October 1-2, 2011
Oct 01 06:59 Denise Cardinal: President Obama on people's side Oct 01 07:48 Newt's tour de force interview, Part I Oct 01 10:03 Newt's tour de force interview, Part II Oct 01 15:08 Finally, a Glimmer of Sanity Oct 02 03:29 President Obama: People don't trust government Oct 02 07:52 Attention Supercommittee Republicans: Stand your ground Oct 02 18:09 Obama's Bummer Fundraiser Oct 02 18:18 MEDIA ALERT: Mitch & Gary vs. the Forces of Evil Oct 02 19:52 DFL Shill Sturdevant Ignoring Reality
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Denise Cardinal: President Obama on people's side
During Friday night's roundtable on Almanac, Denise Cardinal said that "President Obama is putting himself on the side of the people."
Being the gentlemen that they are, Rep. Kurt Daudt and Andy Brehm didn't laugh through Ms. Cardinal's answer like she rudely did when Rep. Daudt was talking.
Nonetheless, Ms. Cardinal's answer is laughworthy. Time after time, President Obama has put himself on the side of his political allies and his fundraising bundlers, not the people. (See Solyndra and other green jobs companies getting government guaranteed loans.)
Is Ms. Cardinal saying that only fundraising bundlers are people? Is she just spinning the latest DFL talking points without care of being laughed at?
Andy Brehm put Ms. Cardinal in her place, saying that the time for speeches is over, that retrying the failed policies of this administration won't create jobs. Brehm was spot on in saying that this stimulus wouldn't create any more jobs than the first stimulus.
Meanwhile, Darin Broton's 'highlight' of the night was accusing Republicans of being the people that only say no. Thanks to the efforts of dishonest activists like Broton and Ms. Cardinal, the DFL's credibility is disappearing. To be fair, Broton isn't as dishonest as Ms. Cardinal.
After all, he didn't enthusiastically apply to work for an organization as corrupt as the Alliance for a Better Minnesota like Ms. Cardinal did.
Broton's line is pure malarkey, as evidenced by Peter Ferrera's devastating article exposing the Democrats' do-nothing Senate . Here's a little comparison between the heavy lifting that House Republicans have done and the do-nothing Democratic Senate:
The Republican House passed the budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which would cut federal spending by $6.2 trillion over the first 10 years alone, and permanently balances the budget soon after that, as scored by CBO. Government spending as a percent of GDP would ultimately be reduced by 40% from current levels.
The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to pass any budget at all, as required by law, for the second consecutive year now. At least they had the good sense to vote down Obama's proposed runaway budget, 97-0. But the failure to pass any budget leaves the government subject to possible shutdown this fall.
Here's another less-than-flattering comparison for the Democrats:
To restore the creation of new jobs, the House passed the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which would stop the imposition of federal regulatory burdens on farmers and small businesses that would impede job creation. The Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to do anything to stop the runaway regulatory burdens of the Obama Administration, killing jobs and the economy.
Democrats aren't the Party of No. To be the Party of No would require action, albeit minimal action. They haven't met that threshold. In fact, they haven't come close to meeting it.
That's before talking about the DFL legislature. Sen. Tom Bakk, when asked if the DFL would propose a budget, said "I don't know why we would." That's in addition to the DFL not putting a set of redistricting maps together this session. The DFL wasn't just lazy. The DFL Senate spent $94,000 on redistricting personnel, hardware and software without producing a redistricting map.
That isn't just lazy and expensive. It's the perfect example of the DFL being lazy, expensive and unproductive.
I'd love hearing Mr. Broton explain how the DFL justifies its laziness and the DFL's irresponsible behavior.
The reality is that President Obama, Ms. Cardinal and the DFL aren't on the people's side. They're on the side of the big contributors, their special interest allies.
Finally, if President Obama was on the people's side, he would've rejected George Kaiser's loan application for Solyndra. If the DFL was on the people's side, they would've rejected corrupt organizations like the Alliance for a Better Minnesota.
Posted Saturday, October 1, 2011 6:59 AM
No comments.
Newt's tour de force interview, Part I
The Establishment Media has attempted to write Newt off countless times since he got in the race. Newt can't win because of all his baggage, they say. It's time for the Establishment Media to drop this laziness and start thinking about this campaign as a job interview. It's time that the Establiment Media figured out that the people want to know who's most qualified to be the 45th President.
During this interview, Newt was a combination of statesman and solutions expert. As always, he was well-informed. (When isn't he?) When asked, he described how he was different from the other GOP presidential candidates without bashing them :
VAN SUSTEREN: OK, so yesterday, you unveiled your "21st century contract with America." And I've gone through it, or at least the 23 pages that I have of it, and frankly, I don't know how it's any different, essentially, from the other Republican candidates, other than that it's sort of it's your name on it and it's your packaging.
So help me out. How is it different from the other candidates' proposals?
GINGRICH: Well, all of our viewers can go to Newt.org and get their own copy of it. It has an entire section on brain science and things that would save trillions of dollars. I don't think anybody else has even talked about it.
It has a section on taking the judiciary back into balance. I don't know of anybody who's talked about that at the present time. It talks about a substantial rethinking of our national security strategy in a way that I don't think anybody else has addressed.
It talks about the use of modern management techniques, starting with "lean six sigma," to save up to $500 billion a year, fundamentally replacing the entire Civil Service process that goes back to the 1880s.
In addition, there are specific proposals to replace the Environmental Protection Agency with a environmental solutions agency. I don't know anybody else who's talked about that. There's a proposal for an optional flat tax, which is different than anybody else, I believe. And there's a proposal to create a 21st century Food and Drug Administration that is, I think, again, pretty significantly different from other folks.
So you know, some pieces, we overlap. There's no question. A number of us believe in zero capital gains tax to create economic wealth. I think Herman Cain and I both talked about the Chilean model of allowing young people to have personal Social Security accounts. Michele Bachmann introduced the bill to repeal Dodd-Frank, which I also believe in.
So there's some overlap of good ideas that we share, and then there's some areas that are really uniquely Newt Gingrich's "21st century contract with America" that I don't believe any other candidate has talked about yet.
What's impressive about Newt is that he's laid out a compelling vision for where he wants to take the nation. He's laid out specifici steps he take to cut spending, reduce regulation, balance the budget, create jobs and repeal oppressive legislation.
The other candidates haven't done that. With all due respect to Mitt Romney, a 59-point plan isn't an action plan. It's a doctoral thesis with the obligatory footnotes.
At a time when people from all political stripes are craving a solutions-oriented plan, Newt's the man with both the plan and the history that says he's brilliant enough and determined enough to get it enacted.
At a time when Washington is fractured and riddled with partisanship, Newt's history of bringing people together to pass landmark legislation is unsurpassed:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, every good idea that comes through Washington can run into an obstacle in the event that you have a divided House and Senate. I know the Republicans, you know, are hoping that they're going to have two Republican houses, and the Democrats hope for two Democratic houses. But is there anything that you can tell the American people -- let's say you have a divided House and Senate -- that would make any of your ideas more likely to pass? Is there any sort of unique skill that you might have or any way you can navigate these horrible waters of Washington?
GINGRICH: Sure. I'll give you a specific example that could be done right this minute if House Republicans wanted to do it. But before that, let me just say my past shows we can work together. In the Reagan years, I worked with Bob Michael and others. We had -- you know, Tip O'Neill was speaker. We had a Democratic House. In order to pass the Reagan program, which was very bold, we had to get about a third of the Democrats to vote with us, and we did. When I was speaker...
VAN SUSTEREN: How? How?
GINGRICH: ... in order to get our bills...
VAN SUSTEREN: How, though?
GINGRICH: ... signed by President Clinton, we had to find a way to work in a bipartisan manner, Democratic president, Republican House. When we passed Welfare reform, one out of every two Democrats in the House voted with us. It was 101 to 101. That's pretty darn bipartisan.
What's obvious is that the Establishment Media refuses to write a positive article about Newt. Shame on them for their bias against him.
Their job should be to inform people about the candidates. It's one thing to ignore Newt initially. It's quite another to ignore him after he's strung impressive debate performance after impressive debate performance. It's totally unacceptable now that he's put together an appealing 21st Century Contract With America .
It's time that the Establishment Media swept aside the baggage argument and took a serious look at the best ideas man in either political party. It's time they took a serious look at Newt.
Posted Saturday, October 1, 2011 7:48 AM
No comments.
Newt's tour de force interview, Part II
After downloading Newt's 21st Century Contract With America , I downloaded Mitt's 59-point plan to compare and contrast the plans. Stark isn't vivid enough an adjective to describe the differences between the plans.
Newt's plan focuses solely on solutions to move America forward in the 21st Century. Mitt's mix of boilerplate Republican solutions (nothing new there) with frequent criticisms of President Obama is as much lengthy anti-Obama screed as it is serious economic policy statement.
Here's part of Mitt's regulation reform plan:
Mitt Romney will approach regulation from a completely different angle. He sees the need or basic change. Regulatory costs must be treated like other costs: that is, firm limits must be established for them. An agency may be able to conceive of ten diferent regulations, each imposing costs of $10 billion while producing at least as much in social benefit. Moving forward might sound likea great idea to the typical regulator. But imposing those regulations, no matter what the social benefits, has a similar effect to raising taxes by $100 billion.
Regulatory costs need to be treated like the very real costs they are. A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy. It will also seek to make structural changes to the federal bureaucracy that ensure economic growth remains front and center when regulatory decisions are made.
Compare that with Newt's plans for the EPA:
We must also replace the EPA, which pursues an anti-jobs agenda the economy simply cannot sustain. A pro-growth Environmental Solutions Agency in its place will operate on the premise that most environmental problems can and should be solved by states and local communities. Rather than emphasizing centralization and regulation, it would emphasize coordination with states and local communities, the sharing of best practices, and focus on incentives for new solutions, research and technologies.
Nowhere in Mitt's plan does he contemplate the notion that the federal government should turn regulation-making to the states. That idea is the centerpiece of Newt's EPA reform.
While regulatory relief of any type is welcomed, real relief of the type that Newt's proposing is appealing because it's as energetic as it is thoughtful.
Corporate Taxes
As president, Romney will press for an immediate reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent. He will also explore the possibility of coupling further rate reductions with measures that broaden the income base and simplify the rules to ensure that American businesses will always be competitive in the global economy.
That's pretty timid compared with Newt's plan:
Reduce the Corporate Tax to 12.5%. Reducing the corporate income tax, currently the second highest in the developed world, will make America the number one destination in the world for foreign investment and the millions of jobs that will accompany this designation. Most of the $1.4 trillion in profits locked up overseas by the current 35% tax rate will come home to be reinvested and distributed at a 12.5% rate.
Any bets on whether corporations would prefer a 12.5% tax rate immediately or a 25% rate immediately, with a possibility of a somewhat lower rate later on? I'm betting that corporations would jump at the opportunity of a 12.5% rate within a year after Newt is inaugurated.
If the money corporations hid overseas would be repatriated at a 25% rate, they'd certainly jump off the foreign sidelines with a 12.5% corporate tax rate.
Where capital goes, jobs follow shortly thereafter. Based on that consideration alone, it's a safe bet that Newt's plan would trigger more robust job and economic growth than Mitt's plan.
The question GOP voters must ask themselves is this: why settle for Mitt's plan when we can have Newt's plan? Here's another question GOP voters should ask: Would you be better off 4 years from now with Mitt's plan or with Newt's?
Elections are about the future just like they're a referendum on the past. President Obama's plans have failed miserably. They must be vanquished ASAP. Newt's plans have been tried before. They produced 11,000,000 new jobs and 4 surpluses in 4 years.
Why settle for Mitt's plan, which undoubtedly would be an improvement over President Obama's policies, when Newt's plan would create more robust job growth?
That just isn't a difficult decision.
Posted Saturday, October 1, 2011 10:03 AM
No comments.
Finally, a Glimmer of Sanity
While the Establishment Media have been singing Herman Cain's praises, I've been highlighting the shortcomings of his signature issue. Finally, I have an ally in highlighting the foolishness of Cain's 9-9-9 plan. Today, I welcome Ross Kaminsky to the fight. Thanks to his article , I now have a sturdy ally.
Of Mr. Cain's many ideas, the most well-known, in part because of its clever sound-bite name, is his 9-9-9 plan which aims to replace most current federal taxes (including income tax, death tax, payroll tax, capital gains taxes, and double-taxation of dividends) with a 9% flat tax for business income, a 9% flat tax for individual income, and a 9% national sales tax. The plan would eliminate almost all deductions.
While Mr. Cain's consistent results-oriented approach is admirable, not least for its contrast with the other candidates, voters should be wary of the 9-9-9 plan despite its initial appeal. In short, it is somewhere between folly and economic suicide to implement a national sales tax, even at a modest rate, without simultaneously repealing the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (which permits a national income tax.)
Mr. Kaminsky is right in saying that Cain's 9-9-9 plan is "somewhere between folly and economic suicide." Having both a federal income tax and a national sales tax is a recipe for a rapidly expanding federal government.
While 9% isn't a high tax rate for personal income or corporate income, adding a national sales tax at any rate is foolish. That's before the conversation shifts to the reality that Democrats will eventually control the White House, the Senate and the House again.
When they eventually, hopefully a decade or more from now, take control of the executive and legislative branches, Democrats will raise both the marginal federal income tax rate and the sales tax rate. The additional revenues won't be used to pay down the debt.
Instead, they'll be used to pay off the Democrats' political allies.
I suspect that's why Mr. Kaminsky thinks of Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan as economic suicide. This isn't an attempt to berate Mr. Cain. Conservatives and capitalists everywhere love his commitment to free market capitalism.
Rather, this should be seen for what it is: a critique of Mr. Cain's policies. Frankly, I hope that Mr. Cain is part of the next GOP administration. Personally, I'd love watching Mr. Cain's getting confirmed as Treasury Secretary. For that matter, I'd love to see Newt pick him as his running mate.
Originally posted Saturday, October 1, 2011, revised 02-Oct 2:22 AM
No comments.
President Obama: People don't trust government
President Obama, aka the campaigner-in-chief, has made a striking observation. He's come to the opinion that people don't trust government . That's why he's paid the big bucks.
President Obama is telling backers that next year's re-election is "going to be hard," in part because people have lost faith in Washington, D.C., lawmakers.
"We still have work to do to make sure that this town is working on behalf of ordinary folks so that they can start once again believing in the American Dream," Obama told donors in Washington last night. "Because people have lost confidence in the capacity of folks to look out for them as opposed to look out for themselves or their most powerful patrons."
Mr. President, Americans have rejected your crony-based economic policies. In November, 2012, We The People will elect a different president, one who won't do the bidding of corrupt unions and niche environmental industries.
People understand that "powerful patrons" fits the leadership of corrupt unions like SEIU and AFSCME just as well as it fits Wall Street firms.
What President Obama hasn't figured out is that his agenda isn't America's agenda. People want businesses to stand on the merits or crash and burn. People want to make their own health insurance choices rather than have government dictate what they must or can't have.
At no time in U.S. history have this many people been this well-informed. Thanks to the internet, any person can become a self-taught expert on any subject. Thanks to this information explosion, top-down policies, the kind this administration prefers, have never been less popular.
That is part of the Republican agenda, Obama argued: "To roll back environmental regulations; to try to shrink the capacity of government to act in a proactive way to make sure that we can out-educate and out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world; to basically allow the most powerful forces in our society to write their own rules and everybody else is going to be on their own."
Let's be perfectly blunt about this: get government regulations off our back. We don't need "government to act in a proactive way." We need this administration to go into hibernation for the next 14 months, then to disappear into the history books as the worst, most meddlesome, administration in American history.
This administration promised to let science determine energy policy. What they didn't mention is that they really meant they'd let junk science determine this administration's energy policy. Thanks to this administration's trust in junk science, taxpayers got stuck with a $535,000,000 debt thanks to Solyndra. Thanks to this administration's inattentiveness, people think that we'll see more Solyndras in the near future.
The key to success is have people "engaged," Obama told his supporters.
"We got people engaged and excited in 2008," Obama said. "We've got to re-engage them and re-excite them in 2012. And I can't do that by myself. I'm going to need all of you to be a part of that."
Obama said he is "extraordinarily proud of the accomplishments and the progress that we've made over the last two years."
The lightning is out of the bottle. In 2008, President Obama was a blank slate. People could picture their dream president when they saw him. That all-things-to-all-people president disappeared the minute he started enacting his agenda.
Actually, it disappeared before enacting his first agenda item. It ended when he told Eric Cantor that he wouldn't accept any of the Republicans' ideas for the stimulus because "We won." That dream president disappeared further when the stimulus passed without a single member of congress having read the entire bill.
It's insulting to the hurting people of America, many of whom have been hurt by this administration's actions, to hear President Obama say that he's "extraordinarily proud of the accomplishments and the progress that we've made over the last two years." He doesn't have any accomplishments. That's why his popularity is terrible and sinking fast.
"But what we haven't done is change Washington," Obama said.
Most importantly, this administration wasn't able to change America. Thanks to the TEA Party and Main Street Americans telling this administration to take a hike, America is poised for a rebound. There's nothing wrong with America. America's problem, for the next 14 months, is this administration.
Posted Sunday, October 2, 2011 3:29 AM
Comment 1 by IndyJones at 02-Oct-11 04:31 PM
Obama's problem is expecting us to have "faith" in government. I save faith for God, not man. I can see why Obama's commandments to man are not panning out well.
Attention Supercommittee Republicans: Stand your ground
This reporting isn't surprising. Unfortunately, it's pretty predictable:
Democrats want tax hikes to be the first item negotiated in "super committee" deficit-reduction talks, trying to force Republicans to confront an issue at the heart of this year's budget fights, sources told Reuters.
The tough stance by Democratic members of the powerful 12-member congressional panel reflects the party's wariness that Republicans might try to sideline the issue of revenue increases in the negotiations.
If Democrats insist on pushing tax hikes, whether they're the first things considered or the last, they'll find themselves facing an electoral disaster 14 months from now. When the American people are asked if we have a spending problem or if we aren't taxed enough, they consistently say that we spend too much.
If the supercommittee can't reach an agreement, then the trainwreck will unfold. Potentially, that's a positive thing if it's handled right. If the GOP leadership wages the right messaging war in the media, they'll win because raising taxes isn't popular.
This isn't the time for bipartisanship. This is the time to, proverbially speaking, pound Democrats' heads into a brick wall on tax hikes. It's the time to remind people that this administration has increased spending like no other in U.S. history.
It's time to remind people that the stimulus was just the first egregious spending initiative. In reality, it was a bailout of the public employee unions. Then came the UAW bailouts. After that came President Obama's budgets, which spiked spending at crazy, irresponsible amounts.
This year, we've been treated to stimulus giveaways to companies like Solyndra. Thanks to Steven Chu's stubborn insistence on granting the loans, the American taxpayers are on the hook to the tune of $535,000,000.
It's time for Republicans to persistently ask Democrats whether these are problems caused by not taxing the rich enough or if it's a problem caused by the reckless spending spree pushed through by President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Then it's time to ask whether raising taxes would re-invigorate the economy or if it'd plunge it into a second Obama recession. Finally, it's time to ask these Democrats if they really want to run having pushed for the biggest tax hike in U.S. history.
Now's the time for the GOP to play hardball. They're holding all the aces while the Democrats are holding a pair of 7's.
Most importantly, holding firm against the Democrats' tax hikes is the right thing to do policywise.
Posted Sunday, October 2, 2011 7:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Oct-11 10:03 AM
Gary:
I think the hearings of the super committee should be public and on the first day after one of the six democrats puts up a tax increase proposal to have somebody get up and say that a plan which balanced the budget was already passed by the house which will balance the budget. Another plan all you have to do is stop spending new money the budget will balance. You don't need tax increases. Pick one of these two plans or draw up one with no tax increases!
And then God forbid this is where the Repubicans have messed up in the past STICK TO THAT MESSAGE!!!!!
We have this super committee mess because we didn't stick to cut cap and balance.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by MountainHome at 02-Oct-11 12:39 PM
Obama is throwing the democrats under the bus (all of them) to get re-elected by demanding his Jobs bill. The Democratic Senate won't touch it and are afraid of another stimulus bill, but Obama doesn't care cause it sounds good to the voters for himself and no one else's campaign.
Good article.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 03-Oct-11 09:27 AM
Given that the Stupor-Committee is by its very nature unconstitutional, violating the guarantee of equal representation as well as flouting the requirement that all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, Republicans have the opportunity to make statements on more than one front in this debate. I hope they do, but will not hold my breath.
Obama's Bummer Fundraiser
Warren Buffett apparently can't protect President Obama against his attacks on the rich. Based on the NY Post's reporting on Buffett's fundraiser for the Bamster, I'd argue that the Bamster is in deep trouble. And not just on the fundraising side of things.
Tycoon Warren Buffett, headliner of last night's fund-raiser for President Obama at the Four Seasons, reiterated his advice for a tax on 'ultra-rich people who are paying very low tax rates.'
But the message appeared to have limited appeal to donors expected to pay $10,000 a plate; the turnout was 'disappointing,' according to one guest.
Warren Buffett can't smooth over President Obama's seemingly daily attacks on "the rich." The reality is that "the rich" are fed up with being invited to President Obama's fundraisers at night after being attacked as the scum of the earth during business hours.
Reality is shutting down the Bamster's campaign. Obamacare is collapsing before the Supreme Court hears the arguments. President Obama's energy policy, when it isn't getting laughed at, isn't taken seriously .
The stimulus failed, Obamacare is hated. The NLRB is seen as the government shill for the unions and the EPA is seen as the militant environmentalist's weapon against a sane energy policy.
In short, what's to like about this administration?
Even President Obama's cousin attacked Obamacare:
In reality, this was the mother of all accounting gimmicks, which counted 10 years of tax revenues but just five years of expenditures to give a false sense of fiscal sanity. Democratic senator and Obamacare supporter Kent Conrad of North Dakota called this 'a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.' Absent the accounting gimmicks, the Congressional Budget Office now acknowledges that Obamacare actually increases the national deficit by $540 billion over the next 10 years.
That isn't Wolf's fiercest attack against his cousin. This is more harsh criticism:
Of course, while each of these three lies is damning in its own right, they barely scratch the surface of the Obamacare duplicity. And let me be clear: These are lies. There's normally something generous about our human nature that seeks to avoid that word, lies, but we are in an existential crisis in America, and it demands blunt and precise language. We did not get here because of simple distortions or exaggerations or even misrepresentations. Obamacare is the product of statements known by their makers to be untrue and meant to deceive, lies.
Though that's a more stinging rebuke, it still isn't the harshest criticism of Obamacare. This is:
The Obamacare lies are mounting: You could keep your current insurance. You could keep your doctor. The plan would cost less than a trillion dollars. Medicare would be protected. There would be no health care rationing. No one earning less than $250,000 per year would see an increase in his taxes. Tax credits would alleviate the burdens placed on small businesses. The plan would create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 almost immediately. Americans would love Obamacare once they saw what was in it.
All of the senators who voted for it should be defeated and run out of town. Some already have been defeated. Others, like Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, are heading for stinging defeats as a direct result of their votes. Florida's Bill Nelson is likely heading for a tough fight against a rising star in the Floriday GOP.
Again, I ask, what's to like about President Obama's policies? Apparently, nothing. At least according to the disappointing turnout to Buffett's fundraiser.
Posted Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:09 PM
No comments.
MEDIA ALERT: Mitch & Gary vs. the Forces of Evil
This evening, I'll be teaming with Mitch Berg to vanquish the forces of evil, aka Mike Dean, on the Late Debate with Jack & Ben. For those not within listening distance, follow the debate by watching the U-Stream live at this link .
Posted Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:20 PM
No comments.
DFL Shill Sturdevant Ignoring Reality
The Strib's Lori Sturdevant was identified as the DFL shill long ago. That's why it isn't a surprise that she's using this week's column to shill for the DFL's redistricting efforts. Here's a sample of her swill:
Draw the Line Minnesota is a buck-a-plate beanfeed compared with the GOP's steak-and-lobster operation. And, despite insinuations by conservative bloggers, it is not a DFL front group.
That's sort of the truth. The DFL isn't running the show. Shadow organizations like DTL-Minnesota, with strong ties to the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, run the show. To break it down further, Alida Messinger runs the DFL and funds its shadow organizations.
That isn't speculation. That's been verified thanks to Mitch Berg's research . Lori the Shill can ignore these facts if she likes, and she apparently likes, but that doesn't change reality.
Let's not forget that conservative bloggers, myself included, haven't said that DTL-Minnesota is doing just the DFL's bidding. I've said that DTL-Minnesota's website reads like the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund website .
It's insulting for Sturdevant to characterize DTL-Minnesota as a "buck-a-plate beanfeed compared with the GOP's steak-and-lobster operation." The NAACP LDEF is capable of raising tons of money. DTL-Minnesota isn't the only operation the Democrats have started up. They're popping up all across the nation. That doesn't happen if you're "a buck-a-plate beanfeed operation."
It's time for Ms. Sturdevant to realize that "some conservative bloggers" have broken serious news stories that the Agenda Media ignored. Ms. Sturdevant can take that perspective if she'd like but it isn't in touch with reality.
Draw the Line is a project of the Midwest Democracy Network, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Minnesota Council of Non-profits, and is funded by the Joyce Foundation and the Bush Foundation. Its commission includes a mix of known devotees of each of Minnesota's major parties, plus a handful of that rare breed, true independents.
What's interesting is that Sturdevant admit that the Joyce Foundation is funding DTL-Midwest in this paragraph but then calls DTL-Minnesota's operation a "buck-a-plate beanfeed operation." A quick glimpse at the Joyce Foundation's financials shows that they're anything but a "buck-a-plate beanfeed operation." Their 2010 financials lists their net investment gains as $98,591,835. That'll fund alot of beanfeeds.
It's shameful that Sturdevant would shill for the DFL. It's worse that she admits that they're funded by a major foundation with investment gains of almost $100,000,000 in 2010 alone.
Finally, it's a bit curious that Ms. Sturdevant omitted TakeAction Minnesota from the list of partners. Might that be because TakeAction Minnesota is tied to Alida Messinger's smear campaign against Tom Emmer?
Posted Sunday, October 2, 2011 9:40 PM
Comment 1 by john w milton at 03-Oct-11 04:36 PM
It's outrageous that you are calling Lori Sturdevant a "shill" for anyone . . . every single person taking money from Rupert Murdoch and his corporate holdings is reinventing the truth every day, and conservative bloggers who believe that our country was established to protect the top 1% in income are either ignorant, mentally incapacitated or downright evil -- not to speak of wrong -- yet you attack a reporter of many years standing, the author of a history of the Pillsbury family. Have the Pillsburys all been "shills" for the lefty socialists?
Go away, whoever you are.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Oct-11 07:45 PM
Johnny, Go away. Conspiracy theorists like yourself can't exist without a boogeyman. If it isn't Ruppert Murdoch, it's the Koch Brothers. If it isn't the Koch Brothers, it's Richard Mellon-Scaife. If it isn't them, it's God knows who.
You don't have proof of your accusations so you use ad hominem attacks in the hopes people don't notice that you're a total windbag who doesn't know what he's talking about.
PS- This is your final warning. If you make wild accusations without proof again, your comments will be deleted.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 03-Oct-11 08:33 PM
Lori has many years of poorly researched, poorly reasoned columns. And every error and I mean EVERY error is a plus for the DFL. She so obviously starts with the conclusion she wants and works backwards.
