created & incomes rising."
An Aston Martin in every garage, unless you want a Bentley.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 06-Nov-12 06:38 PM
Why do you hate achievers? That's a rather ugly trait. I celebrate others' success stories. Why don't you?
Comment 7 by eric z at 06-Nov-12 10:44 PM
Obama is an achiever.
And Gary, Romney is a corporate raider. A job killer at Bain. A job outsourcer.
What I want is the rich to pay their fair share, Gary, so your tax load can be lower. I love you that way, dude.
Do you want to subsidize Helmsley at UnitedHealth, with the biggest paycheck in the State?
I don't. He gets richer by people dying when procedures and coverage are denied. He's a ghoul.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Nov-12 11:50 PM
Obama isn't an achiever. He's killing the fossil fuel industry. He's killing manufacturers with high energy prices. Tonight, Anerica proved that they're gullible.
Comment 8 by Tammy Quist at 07-Nov-12 02:21 AM
And how did that work for y'all??? :)
Comment 9 by #6 at 07-Nov-12 08:49 AM
Question to Eric: What do you consider a fair share to "give" (at the point of a gun)? 50%? 70%? 100%? I'd like to know. It'll help me understand socialists better. And, yes I do know what a socialist is, my college degree was in political science.
Comment 10 by shad at 07-Nov-12 01:14 PM
HE LOST CAUSE HE WAS NOT CONSERVTIVE
HE WAS A MOMORN
HE DID NOT WORK IN ALL 50 STATES
HE DID NOT FIGHT AT COLLEGE. EVERY DAY THE DEMOS HAD PEOPLE THERE AND REPS WERE NOT
HE LOST CAUSE HE DID NOT DEFINE THE PLAN.
GOP NEEDS A LONG CHEW OUT CAUSE WE LOST
Response 10.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-12 02:12 PM
Shame on you, Shad. You should know better than saying that. The fact that Mitt's a Mormon is irrelevant. Yesterday, we voted for a president, not for a pastor.
Historic voter participation rates?
According to the Secretary of State's website, 94.25% of registered voters voted in the presidential race . Actually, that isn't right. With 4046 of 4102 precincts reporting, 94.25% of Minnesota's registered voters had voted in the presidential election.
That means a voter participation rate of over 96%.
If that seems steep, that's pathetic compared with the voter participation rate in Hennepin County , where 674,159 of the county's 678,074 voters voted. That's a VPR of 99.4%.
Still, that's nothing compared with the most 'civic-minded' county in Minnesota. In Ramsey County, 278,821 of the county's 279,513 registered voters voted. That's a VPR of 99.75%.
St. Louis County is relatively apathetic, with 'only' 115,620 of their 122,755 voters voting this year. That's a VPR of 94.19%. Dakota County had a VPR of 96.1%.
Does anyone seriously think that 4 major metro counties had voter participation rates over 94%? Does anyone seriously think that a statewide presidential race would trigger a voter partipation rate of more than 96%?
I'm betting against it.
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:10 AM
Comment 1 by Jeff Rosenberg at 07-Nov-12 07:31 AM
This happens every year, Gary. Hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans register to vote on election day. We won't know the true participation rates until all of the new registrations are factored in.
Same-day registration is one of the greatest features of Minnesota's election system. We go to great lengths to help Minnesotans to vote, and we're always rewarded with nation-leading turnout.
Comment 2 by #6 at 07-Nov-12 07:59 AM
Now, the true question is; how many those same day registrations are legit voters? How many of those voted twice? 10 times? Yeah some are legit (I know one who moved late last year), but without voter ID, we'll never know. Without a legit SOS, we'll never know.
Comment 3 by Patrick at 07-Nov-12 08:49 AM
wow that is something to think about. In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County 84.2% and Dane County 87.9%
Comment 4 by eric z at 07-Nov-12 08:53 AM
This election grew stale about two weeks ago. It is over. Each side has won something, lost something, and now we should all hope that those in power in January govern wisely and that partisan impediments dissolve so that good things can be accomplished. The nation is still on the ropes, Europe is in flux, a war needs ending. We live in interesting times.
I see it as good that the bigotry and disenfranchisement amendments failed; you guys don't. From the outset the Minnesota Constitution deserved more respect than to have political opportunists wanting to bastardize it because the governor can veto legislation. It was ill-advised, and Kiffmeyer and ALEC should go away.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-12 09:06 AM
Jeff, I just noticed that they've been adding to the registered voters total. That said, we know from the SecState's website that an average of 500,000 people use EDR during Minnesota's presidential elections, with the high being 582,000 in 2004.
Furthermore, there were 278,000 registerred voters in Ramsey County in 2010. This year, that number rose to 279,000 voters.
Isn't it interesting that EDR voters seemingly vanish after Election Day. It's inexplicable to say 500,000 voters use EDR but but the voter registration number only marginally increase.
Finally, it's interesting that there were 10,000,000 fewer votes cast nationwide in this election than there were in 2004. In that context, it's impossible to explain how Minnesota's VPR jumped from the los 80% range in 2004 to being over 90% this year.
Jeff, please explain that to me.
Comment 6 by eric z at 07-Nov-12 10:36 AM
Gary - perhaps it was that people were energized because they feared Romney, and Ryan more so.
Months ago you might have been right. Your party may have done better with Newt. Likely, he would have gone non-controversial on Veep, probably Pawlenty.
In any event, Ryan was/is one to generate, in Hunter Thompson's famous words, fear and loathing.
If you guys run Ryan in 2016, expect more of the same, though not Obama.
Take off the partisan glasses. Then, just look at the guy. Everything about his unmerited arrogance offends.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-12 12:05 PM
ERic, More votes were cast in this election than in 2008. With all due respect, your theory is bullshit. Not everyone hates successful people like you hate them.
I'd just tell you that it's stupid to think that the idiot in the White House who failed in reviving the economy will prevent us from going over the financial cliff & driving the economy into another recession.
Comment 8 by Doug Wilken at 07-Nov-12 02:32 PM
Hi Gary.
Long time no see.
Here are the numbers from the SOS website on voter participation.
Eligible voter population: 3876752
Voters registered at 7:00 AM: 3084005
Estimated voters: 2939293
Thus estimated voter turnout: 75.82%
I saw lots and lots of people doing same day registration in Foley during my 20 minutes at city hall. It happens. Have a good one.
Doug
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-12 03:02 PM
Voter participation rates are based on registered voters, not eligible voters.
Comment 9 by Phil at 07-Nov-12 04:27 PM
Seem we need a new Secretary of State to me. Mary Kiffmeyer was wonderful, fair and presice. Then we get the ACORN community organizer Mark Richie. Republicans need to make it a priority to dig deep into this and run a good candidate to get him out of there. This also explains a lot about Al Franken's election to!
Comment 10 by walter hanson at 07-Nov-12 04:54 PM
Phill:
They got the governor, the secretary of state, the attorney general, the state legislature, and as both 2008 and 2010 recounts prove the courts don't care.
Without voter ID they probably dragged in enough votes to win the election.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 11 by Leo Pusateri at 07-Nov-12 05:10 PM
Until Mark Ritchie is relieved of his 'duties,' I will never have any confidence in a Minnesota election.
Comment 12 by Rick at 07-Nov-12 08:41 PM
I find it hard to believe the ID amendment failed. I have to present an ID every where I go. I had a medical procedure done last week and I forgot my ID and my wife had to go home and get it. What the people who voted it down don't realize is that with out the photo ID both sides or any un scrupulous group can now cheat. I think as Minnesota continues down this road people of means will start voting with their FEET. I hear South Dakota has no personal income tax.
Comment 13 by Jeff Baumann at 07-Nov-12 09:55 PM
We need to request the names/address/etc of all EDRs by precinct (I believe that is public info) AND whether the voter was later confirmed. I am seeing voter participation rates of over 100% in several of my precincts, which are very demographically stable and should not be seeing numerous registrations.
Comment 14 by Flo at 08-Nov-12 01:15 AM
Mark Ritchie was reelected to his second four-year term in 2010. There is no limit to the number of terms he can serve.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Secretary_of_State
I worked at our little township election. I don't have exact numbers but we had 145 voters out of about 200 (just over 70%) PLUS several absentee voters. Several of the voters were new -- kids finally old enough to vote and people who hadn't bothered for a while and had to reregister as well as some new ones. I'm guessing we were 75-80%. In 2008 we were at about 75%. I'd LOVE to dig into those numbers and see where all those people come from. For the record, with our little corner of the world, we would've had Romney/Ryan as well as both amendments.
Comment 15 by Vince Fostersghost at 08-Nov-12 08:42 AM
My daughter had to "same day" register because the regular registration system sucks. She registered last year, but she was not on the rolls.
So, Jeff "rah rah rah we lead the nation in turn out" Rosenberg, you can take you B.S. and shove it.
This election stinks to high heaven. No way does Obama get 10 million fewer votes than last time and still win, in the midst of the worst economy since Carter.
Either this was rigged from the start, or the anti-Mormon no-shows made the difference. I'm guessing rigged, since it's a proven fact that Democrats cheat. They have made an art out of it.
Mark Ritchie is a crook who probably had the fix in place 6 months ago.
Our republic is dead. Zeig Heil to the Demonrats!
Comment 16 by Nick at 08-Nov-12 09:34 PM
Was Kiffmeyer SOS when Jesse Ventura was Governor?
Comment 17 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-12 11:17 PM
Nick, Joan Growe was Minnesota's SecState in 1998. In fact, that's the election when Sen.-Elect Kiffmeyer defeated Growe.
Comment 18 by Gene Christensen at 09-Nov-12 07:49 PM
It's amazing that people want to change something they know so little about. In MN, if you haven't voted for over 4 consecutive years, you cease to be a registered voter. So, registered voters in MN are only the people who frequently vote, that's why our %'s are so high. So, because we're strict on who's registered, we make it easy to register - same day registration. In my precinct we began the day with 1828 registered voters. We had 1795 people vote (98.2%) if you look at it that way. But, we also had 487 new registrants, so my real number is 1828 plus 487 = 2315 (77.5%). Of those 487 new registrants, I'd say about 20 were vouched for. The most common reason for vouching: husband and wife, all the utility bills come in the husband's name, so he registers and then vouches for his wife - terrible fraud going on there. Also, a person who is vouched for cannot in turn vouch for somebody else. Here are the biggest election problems we have in MN 1) poorly trained election judges - most do this one time every two years, if that much. 2) felons voting before their sentence has been completed. 3) people voting in the wrong place - another poorly trained election judge issue. The only problem a photo ID would prevent is somebody pretending to be you and that just doesn't happen, especially when you're likely to show up because you're not on the rolls if you don't. And if you're not on the roster, then you already have to show a photo ID, and proof of residence. The whole thing was a smoke screen. They didn't care about making the election process better, they merely wanted to keep certain demographics of people away from voting who tend not to vote their way and the photo ID was the perfect fit - covered the right groups and they had a convenient sales pitch. But sorry, I don't use a photo at the ATM, or on the net, or on the phone. Security yes, photo, no. And what happens if next year we get some great fingerprint technology to ID everyone. MN could not use it because these people would have it in the constitution that we must use a photo. This busines is where it belongs - in the legislature, not the constition. Thank you MN for wising up to these guys.
EDR, participation rate, wave elections and random electoral questions
TakeAction Minnesota, one of the organizations that opposed the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, authorized this report to be published. Here's a key statistic from the report:
According to recent testimony by the secretary of state's office, the proposed photo ID amendment could adversely affect more than 700,000 eligible Minnesota voters. This total includes 215,000 registered voters who do not have a Minnesota driver's license or ID card with a current address on it, and another 500,000 eligible voters who use Election Day registration.
Prior to this article, people have generally accepted the importance of Election Day registration, aka EDR. That's changing thanks to this information:
2012
Ramsey County 278,821 votes; 279,513 registered voters, 99.75%VPR
Hennepin County: 674,149 votes, 678,074 RVs, 99.4% VPR
Anoka County: 186,461 votes, 195,424 RVs, 95.4% VPR
Benton County: 19,755 votes, 21,051 RVs, 93.8% VPR
Carlton County: 18,545 votes, 19,929 RVs, 93.1% VPR
Carver County: 52,899 votes, 55,366 RVs, 95.5% VPR
Dakota County: 230,992 votes, 240,100 RVs, 96.2% VPR
Morrison County: 16,836 votes, 17,998 RVs, 93.5% VPR
St. Louis County: 115,921 votes, 122,755 RVs, 94.4% VPR
Sherburne County: 46,707 votes, 48,691 RVs, 95.9% VPR
Wright County: 69,861 votes, 70,572 RVs, 99.0% VPR
Washington County: 142,133 votes, 151,803 RVs, 93.6% VPR
Registered Voters at 7AM: 3,085,277 , Voting Eligible Population: 3,876,752
In addition to the astonishing participation rates, notice that 3,085,277 people were registered voters in 2012.
Let's compare those figures with 2008's participation figures and registered voter numbers:
2008
Ramsey County 278,169 votes; 317,028 RVs, 87.7%
Hennepin County: 665,485 votes, 722,777 RVs, 92.1% VPR
Anoka County: 182,559 votes, 189,349 RVs, 96.4% VPR
Benton County: 19,429 votes, 21,438 RVs, 90.6% VPR
Carlton County: 18,530 votes, 19,942 RVs, 92.9% VPR
Carver County: 49,806 votes, 53,059 RVs, 93.9% VPR
Dakota County: 225,933 votes, 241,276 RVs, 96.2% VPR
Morrison County: 16,850 votes, 18,979 RVs, 93.6% VPR
St. Louis County: 119,435 votes, 134,550 RVs 88.8% VPR
Sherburne County: 45,121 votes, 47,397 RVs, 95.2% VPR
Wright County: 65,479 votes, 67,959 RVs 96.4% VPR
Washington County: 137,323 votes, 147,347 RVs, 93.2% VPR
Registered Voters as of 7AM 11-04-08: 3,199,981
In 2012, there were 1,544,914 registered voters in Ramsey, Hennepin, Anoka, Dakota and Washington counties. According to the Secretary of State's website, 1,512,556 people voted in those counties. That's a participation rate of 97.9%.
Let's compare those statistics with 2008 for those same counties. There were 1,617,777 registered voters in 2008, with 1,489,469 people voting in those counties. That's a participation rate of 92.1%.
That isn't the astonishing part, though. In 2008, there were 3,199,981 registered voters in Minnesota, compared with 3,085,277 registered voters in 2012.
If 500,000 people use EDR each presidential election in Minnesota, why were there 114,704 more registered voters in Minnesota in 2008 than in 2008?
That isn't even the most astonishing statistic, though. Even though there were 114,704 fewer registered voters in Minnesota in 2012 than in 2008, 21,707 more votes were cast in 2012 than in 2008.
In 2008, the participation rate was 90.9%. In 2012, the participation rate was 95.03%, an increase of 4 points from a wave election.
With all due respect, it's impossible to believe that the voter participation rate was 4 points higher this year than in a wave election. It's impossible to believe that 500,000 people used EDR in 2008 and another 500,000 people in 2010 but there were 114,704 fewer registered voters in 2012 than in 2008.
Finally, where did those 1,000,000 registered voters disappear to? It isn't a stretch to think that a significant portion of those voters who used EDR weren't eligible to vote.
Without Photo ID, though, it's almost impossible to tell.
Tags: TakeAction Minnesota , Election 2012 , Election 2008 , Wave Election , Voter Participation Rate , Registered Voters , Investigation
Posted Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:43 AM
Comment 1 by #6 at 08-Nov-12 06:33 AM
Have you brought this up to Se. Kiffmeyer? I'd like her take on this.
Comment 2 by eric z at 08-Nov-12 07:50 AM
Your top ticket scared a bunch of people into showing up.
It is that simple, together with the bigotry amendment and the disenfranchisement amendment.
Your ploys backfired.
Blame yourelves, not active voters in fear of Romney-Ryan. Or, you can go on in fantasy land, and see the very same backlash in four years when Ryan heads your ticket. It is that or show a learning curve.
And adapt to having the Ron Paul people, listen to ALL they say, and, THINK.
Thinking tops whining. Every time.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-12 09:37 AM
Eric, Please don't insult me like that. I'm supposed to believe that 97+ percent of registered voters in a half dozen counties showed up, especially when those same counties' participation rate was 7-8 points less 4 years ago. Hennepin County had more registered voters in 2008 but cast fewer votes than in 2012? Seriously? If that's what you're selling, I ain't buying.
First, Jeff, your name doesn't drop off the registered voter list if you don't vote. The only way it's flagged is if a court rules that a person is placed in a guardianship or if the person commits a felony. The person's name is deleted when they die or they move to a new address.
Second, If you read my Examiner article, you'll see that Ramsey & Hennepin counties, not exactly known as bastions of conservatism, had 957,587 registered voters in 2012. There were 952,970 votes cast in those counties. That's a 99.52 perticipation rate. In 2008, 943,654 votes were cast in those counties. That year, there were 1,039,805 registered voters.
That means there were 9,316 more votes cast in Hennepin & Ramsey this year even though there were 82,218 fewer registered voters. That's a participation rate of 90.8%. That means there was an 8.7 point increase from 2008. I'm not buying it.
Comment 3 by eric z at 08-Nov-12 07:59 AM
I want you all to stick your head out your window and yell, "'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Comment 4 by Patrick at 08-Nov-12 08:16 AM
This just in.... Strong Majority--Including All Minorities--Favors Photo ID Laws For Voting http://tinyurl.com/cradf2u
Also in the headlines - U.N. Poll Watchers Baffled U.S. Doesn't Require I.D. to Vote http://tinyurl.com/ap436tw
Comment 5 by Jeff Rosenberg at 08-Nov-12 08:54 AM
"With all due respect, it's impossible to believe that the voter participation rate was 4 points higher this year than in a wave election."
Wave elections are just as much the product of one product being demoralized as another being enthusiastic. Sure, Democrats turned out in record numbers in 2008, but what made it a wave was Republicans staying home.
"It's impossible to believe that 500,000 people used EDR in 2008 and another 500,000 people in 2010 but there were 114,704 fewer registered voters in 2012 than in 2008."
If I recall correctly, voters who have not voted in the past two elections are purged from the rolls.
Comment 6 by Paul L at 01-Jan-13 10:06 AM
I think you're forgetting that many voters on the preregistration roll at 7 am moved to a new precinct since the last election and registered on Election Day at their new precinct polling place. I am an election judge in a precinct with many college students. We register 200 to 300 on Election Day, and their names show up on the polling book at the next election even though they've graduated or moved, but are also counted as same day registrants.
Winning takes superior messaging, money, organization
For Minnesota movement conservatives, now isn't the time for pointing fingers and recriminations. Yes, we suffered a major defeat Tuesday night, partially because we put the marriage amendment on the ballot at the end of the 2011 legislative session but mostly because we haven't invested in the messaging and organization that the DFL has. Let me explain.
ABM is a despicable, deceitful organization filled with people committed to lying if that's what it takes to win elections. That said, they set the DFL's agenda with their communications. I'm not suggesting we sell our souls like ABM and other DFL parasite organizations have done. I'm suggesting that we get more involved in proactive messaging that shapes issues, puts the DFL on the defensive and questions the DFL's thinking and policies.
The first thing we need to do now that we're stuck with a DFL legislature and governor for the next 2 years is figure out what their plan is. That's pretty simple. The DFL will raise taxes, increase environmental regulations and spend money recklessly. The next thing that conservatives need to prepare for is highlighting the DFL catastrophic failures.
The DFL's tax increases will slow the economy. The environmental regulations that DFL activist organizations will insist on will cripple the Iron Range because they'll cripple the mining, logging and shipping industries.
The DFL will spend tons of money on education. They'll spend tons of money on MNSCU with little regard for whether MNSCU will spend the taxpayers' money wisely. (HINT: It won't be spent wisely.)
It isn't enough for conservatives to say that education is a good thing and that they support education. It's time to highlight the appalling flaws with government schools, MnSCU and the U of M.
It's time to highlight how much of the taxpayers' money these institutions spend on lobbying. It's time for K-12 activists to highlight the counterproductive programs that don't prepare students for life after graduation. It's time to highlight how much money is spent on administrators that don't enhance educational outcomes.
Next, we need a party of evangelists, people that know the issues and reach out to communities that we've ignored. That means staying in constant contact with minority communities. That means trashing the GOP model of approaching the minority communities 6 months before an election, then asking for their support.
Remind everyone that we're the only political party in Minnesota that celebrates the entrepreneurial movement, that praises achievers and that thinks innovators should be rewarded with tax simplification, streamlined regulations and constantly growing profits.
The DFL certainly doesn't fit that description. In fact, they've spent the last 3 years villainizing entrepreneurs, faintly praising innovators, voting against a streamlined permitting process and collecting support from environmental organizations that are destroying the Iron Range.
Finally, it's time we put in place the organization that will get conservatives moving in the right direction simultaneously while highlighting Alida Messinger's deceitful machine. That means highlighting her funding of ABM's smear tactics and Conservation Minnesota's anti-mining, anti-freedom agenda.
This is doable. It's been done in other states, most notably in Wisconsin. Let's get started winning the future. We know that the DFL isn't the future. It's time to start working towards making them the Party of the failed past.
Tags: Conservatism , Entrepreneurship , Capitalism , Communications , Evangelization , MNGOP , Regulation , Taxation , Education , Pork , Alida Messinger , Conservation Minnesota , ABM , MnSCU , DFL
Posted Friday, November 9, 2012 4:41 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick at 09-Nov-12 07:56 AM
You're a loser. Your political agenda has not only only failed to be mainstream, youre white, male autocratic viewpoint is rapidly becoming irrelavant. Maybe you should move into a remote cabin and start mailing out letter bombs now, rather than wait for the next round of political losses to come first.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Nov-12 09:03 AM
I hate pointing this out but Ted Kaczynski was a progressive who believed in global warming. He chose to not have electricity & running water because he didn't want to harm the environment.
Perhaps you could explain how people that trust in people making their own economic decisions is autocratic. I'm betting you can't but that doesn't mean I wasn't impressed with how well you wrote your party's chanting points for politically inobservant people. Here's what I think of your intellectual heft:
Comment 2 by #6 at 09-Nov-12 08:05 AM
I also say that the Republicans in the Legislature shouldn't sit on their hands. They should submit budgets to the committees. They should offer reform legislation. They should act like their in the majority, even though they're not. Yes, I know it won't pass, but paint the Democrats into a corner. Offer common sense solutions when the offer their destructive nonsense. Also, try to amend their bills to make them worse. When the offer legislation to approve homosexual "marriages", offer an amendment to allow polygamy. Use their arguments against them. Go to the press. Use the press against them. Use talk radio, to fire up the base. Stay in touch on a very regular basis. Stay in touch with the bloggers. They are the new media.
Here's my advice. I hope they follow it.
Comment 3 by Patrick-M at 09-Nov-12 11:46 AM
Gary
Spot on. We need to start now; hire young people that are tech savvy and get going on contacting now - 21st century style. The USA has changed and we should be united if we want to win again. Case in point - are we professionals? Each time I showed up at a local Republican HQ office it was a mess, physical space, people working there; in fact no one greeted me ever.
PS - there is another Patrick here posting so I put mine as Patrick-M
Comment 4 by eric z at 09-Nov-12 10:42 PM
With much past criticism of Obama and the CIA and Lybia, a post about whether, now, you see the problem improved by the leadership change might be a helpful analysis for readers. Or do you see things too close to the change now with scant facts out on which to base analysis?
I don't mean to hijact the thread, but it's had a full comment range.
And regarding the post, I can only say what I have said before; Ron Paul is the only viable voice I see on the Republican scene, with Paul Ryan too scary for most liberals or centrists. Ryan in 2016 would not win, and would harm your down-ticket folks. Your problem is not your organization, it is the quality of the people you select to offer.
Comment 5 by eric z at 09-Nov-12 10:51 PM
Ted K, let that aside. Randy Weaver was apolitical, and they intruded into his life causing extreme grief, with the motive to have ATF having something to show for their time and budget. Weaver was set up and screwed, and ATF next went and burned Koresh people at WACO, again without excuse. It is the "law and order" package some sold the public that allowed government war on drugs and war on the people, and it is time to listen to Ron Paul and shut down the drain on us from the "War on Drugs." It is a war on the treasury, with too many highly paid drug warriors, putting a random mix of pot heads in the slammer but without any clue as to how to deal with tons of illegal drugs annually entering the borders. ATF, has it been rolled into Homeland Security, and where are the paychecks being sent now? How come neither party wants to talk about that kind of government abuse, with the Republicans instead carping over people's health needs being met instead of folks dying in emergency room hallways? Both parties are at fault, but on your side, Ron Paul is talking sense in some ways, and is being cold-shouldered.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-12 06:08 AM
Eric, it's time you thought things through a bit. Ruby Ridge & Waco happened during Clinton's term. Libya, not Lybia, is the biggest scandal in U.S. history. Let's review what happened:
President Obama and Hillary Clinton knew about the growing terrorist threat in Benghazi but repeatedly refused to increase consulate security.When the terrorist attack happened, the CIA on the ground called for military backup. This administration didn't respond to that urgent plea for help. Thanks to this administration's disinterest or incompetence, 4 American patriots died needlessly.Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the military wasn't dispatched because they didn't know what they'd be jumping into. Former CIA operator Mike Baker & former Army Lt. Col. David Hunt said that Delta Force is specifically trained for such missions. Panetta failed these patriots, too.After the needless deaths of these heroic patriots, this administration called on their media allies to sell the story that a video triggered the attacks. The media didn't question the administration. In fact, they eventually started saying that they were justified in not covering it because Mitt Romney didn't talk about it. That's media malpractice of the worst kind.Let's be clear about this. This is President Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Mary Jo Kopechne episode. They should be viewed by history as disgusting, vile politicians who didn't prevent terrorist attacks & who didn't protect their own employees.
Watergate was more complex than this but it pales in comparison in terms of scandals. Nobody died as a result of Nixon's decisions.
As for the "War on Drugs costing too much money, that's laughable coming from a reckless spending progressive who wants to spend money on obscure special interest groups' wish lists. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so ironic.
You've proven that you hate employers but you expect them to hire people while making little profit. Reagan was right when he said "You can't love jobs if you hate the job creators." That's what the DFL thinks right now. It won't take long for them to crash Minnesota's economy.
Unfortunately, it'll take forever to clean up the mess these idiots create.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 10-Nov-12 12:26 PM
Gary:
Back to your post is fight back with their own tatics. Lets introduce a voter ID bill and try to amend it to every single bill. Why?
Because the basic argument that Mark Dayton and the opponents of voter ID used was that it should be done properly through the legislature. Well here's the legislature and you have a responsibility to over a million Minnesotans that we do the bill now.
Now one DFL lawmaker will grab his mike and say it's time to do other issues.
In which case we say, "So you lied about voter ID what else are you lieing about? Time to be honest."
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-12 09:19 PM
Lets introduce a voter ID bill and try to amend it to every single bill. Why?That's foolish. The Speaker rules from the chair that it isn't germain to the legislation being debated. Debate on Photo ID is over immediately.
No more dodging with Benghazi
It's time for President Obama, Secretary Clinton, CIA Director Petraeus and Defense Secretary Panetta to be grilled extensively on their decisions, or lack thereof, during the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2012. I don't want this hearing to be about a ton of peripheral topics. Citizen journalists will sort through Susan Rice's and Jay Carney's spin.
This shouldn't even be about President Obama attending a Vegas fundraiser the day after the terrorist attacks. Again, that's something citizen journalists can sort through. Here are the things this hearing must be about:
- Who was the first senior administration official to get real time reports from the consulate the day of the terrorist attack? Did this senior administration official report this immediately to President Obama? If not, why not?
- When did President Obama's national security team first tell him about the terrorist attack? Was this during his afternoon meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta the day of the terrorist attack?
- During his meeting with Secretary Panetta, did President Obama order Panetta to send troops to protect the diplomatic staff in Benghazi? If he didn't order protection for these American patriots during his meeting with Secretary Panetta, did President Obama order military support later in the day? If not, why not?
- Secretary Panetta said that he didn't send troops in because they didn't know what they'd be jumping into. Mike Baker dispelled that myth by saying the CIA and military are receiving a "glut of information" in real time from the CIA, specifically the Global Response Staff. Did Secretary Panetta recommend to President Obama that the military jump into the firefight/terrorist attack? If he did, what was President Obama's response? If he didn't, why didn't he make that recommendation?
- When did Charlene Lamb first tell Hillary Clinton about the terrorist attack? When she was told about the terrorist attack, did Ms. Clinton immediately contact President Obama? If not, why not? If she did, what time was it that she contacted him?
- President Obama was the only person with the constitutional authority to order troop deployments during an act of war. Terrorist attacks on American consulates are without question acts of war. Did he order spec-ops troops to be deployed to Benghazi to protect the diplomats from the terrorist attack? If he didn't, why didn't he?
These hearings need to start with focusing in on a single subject so the American people get a detailed understanding of President Obama's national security team operations and his decisions to protect or not protect Christopher Stevens and his diplomatic staff.
Once that base of information is established and the American people understand President Obama's failings, then the hearings can expand into other areas. Until then, they must stay focused.
Tags: Benghazi Terrorist Attacks , President Obama , Hillary Clinton , Leon Panetta , Democrat Politicians , David Petraeus , Delta Force , CIA , Charlene Lamb , State Department , Christopher Stevens , Ty Woods , Sean Smith , Glenn Doherty , Patriots , Jay Carney , Susan Rice , Spinmeisters
Posted Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:34 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Nov-12 10:55 AM
Third guy in your opening sentence, odd man out.
Reuters has a good op ed giving links to several not fully consistent versions of fact. Sampling there should be first, before too many conclusions:
http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/tag/libya/
The question, who at CIA or paramour of one at CIA blew the cover on something having national security cause to perhaps float a disinformation story; what was put at risk for Romney-Ryan potential political making hay, all that. The interaction between careerists at CIA and Petraeus, the FBI investigation, all that needs examination. Did the careerists have the paramour angle in the bag from the get go, to be used in the event a Petraeus sacking became necessary or convenient? As one who did not progress through the CIA ranks, having the goods at the start on an imposed outside head from the military would not conflict with things that advance careers of CIA careerists.
Presuming a Fox version of things truthful as a base premise for posing a set of questions aimed at dumping on Obama and his Secretary of State may be quite unwise and an amateur step.
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Nov-12 10:58 AM
I reread my comment. It's not clear, but what I tried to say is "What happened" is the preliminary question before going off in directions based on some thesis of what happened, especially one grounded in FOX vs facts.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-12 09:35 PM
What I tried to say is "What happened" is the preliminary question before going off in directions based on some thesis of what happenedKnowing what President Obama did at the height of the crisis is what's most important. Did he lie when he told the media that he'd commanded his administration "to do everything possible" for Christopher Stevens? Did he command Panetta to not send in Delta Force when Christopher Stevens was crying for help after the compound was compromised? If President Obama refused to protect our ambassador, then he's the scummiest dirtbag of a president in U.S. history. There isn't another president that wouldn't have done everything possible to rescue a U.S. ambassador in that situation.
especially one grounded in FOX vs facts.Your distrust of Fox is typical leftist BS. It's your blind spot. What's worse is that you immediately assume they're lying. The truth is it's been Fox's Jennifer Griffin & Catherine Herridge who've broken most of the documents that question President Obama's statements. The other people who've done fantastic work breaking through President Obama's BS are CBS's Lara Logan & Sharyl Attkisson & ABC's Jake Tapper. In fact, Tapper & Logan have praised the work Herridge & Griffin have done.
But you know better, right? You just know that those documents showing President Obama was MIA are forgeries, right?
Final question: Wheh will you admit that hatred, not facts, drives your opinions about FNC? Your 'facts' don't match with the truth. Deal with it before you become the bitter man that typifies the left.
Comment 3 by eric z at 10-Nov-12 11:03 AM
Then, second big question, was national security breached and a possibly very necessary CIA operation compromised for political or other reasons; and if so, by whom, with what motives, and with what actual factual consequences. The problem there, it will be a closed door questioning, with the public held to not have need to know status. As always, there are pros and cons, and other administrations before Obama have used "national security" as an excuse and classification of information as a convenience. It is a thicket of problems, Bere Rabbit's brier patch, but I fully agree with Gary that the situation is ripe for investigation and improvement of procedures and likely personnel decisions that may never become public, but whatever happens behind closed doors, public trust in the players and motives and happenings needs to be considered and satisfied.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-12 09:39 PM
I hadn't questioned the need for improving procedures. I'm stating that President Obama made a series of terrible decisions that cost 4 U.S. patriots their lives when their lives were quite savable. The only thing that would've changed the outcome was firing President Obama. Changing procedures just means the symptoms gets treated but the disease, aka President Obama, lives on for another 4 years.
Now that the election is behind us, I just hope he doesn't get more American patriots needlessly killed. I'm not holding my breath on that.
Comment 4 by eric z at 10-Nov-12 11:29 AM
Key questions you do not list, Gary, what was the CIA up to and had they given prior assurances of keeping security and not wanting any bolstering in advance of Sept. 11 to not focus attention on where they were and what they were up to? With Petraeus now thrown under the bus it appears it was a CIA failure, cowboy operation that resulted in three dead, and what value is there to telling the world's public more about that than already has been let out? You Gary are suggesting a witch hunt, and I want the question, "What really happened, time frame, etc." answered first. There was a substantial time delay for CIA to get from their compound to where the fan was loading up, and that level of delay would be intolerable of a local fire department. What happened, how responsible was Paetreus for it, and is this why he's been removed?
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 10-Nov-12 12:19 PM
Eric:
Let me try to make this easy for you since you made four posts because of the Obama reelection drink you had.
Obama cared more about attending fundraisers then he did about national security and having people who cared about making sure Americans are safe.
The person to blame is Obama since he is going to try to pretend to the world that it was the video and we took care of the man who made the video.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by eric z at 11-Nov-12 08:29 AM
Glad to read Walter saying dumping a load on Obama is what it is all about, the only thing it is about. Walter, honesty is a good trait and you showed some.
As to an end to needless killing, Gary, is that saying get out of Afghanistan ASAP, yesterday was not soon enough? If so, Bravo.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-12 08:51 AM
Eric, killing terrorists in Afghanistan & Pakistan isn't needless killing. That's what's known as protecting the United States from future terrorist attacks.
As for President Obama's refusal to exert leadership, Panetta's indecisiveness & Hillary's hiding the truth, aka the things that got 4 American patriots killed, I'll hang that millstone around their collective necks for as long as I live.
What they did is disgusting. They're far from the best America has to offer. They're putrid betrayers of all that's best with America.
What's happening with Sitemeter?
This past week, it's been almost impossible to access my Sitemeter statistics on how many people have visited LFR. At first, I thought it might be something on my end. After clicking on a number of other websites' Sitemeter icons, all of which I've been able to view before, it's apparent that Sitemeter is the problem.
If anyone knows why Sitemeter's having these extensive difficulties, please post a comment with what's happening.
If Sitemeter fixes their issues, I'll be a happy camper. It they can't fix their issues, then it's time for the marketplace to work. It's time for someone to build a better website visit tracker.
Posted Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:18 AM
Comment 1 by Kristy Richardson at 21-Jan-13 11:15 AM
SiteMeter is frustrating me to no end. I haven't used them in years....but decided to sign up for an account yesterday and use it on my latest blog. I got signed up, installed the code - then voila....I couldn't access the statistics portion of the website. I tried to log out and log back in - but I hadn't received the initial email that is supposed to contain my password. So - I tried to request my password but kept getting an error message. I finally filled out the contact form for support but still haven't heard a thing.
So, this morning, I decide that 'maybe' I didn't type my email address in correctly when signing up for the account yesterday. I decide to just sign up for a different account - which ended up being the same issues - didn't receive the email with my password and can't access the statistics page.
While checking my email I noticed a daily report on my stats from SiteMeter and tried clicking unsubscribe (since I just created a new account) - but the page wouldn't load. So now I sit with 2 accounts - which means I'll be getting 2 daily reports via email - neither of which I can unsubscribe from if I choose to dump SiteMeter altogether.
Any ideas of what is going on with them currently? I was about to reprise an old blog post with blogging tips and various website for bloggers including stat websites like StatCounter and SiteMeter - neither of which I would recommend right at the moment.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jan-13 01:19 PM
Sorry Kristy but I don't have any answers for you. Best of luck, though.
Let's pick the important fights
This past Tuesday, Democrats won a decisive victory. While much of the discussion has questioned whether Republicans have to move to the center or who will win the battle for the GOP's soul, I've focused on a different tactic.
With a couple notable exceptions, conservatives believe in the right things. A couple adjustments will fix things there.
Starting this January, it's time for Republicans to pick fights with President Obama and Harry Reid. The sooner, the better. In fact, the bigger the fight, the better off we'll be.
I'd hope the House would start with a fight on fossil fuel permitting increases and EPA regulatory relief. Send the message that Republicans won't budge an inch on anything coming from the Senate or White House until they agree to reshape energy policy.
That's just one thing to pick a fight over. Another fight worth picking is over the ACA. The House GOP Doctors Caucus should immediately draft legislation that increases patients' health insurance options. It should include a provision eliminating the federal government's ability to dictate to health care consumers what coverages must be in their government-mandated insurance policies.
I'd call for hearings that include health insurance company executives testifying that they could reduce health insurance premiums by giving consumers greater latitude and choice.
In 2014, Democrats in the House and Senate will have to run by defending their votes to limit people's health insurance options. I'd love seeing the Democrats defend their votes to kill the fossil fuel industries. Likewise, I can't wait seeing them defend their votes to keep gas prices high and electric bills expensive. Let's see the Democrats explain how they sided with the militant environmentalists instead of voting for robust job growth.
Again, the House should call for hearings of oil, coal and natural gas company CEOs to highlight the fact that they'd love to create millions of new jobs if only this administration's EPA would take their foot off the energy companies' throats. Have them explain that, at minimum, additional exploration and production will lead to lower prices and higher wages.
With the Obama Recession heading in our direction at an accelerating rate, it's time for Republicans to offer the most compelling alternative plan to President Obama's policies. Highlight the fact that President Obama's policies alone have lead to high gas prices, dropping family incomes and high unemployment.
Now that the election is over, I hope the superPACs don't disappear until 2014 or 2016. I hope they fund outreach programs. Have these outreach programs reach into parts of society that the GOP hasn't spent much time in. The people doing outreach must speak fluent Main Street. Technocratese won't cut it.
Let's start picking important fights that impact families' ability to cope financially. If we take that path and we communicate our agenda without talking in technocratese, the GOP's resurgence won't take as long as the experts predict.
Tags: President Obama , Obama Recession , Unemployment , Militant Environmentalists , ACA , EPA , Democrats , Regulatory Reform , Health Care Choice , GOP Doctors Caucus , Tom Price , Phil Gingrey , Fracking , Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less , GOP
Posted Sunday, November 11, 2012 6:29 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Nov-12 08:25 AM
Fracking, the devestation of fracking should by your guys first hearing. Christ!
Have you ever heard of working together for the common good?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-12 08:46 AM
When did the Democrats last do something that's helped anyone other than their special interest allies? Try early in the Bush administration, if then.
Fracking isn't the environmental disaster the D's say it is. It's apparent you haven't noticed that pollution has been cut dramatically.
Despite that improvement, militant environmentalists still insist that we're destroying the earth. Let's remember that they're the people that predicted we'd get 4-5 years of oil out of Prudhoe Bay. That's what the president of the Sierra Club wrote in Outdoor Life magazine...in 1973. A brief 39 years later, they're still getting oil from Prudhoe.
Militant environmentalists have been tragically wrong with their predictions more often than Joe Biden's been wrong about national security/foreign policy issues. In fact, they've been wrong more frequently than VP Biden & John Kerry combined.
When the Democrats pull their heads out of their collective asses & start doing thing that make life better for Americans, the GOP will be waiting to work with them.
While they're doing destructive things like the ACA, driving up the price of a gallon of gas, making it more expensive to heat our homes, not to mention making groceries more expensive, the GOP will be the loyal opposition.
We lost some elections but I refuse to take a defeatist attitude.
A recession is heading our way fast. This time, it's a recession of President Obama's making. People are laying people off as the direct result of the ACA. The EPA is killing mining & killing Pennsylvania's, Ohio's & Virginia's economies.
We'll be there to highlight this administration's failures. Deal with it.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 11-Nov-12 09:26 AM
You make me laugh every time you post a your silly little comments eric z. Working together for the common good?! What that means in your little world is having the GOP bend over, take in the tail pipe and go along with whatever the democrats want to do. That's your idea of compromise.
Your president has already said he has a mandate to raise taxes and such so do you think he's going to come together for the common good? Nope, he's going to ram whatever he can down our throats and then, when congress won't do his bidding, he'll just throw in another executive order to get his way like the petulent little child he is.
You, the president, and the rest of the democrat party will not be happy until the government controls everything and we are all dependent on the government for everything we get. You may think you'll survive because you support this kind of thinking but in the end, you'll still get eaten by the government just like everyone else.
As Gary said, your president owns this economy so who is he going to blame the next 4 years because God knows he won't take responsibility.
Comment 4 by eric z at 11-Nov-12 03:44 PM
Gary, with your delineating a strategy, do you view David Hann as a good choice to be the tip of the spear in any such implementation?
If not Hann, who would you have chosen?
Also, if you really like Hann, a sentence or two about his strongest points would be informative.
Last thing, nationally, will the GOP really continue to work to scuttle middle class tax relief? Is there no learning curve?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-12 11:49 PM
Eric, David Hann won't win many wars because Bakk's got the votes but he'll run circles around the neanderthal from Cook. I love the pick of David Hann. He's smart, assertive & he's cool under pressure.
Like I said, he'll make Bakk look foolish more than once.
Response 4.2 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-12 11:57 PM
Eric, Don't think the Democrats will get away with that "middle class tax relief" BS for long. This administration's policies have directly led to higher gas prices, more expensive grocery bills, declining wages & higher unemployment thanks to their hostility towards fossil fuels, crony capitalism that rewards PEUs & major contributors & the ACA in that particular order.
If I were a political consultant, I'd have Republicans articulating those things frequently. Democrats hurt the middle class & entrepreneurs with their policies. Now it's time for them to pay for their policies.
Comment 5 by Bob at 11-Nov-12 04:56 PM
I agree with Gary in that the best defense against another thrashing is a good offense. Too bad all the liberal media pundits have the Republicans chasing their tail over immigration!
Conservatives, it is time to take a strong move on offense and stop being distracted by the shiny object(s) dangled by the liberals.
The Dayton Family Liars party is firmly in control in Minnesota. We could use a good, hard hitting ground game offense here before we become a cold snowy California :-(
The ACA layoffs begin...as promised
Remember when then-Speaker Pelosi said that the ACA was a job creator ? Later, she said we'd have to read the bill to know everything that's in it. Then she brought the bill to a vote before anyone had time to read it. Kerry Picket's reporting shows Pelosi didn't tell the truth:
Welch Allyn
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.
Boston Scientific
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.
Medtronic
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
Let's be blunt about something. These layoffs will cause families' incomes to drop. When President Bush left office, the average family income was just short of $55,000. Once these layoffs hit and other employees are reduced to part time status, we'll be fortunate if average family income hits $48,000 a year.
That's the economic reality of President Obama's economic policies. Simply put, he's a total disaster. His best job creation month hasn't even hit 300,000. Reagan's best month, job creation-wise, was in Sept., 1983. That month, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. In other words, Reagan's best month created slightly fewer jobs than were created in President Obama's best year.
Thanks to President Obama's disastrous policies, we're now stuck with 4 more years of President Obama's failed economic policies. None of President Obama's policies is more disastrous than the ACA.
A frequent progressive commenter just asked if Republicans ever did anything for the public good. Considering the fact that President Obama's policies were implemented via his my-way-or-the-highway tactics. More importantly, they've failed miserably.
I've said it before & I'll repeat it again: there's no virtue in agreeing with the left's disastrous policies.
Tags: President Obama , Recession , Boston Scientific , Medtronics , Stryker , Welch Allyn , ACA Layoffs , Nancy Pelosi , Unemployment , Family Incomes , Outsourcing , Democrats
Posted Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:38 AM
No comments.
Media 'expert' offers proof of GOP civil war
Bill O'Reilly touts Bernie Goldberg as an expert on the media, which says something in and of itself. Call it the Mindless Bloviator praises the Expert Pontificator. This weekend, Goldberg's column offers 'proof' of a GOP civil war. At least, that's the Gospel according to the Expert Pontificator. Here's the Expert Pontificator's proof:
So I'm driving in my car listening to Rush two days after the election and a caller comes who describes himself as a traditional family values conservative. He is a combination of angry and deeply depressed over how the election turned out, but mostly angry. And he's calling, he says, to inform Mr. Limbaugh that he did not vote for Mitt Romney and will never vote for a moderate Republican. Then for good measure he adds that if he ever hears a Republican say he wants to 'reach across the aisle' he will never vote for him either.
One day earlier, conservative radio talk show star Laura Ingraham tweeted this:
'Face it Repubs, you wish we had a candidate who-teleprompter or not-could speak as forcefully for conservatism as Obama speaks for liberalism' and 'JUST A THOUGHT: Next time, GOP might want to think about nominating a conservative.'
And out in Middle America, Steve Deace, a conservative radio talk show host and well-known conservative in Iowa told his listeners: 'There will never be another establishment candidate like that [Romney]. Mitt just killed Republicans in my home state. People are angry, especially because Matt Drudge and Karl Rove told us it was all in the bag all along, after they got done smearing conservatives in the primary and dumping on Todd Akin. It's on like Donkey Kong.'
That Goldberg thinks that 3 callers on talk radio constitutes a GOP civil war speaks to Mr. Goldberg's habit of overdramatizing things. If that's the criteria defining an intraparty civil war, then the GOP has fought civil wars while winning landslide victories and while suffering humiliating defeats.
Of we could just call this what it is: a tussle that happens to all political parties after a defeat.
I've talked with lots of conservatives since the election. None has suggested that they're upset with Mitt Romney's policies. A fair number of these conservatives think he ran too cautious of a campaign, especially with regard to Benghazi and the EPA.
That isn't the same as saying they're ready to go headhunting. Yes, there will undoubtedly be some angry conservatives venting on talk radio. A fair number of them will have constructive ideas moving the GOP forward, too.
That, however, doesn't constitute a full-blown intraparty civil war in the GOP.
Tags: Bill O'Reilly , Bernie Goldberg , Drama Queen , Civil War , Mitt Romney , Benghazi , EPA , Talk Radio , Rush Limbaugh , Laura Ingraham , Conservatism , GOP
Posted Monday, November 12, 2012 12:57 AM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 12-Nov-12 11:33 AM
Gary-
I think a civil war is looming in the GOP and I made that claim even before the elections.
The civil war, at least in Minnesota, will be between the Paultards (yes, I used a pejorative - no apologies) and virtually everyone else in the state GOP.
The Paultards have made it clear their next step is control of the State Central Committee. At the risk of speaking in broad terms, I believe that most of them have no interest in doing what's right for the state GOP. Rather, that party apparatus is a means to their ends - and in many ways, their ends are NOT in alignment with ours.
Due to Sutton's/Brodkorb's mismanagement and also due to the fact that our party was literally and figuratively shattered in last week's elections, now is not the time for a civil war. But given the leadership of the Paultard element in Minnesota, I believe there'll be one.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Nov-12 01:03 PM
That isn't a civil war. That's flushing the corruptocrats & the take-my-ball-and-go-homers down the shitter.
Comment 2 by eric z at 12-Nov-12 01:59 PM
"Corruptocrats" means what?
Depending on you definitions, some outside the GOP tent would say after your flushing, you'd have nothing left.
Who, or what segment of the present GOP would be left?
Mad Hatter Tea Party? What/who? Boehner, McConnell, Hann?
Any of those flushable? Or all keepers?
