October 1-4, 2012
Oct 01 07:12 Transparency isn't the DFL's middle name Oct 01 17:18 DFL, PEUs attempting to buy the legislature Oct 02 10:48 Jury still out on President 'Eye Candy' Oct 02 15:19 Obama administration repeating pattern of Benghazi lies Oct 02 18:10 NRA-PVF endorses Chip, criticizes Nolan Oct 03 12:01 Is the 'black vote' turning? Oct 03 16:29 Gov. Dayton's photo op tour visits Iron Range Oct 03 19:05 Liveblogging tonight's debate Oct 04 10:04 Jim, You might want to move onto another subject
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Transparency isn't the DFL's middle name
I wrote this article to highlight what the DFL and their media enablers won't. The DFL won't admit that Gov. Dayton wanted a 50-50 school shift.
According to these documents , Gov. Dayton proposed a 50-50 school shift on the morning of June 30, 2011:
MBD offer 6/30/11
Shift school aid payments from 70:30 to 50:50. (-1.4 Billion)
The reason why that's pertinent is because of this LTE in Sunday's SCTimes. Here's the innocent-sounding opening of the LTE:
I went to Sauk Rapids-Rice School from K-12. ... I want to make sure the children of today have the same opportunity to have a great education, have access to updated materials and technology, available transportation, and after-school programs as I did when I attended.
Here's the closing paragraph of the LTE:
I also support state House candidates Brian Johnson in District 15B and Shannon Schroeder in District 13B because they support education and are against the $2.4 billion Republicans borrowed from our schools, which is creating a burden on local communities.
The LTE was written by Aaron Decker. What's missing is the fact that Mr. Decker is Brian Johnson's campaign manager :
Committee Name: Brian Johnson for House
Committee Chair: Aaron Decker
Address: PO Box 368
Clearwater, MN 55320
Address: 3720 W St Germain St #112
St Cloud, MN 56301
Why didn't Mr. Decker disclose this fact? Why doesn't Mr. Decker and Mr. Johnson admit that Gov. Dayton wanted to shift more money from Minnesota school districts than Republicans shifted? Most importantly, why didn't Gov. Dayton agree to the 70:30 shift rather than proposing the 50:50 shift he offered the day before the government shutdown?
I don't care if Mr. Decker exercises his First Amendment rights by writing an LTE. I'm just asking for him to tell the readers that he's Mr. Johnson's campaign manager so they can read his LTE with that perspective.
Apparently, the DFL doesn't believe much in transparency. I'll be writing more about that later today.
Tags: Brian Johnson , Aaron Decker , Mark Dayton , School Shift , Government Shutdown , Education , LTE , DFL , Jim Newberger , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 7:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Oct-12 09:00 AM
It happens all the time. I think the ECM/ABC Newspapers ban "endorsement" LTE submissions in the last issue before election day. Or they advance the cutoff date, or something like that.
Gary, your transparency would never come into question. Not blue. Not purple. You define your allegiances and nobody can say otherwise.
Are you anticipating anything special in the upcoming debate this week? I always like the forecasts rather than the postmortems. Predictive politics, vs forensics.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 01-Oct-12 09:10 AM
I think that there's a 50-50 chance that President Obama won't like having his statistics questioned & it'll show. I think there's a decent shot that Mitt will perform better than expected.
I'm confident that President Obama will be caught flat-footed with his 'We've created private sector jobs for 30 straight months' schtick. (Show me a president who didn't create private sector jobs for 30 straight months at some point in their administration. I don't know of one that didn't.)
Prior to that, check out my article about Mitt Romney's indictment against President Obama's handling of foreign policy. That's sure to create lots of buzz this week, too.
Comment 3 by eric z at 02-Oct-12 02:10 PM
Thanks Gary. That's tomorrow's show. Tonight the Lynx play - win or go home. My guess is that a much higher percentage of voters already have their minds made up than admit it in polling, and the media is shameless in always trying to sell product by posing as if a real contest exists. We shall see tomorrow but I bet different people see different things as highlights. I wish it were all over already, it is tiring and unimpressive. The garbage from the corporate money on either/both sides just makes things worse. Put Soros and the Koch Bros. on an island full of scorpions and see who survives out of scorpion professional courtesy. So much is spent. So little is produced. Pandering is universal. Pandering is where true bipartisanship shows up, and then some.
DFL, PEUs attempting to buy the legislature
Minnesotans face a clear choice when they vote for state legislative candidates 5 weeks from now. They can vote for a DFL candidate whose loyalties lie with the public employee unions or they can support conservatives whose first loyalty is with their constituents and whose next loyalty is to policies that promote economic growth and sustained prosperity.
This PIM article illustrates where the DFL's loyalties lie:
The DFL-aligned independent expenditure landscape will once again be dominated by three financially linked organizations: Alliance for a Better Minnesota, Win Minnesota and the 2012 Fund. Those organizations played a vital role in helping DFL Gov. Mark Dayton win the gubernatorial contest in 2010 and are poised to play a similar role in this year's 201 legislative contests.
Win Minnesota and the 2012 Fund have taken in nearly $2 million so far this year. That money came primarily from wealthy individual donors, most notably $500,000 from Dayton's former wife, Alida Messinger, and labor unions. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Minnesota State Council kicked in $225,000, for instance, while the Minnesota AFL-CIO contributed $100,000.
So far roughly half of that money has been funneled to Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM) for campaign efforts. The group, headed by executive director Carrie Lucking, has spent roughly $640,000 on television ad buys targeting legislative Republicans, split between cable and the broadcast networks. In addition, ABM spent roughly $13,000 each on lit pieces attacking four GOP incumbents: Reps. Keith Downey of Edina, David Hancock of Bemidji, and Doug Wardlow of Eagan, and Sen. Ted Lillie of Woodbury. (Downey is running for an open Senate seat.)
Downey, Hancock, Wardlow and Lillie are fiscal conservatives so it isn't surprising that ABM would target them. The DFL/ABM (they're both owned by Alida Messinger) hate principled fiscal conservatives like Downey, Hancock, Wardlow and Lillie because the DFL's racket would dry up if fiscal conservatives wrung the replications and inefficiencies out of state government.
Anyone thinking that the prospective legislators that ABM's/Alida Messinger's money would buy would first be loyal to their constituents, then to the special interests is either naive or dishonest.
But public sector unions, most notably AFSCME Council 5, Education Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE), are almost exclusively backing DFL candidates. 'AFSCME's top priority is to elect a better Legislature that can work with Gov. Dayton to create a better Minnesota for working families,' said Jennifer Munt, AFSCME Council 5's public affairs director. 'Our message is quite simple: Dump team extreme.'
What political party cared so little about Minnesotans that they didn't bother proposing their own budget? What party didn't care about their once-a-decade responsibilities that they didn't even bother putting a set of redistricting maps together? What political party shut down the state government, then tried blaming it on the other party?
The DFL.
Whether it's called extremist or whether it's called laziness is for voters to decide. Personally, I'd argue that it's proof they don't want their fingerprints on a budget that reflects their priorities.
The DFL's proposals that were part of the negotiations included the biggest tax increases in state history.
The GOP should run against the PEUs. They aren't popular with the folks and they're relatively tiny. Framing it as a vote for selfish, self-centered PEUs and their agenda of tax increases, government-centered health insurance 'reform' and unfunded pensions will win votes in most districts.
Tags: ABM , Win Minnnesota , 2012 Fund , Alida Messinger , Mark Dayton , AFSCME Council 5 , SEIU , MAPE , Jennifer Munt , EdMinn , DFL , Ted Lillie , Keith Downey , David Hancock , Doug Wardlow , Conservatism , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, October 1, 2012 5:18 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 02-Oct-12 09:19 AM
It worked for Scott Walker. Enough people may finally be fully awake to make a strategy like this work.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-Oct-12 02:01 PM
Branden Paulsen's trying that in my Senate District.
That dog/pony thing he captained in the legislature about monkeying with teacher tenure, all that time and cost when a Dayton veto was inevitable.
Nothing but shameless naked politics motivated the man and henchmen.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Oct-12 03:37 PM
Whether Gov. Dayton would veto a bill is his problem. Minnesotans deserved to know that the GOP was serious about reforming how various parts of the government operated. If that's seen as political, so be it. That doesn't make it wrong.
Comment 3 by eric z at 02-Oct-12 02:02 PM
Sorry for the mistype - Branden Petersen. I had CD3 on my mind too, and erred.
Jury still out on President 'Eye Candy'
When Karl Rove released this ad, appropriately titled The World, I knew it would cause tons of heartburn for President Obama's re-election team:
Little did I know that NBC's David Gregory was going to question David Plouffe as vigorously as he did. Here's a key part of their confrontation:
GREGORY: Was it inappropriate for him to go to a fund-raiser the day after this attack now in retrospect knowing that it was a-- a terrorist attack, the-- inappropriate for him to engage in politics as usual?
MR. PLOUFFE: No. The president obviously is 24/7 engaged in the job of the presidency. He's spent an enormous amount of time in these-- these weeks by the way in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy, so absolutely not. The president is on call 24/7 and that just comes with the job.
GREGORY: 24/7, but apparently not during U.N. meetings as The New York Post highlighted here, the question about whether there was a snub not meeting with the Israeli leader, the president is on The View, this is U.N. world leaders to gab with the gals of The View that was the headline in The New York Post with their own point of view there. But is this-- is he-- is he not performing all the critical role of-- of the presidency, particularly with the foreign policy crisis? With so many questions about management of the Middle East, when you have a key United Nations gathering, not to meet with world leaders, including Netanyahu at a time of so much concern over Iran?
MR. PLOUFFE: This president has been obviously in constant contact throughout these four years with world leaders. He's obviously been in deep consultation with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obviously our administration has been in deep consultation with the defense and intelligence agencies in Israel. So this president has been very, very focused on strengthening our alliances. He's built an unprecedented global effort in terms of sanctions against Iran. So this president has led and I think the question, you know, we do have an election coming up. This president committed a few things to the American people in 2008. He would restore and rebuild alliances. He would end the war in Iraq. He would find and make sure that bin Laden was brought to justice and we would (Unintelligible) al Qaeda. He's done all those things. By the way, look at-- let's talk about Governor Romney's response during this. You know, in the-- in the hours as these attacks became known in Libya and the assaults on our embassy in Egypt, Mitt Romney throws out some half-baked statement. And I think that's one of the reasons:
GREGORY: But the government-- wait, but the United States government had to also disavow its own statement that came out of the embassy in Cairo that some might also call half-baked and had to be revised, did it not?
MR. PLOUFFE: Well, here's the-- people-- you know, there-- presidential campaigns are a window and I think it raises just as the forty-seven percent commented questions in the shadow of the election--can I trust this person to be our commander-in-chief and our president?
While world leaders were conducting bilateral meetings at the U.N., President Obama was jokingly telling the ladies of The View that he was just supposed to be eye candy.
This raises the question of how serious President Obama is about providing solutions to the multiple disturbing hotspots across the Middle East, north Africa and southwest Asia. Why should people take him seriously about being the leader of the free world when he's more interested in appearing on The View?
Why shouldn't serious people question his commitment to fortifying American embassies and consulates for the anniversary of 9/11?
President Obama risks being called President Eye Candy because he put a higher priority on appearing on the view than he put on investigating the multi-phased terrorist attack on the consulate in one of the biggest recruiting hotbeds in north Africa.
Tags: Terrorist Attacks , Benghazi Consulate , 9/11 , President Obama , The View , David Plouffe , Meet The Press , Fundraiser , Las Vegas , U.N. Week , Benjamin Netanyahu , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:48 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 02-Oct-12 01:56 PM
It certainly seems like a partisan attack and little else.
What was Obama to do other than keep the schedule?
Neither you, nor Ryan's running mate have said anything in that direction.
He rerouted ships, but that takes time for them to reach a destination. He had intelligence network people unwinding things.
So, what's your suggestion? Call in Mitt for advice? Bomb Iran? Intervene in Syria? Tell the French to do something? What?
Come on, Gary.
Walter, any thoughts? What should our Commander in Chief have done differently than he did; and how would that have made a difference - then and today?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Oct-12 03:35 PM
What was Obama supposed to do other than keep the schedule?Cancel his trip to Vegas, tell the fundraisers that national security demanded his full attention.
He had intelligence network people unwinding things.No he didn't. The FBI still hasn't been to Libya, much less to the Benghazi consulate. How can you unwind things if you aren't on the ground? You can't guarantee the right things are happening if you're making a political speech at a fundraiser.
What's your suggestion?Call Libya's president. Find out what he knows about the attacks. Then speak with the companies tasked with keeping security. Find out what they've heard in terms of potential terrorist activities. Since they knew almost immediately that this was a terrorist attack, another thing he should've done is assembled the military leaders assigned to Africa. Ask them to put together a contingency plan for going after the terrorists that killed the ambassador.
After that, I'd recommend he call President Morsi & tell him he'd better get the Cairo Embassy secured or he'll lose any aid payments in the future. After that, call in Hillary. Tell her she needs to issue a warning to personnel at other embassies that north Africa is destabilizing quickly.
I'm sure there are other things that could be recommended but that's enough for starters. At this point, there's no indication any of those things happened.
Comment 2 by pa at 02-Oct-12 03:51 PM
Eric asked: "What should our Commander in Chief have done differently than he did; and how would that have made a difference - then and today?"
The time for doing things differently was way back when, long before a problem occurred. That is the hallmark of good management -- prevent a problem by foreseeing it and then implementing policies that will avert it. Obama has no experience in management of any sort, and this is why he has failed in nearly every action he's taken: failed stimulus, failed economic policies, failed energy policies, failed healthcare, failed diplomacy, failed GM bailout, failed school lunch program, failed security in Benghazi.
And before you say that Obama would not personally have been making decisions about security in some lonely outpost, remember this: a capable leader surrounds himself with people who have proven records in making effective decisions, especially in resolving and averting problems. Not one of his appointees or henchman has the skills needed to achieve the level of work required in the highest office in the land. Obama's biggest failure is in his lack of leadership skills, not in failing to personally order security upgrades in Benghazi. His preference for appearing on a frivolous TV show (a craving for celebrity) instead of meeting with world leaders (the job for which he accepts a salary) is merely a single data point that illuminates his overall approach to work.
Had Obama and Hillary been performing their work properly and fully, the Benghazi murders could have been avoided. Evidence is being released daily to show that they neglected their responsibilities to an incompetent if not near-criminal degree. Just one more brick in the wall of evidence that the American people are being badly served by this administration.
Last, "keeping to the schedule" is foolish when circumstances change. Being able to determine the true priorities, and adjusting constantly as events require, is mandatory for effective leadership in a volatile world.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 02-Oct-12 05:20 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget part of the reason why the administration looks so silly on this is the President of Libya has already said it was a terrorist attack. I guess we don't need the FBI to investigate since we have Libya confirming it for us.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 02-Oct-12 05:24 PM
Eric:
I noticed your dig.
Lets see:
On the day of the attack say it's a terrorist which we both know what it does.
Fire Rice for lying to the American People.
Cut off all aide for Egypt instead of rushing that.
Oh and quit pretending that he was getting the facts right.
Fortunately for Obama the media has been attacking Romney who behaved more Presidential than Obama did on this crisis.
Probably too much detail for you to understand Eric.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by eric z at 03-Oct-12 09:37 AM
Only Gary says put new high profile people in the ground in Libya (FBI).
pa- You are saying plan in advance as how W should have ended the Iraq thing at the time he was on that aircraft carrier saying victory is ours? That is your answer?
And how Reagan did that great thing with the CIA guy Buckley in Lebanon? His daring rescue, all that?
And how Reagan was smart enough to send the Marines into Lebanon and arrange for a high-rise bivouac?
Anticipate what will happen and stop it is so easy to say ...
Comment 6 by pa at 03-Oct-12 01:38 PM
Eric:
"W should have ended the Iraq thing at the time he was on that aircraft carrier saying victory is ours"
That canard has been debunked so many times over the years; please stop using it. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was for the aircraft carrier's mission. It was NOT a declaration for the war overall. That said, I don't believe the plans for the aftermath of combat in Iraq were well thought out. Inanities extended as far as planning a national mail system with zip codes. The Washington Post reported: "President Bush and first lady Laura Bush have a vision for health care in Iraq in which all mothers-to-be receive prenatal care, childhood mortality rates plummet and every person has access to virtually free treatment and medicine through an extensive network of 1,400 renovated hospitals and clinics." I would say that the Bush administration went beyond nation building to nation perfecting. Crushing terrorists would have been enough.
I am familiar with both the Buckley and Lebanon disasters. I am NOT familiar with the intelligence info and other warnings that may or may not have been available prior to those incidents. So I cannot say whether they are reasonable parallels to the Obama administration's Benghazi disaster, or if they are in fact false equivalences.
Overall, your comment seems to be framed in the "two wrongs make a right" model. It doesn't matter if other presidents have made good or bad decisions. If they done good, then let's show our gratitude and learn from their successes. If they made mistakes or showed poor judgment, then let's learn from those mistakes. I expect that most presidents have a mixed record of successes and failures, with a marked tendency toward one or the other.
In contrast, the Obama administration cannot point to meaningful successes in ANY arena, including foreign policy. The Obama administration's failures are sweeping and catastrophic, ranging from the trivial to the major. We have a right to expect some minimum level of competence -- like taking security briefings (PDB) seriously and attending jobs council meetings, especially when the president has been loudly boasting of his dedication to these issues. He was unwilling to perform even the minimal duties, however.
As I said before, evidence is mounting daily to show that many warnings, including a series of similar attacks, were available to an attentive administration. In addition, American personnel in Libya asked repeatedly for increased security, but it was consistently denied. The Obama administration was not attentive, and they then lied for weeks about it. They chose a convenient scapegoat (a film-maker) and made him an international pariah. Regardless of what any of us may think about the film-maker, there is something extremely disturbing about the supposed leader of the free world singling out a private individual for blame, especially when the purpose for doing so is to protect a politician's re-election bid. I don't recall any such failures surrounding the Buckley and Lebanon disasters; let me know if you have evidence that puts them in the same class as the Benghazi disaster.
Surely you do not excuse Obama's public outing of the film-maker's identity, such that he and his family became targets of death threats and other violent retribution as well as intrusive and abusive media exposure. This is every bit as objectionable as Spike Lee's publication of George Zimmerman's address (which, through Lee's incompetence, put an entirely innocent elderly couple in such fear for their lives that they had to move out of their home).
I think that placing an innocent party in danger of his life is an even more egregious abuse of presidential power than the use of a scapegoat to distract from Obama's own failures. Whatever anyone thinks about the content of the film trailer, it did not lead to the murder of four Americans in Libya, and making the film-maker a target for violent retribution is not in any way excusable.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 03-Oct-12 06:55 PM
Eric:
I noticed that you decided to ignore my comments.
I guess that mean you think:
* Obama should've said it was a terrorist attack on 9-11.
* Obama should fire Rice.
* Obama should immediately cut all aide to Egypt.
* Obama who accused Romney of not having his facts was the person who didn't get his facts right.
So I guess that means you're not voting for Obama.
And Eric since Bush and Reagan aren't President right now lets focus on the current crisis which can be influenced instead of talking lies about history.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama administration repeating pattern of Benghazi lies
When Susan Rice appeared on NBC's Meet the Press, she talked about the ongoing FBI investigation :
Videotape; September 16, 2012
SUSAN RICE (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations): Let me tell you the best information we have at present. First of all, there's an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what have just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted of course by the video.
Like this administration's other lies about the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate, the ongoing FBI investigation has been exposed a myth :
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confirms to the Post that 'Everybody who was in Benghazi and posted there has been withdrawn,' adding that she knew of no other American officials in the region who'd be able to investigate the assault.
This administration's decision not to send a team of FBI investigators looks weak to the terrorists:
'I don't know why the Americans don't come here,' Wissam Bin Hamid, commander of the Libyan Shield Brigade, tells the Times. Bin Hamid says his militia came under sustained attack while helping defend a second American compound on Sept. 11, but now with no aid, Benghazi is being transformed into a ghost town, he tells the paper.
'Maybe they are afraid,' bin Hamid adds, offering a possible explanation for why the United States has ceased any on-the-ground investigation.
This administration's paper tiger streak is showing. Their administration's decision not to investigate doesn't mean we don't know that this was a terrorist attack. It doesn't mean we don't know that this administration didn't adequately fortify the Benghazi consulate. It simply means that we have proof that this administration knows that their reaction to the terrorist attack isn't playing well with the American people.
On Monday, the Post reported that the main compound used by American diplomats in Benghazi was unguarded and heavily looted, and The Atlantic Wire reports that 'the FBI has still not been able to visit the compound, set up any operations in the city or even interview any witnesses who were present during the terrorist attack.'
It's shameful that CNN conducted a more thorough investigation than the FBI was allowed to conduct. It's important to remember that they were the ones that found Ambassador Stevens' diary in the compound.
What's worse is that this administration is repeating the last 2 weeks worth of lies over again :
Carney said that 'embassy security is a matter that is in the purview of the State Department,' and noted that 'Secretary Clinton instituted an accountability review that is underway as we speak' while the investigation of the attack itself is being conducted by the FBI.
I repeat: there isn't an FBI investigation. I hate invoking President Reagan at a time like this but "there they go again." First Amb. Rice talks about an ongoing FBI investigation. Then Jay Carney talks about the ongoing FBI investigation. The last time we noticed that pattern was after Ms. Rice said that the terrorist attack was really a reaction to a movie trailer nobody had seen.
It's time the American people spoke out and demanded that the Obama administration start telling the truth. Whether you're a liberal's liberal like Pat Caddell or a conservative's conservative like Jason Chaffetz or somewhere in between, it isn't acceptable for any administration to lie to We The People.
What's most troubling is that this administration isn't telling little white lies about a nothing matter. They're intentionally misleading We The People about a deadly terrorist attack that should've been prevented.
Another troubling pattern about this story is this administration's unwillingness to call terrorists terrorists:
About the list of security issues, Carney said it was a 'known fact that Libya is in transition' and that in the eastern part of Libya in particular there are militant groups and 'a great number of armed individuals and militias.'
At times, I wonder if this administration thinks saying the word terrorist will lead to a deadly pox on the US. They've certainly avoided using that word like it was toxic.
Tags: Coverup , President Obama , Susan Rice , Jay Carney , FBI , Investigation , Benghazi , al-Qaeda , Terrorists , 9/11 , Security , State Department , Hillary Clinton , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:19 PM
No comments.
NRA-PVF endorses Chip, criticizes Nolan
I can't say that I'm surprised that the NRA endorsed Chip Cravaack but I'm surprised that they criticized Rick Nolan as harshly as what they did:
'Chip Cravaack is committed to protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms guaranteed to all Americans,' said Chris W. Cox, chairman of the NRA-Political Victory Fund. 'His strong dedication and voting record have earned him an 'A' rating from the NRA-PVF, and we proudly endorse him for re-election to the U.S. House.
'In contrast, his opponent, Rick Nolan, has earned an 'F' rating from the NRA-PVF for opposing our Right to Keep and Bear Arms,' the NRA said in a news release.
'The choice for gun owners this election is clear. Chip Cravaack will respect our right to self-defense and honor our rich hunting heritage. Rick Nolan will not.'
There's an addition bonus for Chip because he was endorsed by the NRA's Political Victory Fund. The Strib is reporting that the NRA-PVF endorsement was attached to a freshly minted $2,000 check to Chip's campaign.
It's foolish to think that Chip's handily winning the race. Still, the fact that the DCCC isn't spending much money on Nolan can't help Nolan's fundraising. It likely means that the DCCC miscalculated in thinking Chip would be easy pickings.
What these articles likely signal is that Nolan is fighting an uphill, though still possible fight. It also might mean that the DCCC doesn't have the CoH they need to expand their playing field. If that's the case, that'd pretty much eliminate the possibility of them retaking the House.
Tags: Chip Cravaack , Endorsements , Second Amendment , NRA , Campaign Contribution , GOP , Rick Nolan , DCCC , Ad Buys , Jim Oberstar , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:10 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 03-Oct-12 06:50 PM
Gary:
If Chip enlarges the margin he can start converting the district into a reliable +R vote in state elections compared with a -R vote in the state.
Al Franken is a senator today because of the margin he got from the 8th district.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Is the 'black vote' turning?
One of the scariest thoughts a liberal can think of is the thought that Democrats can't count on the monolithic vote of African Americans. According to this op-ed , the monolith is crumbling:
Indeed, President Obama, the iconic representative of the far left, believes that even a child born alive should be left to die without medical treatment if the mother intended an abortion. He championed this Mengelean position as a state senator in Illinois.
I was raised to be an FDR Democrat because my father was a young man during the Depression and credited President Roosevelt with saving him from starvation. 'The Republicans only care about rich people,' I was told. This was more than 40 years ago. In spite of my childhood indoctrination, as a young man newly committed to my Christian faith, I had a crisis of conscience in the late 1970s. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank was pushing the homosexual agenda. How could I, as a Christian, be committed to a party led by Mr. Frank? In the end, I could not. My desire to be in a right relationship with God and my faith was greater than my desire to be approved by my father, my family or the black community. My wife and I, then Massachusetts residents, left the Democratic Party in 1980 and never looked back.
The GOP didn't learn the lesson that Karl Rove tried teaching them. The GOP didn't learn that African Americans that attend evangelical churches are frequently conservatives.
President Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act should infuriate thoughtful people of all political stripes. This could be black voters' Brendan Loy moment. Brendan Loy is the Democrat who appreciates Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman. When Ned Lamont defeated Sen. Lieberman in the DFL primary, Loy spoke eloquently about how the Democratic Party's base was shifting too far to the left :
But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there's no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight's result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It's really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it's a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there's one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today: I am no longer a Democrat.
Have African-American evangelicals hit that same wall of intolerance? That's something we don't know with any certainty at this point. Without question, though, it's definitely an opening for conservatives.
Tags: Black Church , African-Americans , Gay Marriage , Abortion , Born Alive Infant Protection Act , President Obama , Barney Frank , Democrats , Joe Lieberman , Brendan Loy , Independents , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:01 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 03-Oct-12 06:48 PM
Gary:
I think a better example to prove your point is in 2008 while Obama won the state by a huge margin Prop 8 won. How did it win?
A large number of Hispanic and black voters went out and voted for it.
The problem the Republican party has right now isn't that they have issues which blacks and hispanics care about, but they still haven't made the connection that supporting the democrat party doesn't pass policies which help them.
Of course the bigger problem the democrats have compared with the Republican party is that if the margins drop like blacks from 95-5 democrat to something like 80-20 how much that will hurt them.
Obama won Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and a couple of other states just because of that inflated black vote margin (not to mention the larger percent they were of the electorate in 2008)
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Gov. Dayton's photo op tour visits Iron Range
According to Gov. Dayton's blog , Gov. Dayton is touring the Iron Range today:
Continuing his strong commitment to job creation and economic prosperity, Governor Dayton is traveling statewide to identify opportunities and barriers to economic growth in key sectors of Minnesota's economy. The Governor is meeting directly with business owners, workers, and local leaders to seek input on what measures should be taken in the upcoming legislative session to enhance Minnesota's economic competitiveness, stimulate private sector job growth, and open new doors of employment opportunity for Minnesota workers.
First, if Gov. Dayton wants to create high paying mining jobs, his time would be better spent lobbying his ex-wife to call off her war against mining. She's made it perfectly clear that she doesn't want to see a robust mining industry in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce stated their biggest concerns for creating jobs :
- Taxes remain a key obstacle to job creation, identified by seven out of 10 employers as one of the two most important barriers in Minnesota. The tax burden continues to grow compared with five years ago.
- The stability and predictability of government regulations are important factors in business decisions to invest in Minnesota operations.
Gov. Dayton still wants to create a fourth income tax bracket, which would make Minnesota one of the highest income tax rates in the nation.
When it comes to the Range, nothing's more important than regulations, both from St. Paul and from Washington, DC. Enter Gov. Dayton's ex-wife, Alida Messinger. She sits on the board of directors for an organization called Conservation Minnesota. Here's a glimpse at CM's agenda
Conservation Minnesota, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are targeting the proposed PolyMet mine near Hoyt Lakes and the proposed Twin Metals mine near Ely.
The campaign includes the web site MiningTruth.org, a 40-page report examining mining in detail, a Facebook community, and four billboards along Interstate 35 between the Twin Cities and Duluth to reach summer travelers.
While Gov. Dayton poses for photos with DFL candidates pledging their unswerving loyalty to the mining industry, the mining industry isn't what's holding up high paying mining jobs. What's standing in the way of mining jobs are DFL heavyweights like Alida Messinger, former speakers Dee Long and Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, former Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, former MPCA Commissioner Paul Aasen, and RINOs Arne Carlson, Dave Durenberger and Jim Ramstad.
Gov. Dayton's taxation and regulatory policies create uncertain, which hinders job creation. That's what the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce members said in their annual survey.
Rather than spending time taking photos, Gov. Dayton should spend his time figuring out how to clean up what's wrong with St. Paul.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Alida Messinger , Conservation Minnesota , Margaret Anderson-Kelliher , Dave Durenberger , Arne Carlson , Regulations , Taxes , Mining , Jim Ramstad , DFL , Photo Ops
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2012 4:29 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 03-Oct-12 06:40 PM
Gary:
I guess Mark hasn't talked to the Chamber of Commerce or Mark is living under the dream I said I did something therefore I must have done it when I didn't do it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 04-Oct-12 12:42 PM
Out of curiousity, Gary, what's the prevailing wage for miners on the Range? If you know.
And what would be the pay rate criterion for "high paying mining jobs," per hour? I know some think "middle class" is two hundred to two-fifty grand per year, so the question is relevant.
What are they paid? And how many mining jobs are there on the Range now; without sulfide mining? Any idea?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-12 01:05 PM
Eric, That is a fair question. I just don't know exactly what prevailing wage rates are for these mining jobs. I don't remember how many mining jobs currently exist on the Range. What I know, though, is that the Twin Metals & PolyMet projects would create north of 1,500 permanent (& direct) jobs between them. There are other smaller projects that would add another 150-250 permanent mining jobs.
Comment 3 by Bud at 08-Oct-12 08:38 AM
Looking at this poll, one might think the Rick Nolan & some of the DFL is in serious trouble in northern Minnesota this election season due to its environmental extremist alliances. I've got to wonder if this is an attempt at damage control on Rick's behalf.
http://www.virginiamn.com/poll_3f36c30c-0c20-11e2-8fa5-0019bb2963f4.html
Liveblogging tonight's debate
7:00 CT -- Starting in about an hour, I'll be liveblogging tonight's debate. I'm sure I'll be the only person liveblogging/tweeting. LOL
7:05 -- I'll be following the Heritage Foundation's live feed but I'm also DVR'ing the debate. I'm LFRGary on Twitter for those who will be following the debate that way. At the end of each segment, I'll probably post something to Twitter using the #Debate2012 hashtag.
7:25 -- The key to Mitt doing well tonight, I think, will be whether he starts with a criticism of Obama's economy, then finishes with his solution. If he does that, he'll win the debate. Whether that happens is the question.
7:40 -- T-20 minutes and counting. Will Mitt come out unflappable? Will President Obama. Only 20 minutes until we find out.
7:45 -- This isn't liveblogging stuff but it's good information going forward:
7:55 -- Jim Lehrer just finished giving instructions. Crowd applauds the finish of the instructions.
A Non-Recovery Recovery
The August report shows that the labor market is continuing its non-recovery. Average job growth for 2012 is worse than average job growth in 2011. Fiscal policies from Washington have made the situation worse. While President Obama has promised to reduce regulations, which would help job creation, his largest initiative, Obamacare, will harm employment. The Obamacare tax hikes coincide with the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in January 2013.
8:00 -- The debate starts in 2 minutes. GRRRR. I hate when politicians are late.
8:04 -- 3 segments on the economy, 1 each on health care, role of gov't & differences.
8:06 -- Obama Gov. Romney wants to get the economy going by giving tax cuts for the rich.
8:08 -- Romney outlines his 5 points. The President has a view that's similar to 4 years ago.
8:10 -- Obama talking about hiring 100,000 new teachers. Subconciously cedes fact that his approach now is the same as 4 years ago. Now talking about $5,000,000,000,000 tax cuts plus spending.
8:12 -- Romney on the offensive. Incomes are down by $4,300 per year. Gas has doubled since Obama was inaugurated. Mitt: Energy production is up but not due to President Obama's policies. BTW, I like coal.
8:15 -- President Obama regurgitating the $5,000,000,000,000 in tax cuts & $2,000,000,000,000 military spending line.
8:18 -- Romney: Virtually everything he said about my tax plan is inaccurate. Romnney is really on fire.
8:22 -- Romney: Takes Obama to task about the $5,000,000,000,000 tax cut. Says that his plan isn't like anything like other plans tried before.
8:28 -- Romney: I will grow economy while cutting spending. Includes cutting PBS, repealing Obamacare.
8:30 -- Obama is talking about Bowles-Simpson like it's his plan. Talk about chutzpah.
8:34 -- Romney: I believe in raising revenues not taxes.
8:35 -- Obama is clearly on defensive. Talking balanced approach = tax increases.
NOTE: Mitt nailed President Obama with his statement that President Obama complains about "$2.8 Trillion in tax breaks for Exxon" but giving "about 50 years worth of tax breaks to Solyndra."
8:52 -- Mitt on regulations: As a businessman, I needed to know the regulations. Dodd-Frank "designates 5 banks as too big to fail" as permanent. Too many community banks went bankrupt after Dodd-Frank.
9:00 -- Obama: Gov. Romney did a good thing in Massachussetts.
9:03 -- Mitt: In Massachussetts, we all came together. Mr. President, You didn't bring people together. You pushed it through. When Scott Brown won, you still pushed it through without a single Republican vote.
9:07 -- The folks at NRO are impressed with Mitt, unimpressed with President Obama. Says that President Obama is meandering, unfocused, Mitt is focused, with "no uhs, no ums." I agree.
9:14 -- Role of gov't: President Obama - Cites Lincoln as creating transcontinental railroad.
9:17 -- Romney: I believe that our Constitution means that we care for those who can't provide for themselves but that we provide the opportunity for people to pursue their own dreams.
Posted Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:18 PM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 03-Oct-12 09:35 PM
Mitt did a much better job than Obama. Surprised that even PBS talking head agreed.
Comment 2 by Patrick at 03-Oct-12 09:54 PM
MSNBC gang is crying. Said "O" was being Presidential that is why he did so poorly. I say Mitt W and Barack L. Best line of the debate was from Mitt Romney: 'You don't just pick winners, you pick losers'.
Comment 3 by eric z at 04-Oct-12 12:34 PM
As always, the effort you make in live blogging is praiseworthy, and helpful. It takes patience and dedication to detail to do it, and not everyone can do it well.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-12 01:06 PM
Eric, The deeper I got into the debate, the more I found myself just watching & absorbing the debate rather than liveblogging it. Mitt was really that much in command of the auditorium.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 06-Oct-12 07:07 AM
Will that, or the 47% tape be his defining moment?
Jim, You might want to move onto another subject
Mitt Romney's command of the issues, especially issues affecting small businesses and the middle class, was impressive. When President Obama tried conflating Wall Street with small businesses, Mitt Romney stopped that in its tracks, noting that 54% of the workers in this nation work for companies that pay their income taxes as individuals.
When the subject moved to regulations, Mitt jumped on that like Miguel Cabrera jumps over belt high hanging sliders, questioning President Obama by saying "Why would you classify 5 banks as too big to fail?" Mitt turned that into an opportunity to talk about how Dodd-Frank has hurt people trying to get home loans and getting the housing market going again.
Nothing stands out, though, like President Obama's feeble attempt to get out of talking about an issue. President Obama's response was so arresting that I don't remember what the topic was.
"Jim, I think you might want to move onto another subject" wasn't President Obama's helpful suggestion for Jim Lehrer. It was a plea for help borne out of desperation.
President Obama's spinmeisters are furiously attempting to limit the damage of last night's debate performance. It started last night with people like Axelrod and Donna Brazile saying that they expected Mitt Romney to have a good night before saying that the important test is whether Mitt's performance moved the polls.
That isn't the right question but it's similar. The right question is straightforward: How much did Mitt's performance move the polls? With early voting already started in a number of key battleground states, it's possible that Mitt's performance in last night's debate will positively affect early voting.
There's another important factor at work here, too. Had President Obama turned in a solid performance last night, he might've created enough momentum to last until the next presidential debate. Now that that didn't happen, President Obama has to hope that Vice President Biden will restore the momentum in his debate with Paul Ryan.
That isn't the type of thing you'd want to place your hope in if you're President Obama.
Tags: Denver , Presidential Debate , Jim Lehrer , Mitt Romney , Dodd-Frank , Regulations , Taxes , Small Businesses , Banks , GOP , President Obama , Too Big To Fail , Wall Street , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, October 4, 2012 10:04 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 04-Oct-12 11:22 AM
As I read elsewhere online last night, 0bama better hope that butt-kickings are covered under 0bamacare.
I'm no fan -- at all -- of Mitt Romney, but he wiped the floor with 0bama last night.
Comment 2 by eric z at 04-Oct-12 12:32 PM
I did not watch it, but Triple A at Residual Forces seems to believe Romney did well. With the absentee ballot already cast, no photo-ID required, I can weigh other things. Romney-Ryan did not get my vote, but I am open to you and others saying Romney-Ryan will win.
What about that guy doing the poisoned voter registration effort, the RNC cancelling the contract and disclaiming knowledge or planning? It seems that is voter fraud that matters.
Anyway, debate aside, it still comes down to who do you trust. Vulture-Voucher or Obama-Biden.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-12 01:18 PM
Vulture-Voucher died a quick death last night. That talking point was demolished forever with Mitt's performance Mitt refuted President Obama's talking points with statistics that reinforced Mitt's claims. Last night's thrashing exposed President Obama's disastrous economy. (people on food stamps have jumped from 32,000,000 to 47,000,000, wages dropped $4,300 per household & gas prices have doubled since you took office, President Obama.)
Those statistics are now out there for the entire world to think through. They're constantly part of the debate the rest of this election. President Obama can come up with snappy one-liners. He can act like he's Mr. Cool if he'd like.
Those things won't matter like Mitt's solutions, which he communicated clearly last night, matter. First & foremost, people want solutions. The class warfare stuff works in advertising. It's thrown in the toilet when the person standing across from President Obama is prepared to defend against President Obama's attacks.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 04-Oct-12 04:08 PM
Eric:
If you cast your vote for Obama you will be one of millions of Americans who basically knows that the country is in lousy shape, but I will vote to keep it going in that lousy direction.
You know that Romney won when Bill M of HBO and Ed S of MSNBC are tweeting that Obama lost.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z at 05-Oct-12 10:36 AM
Walter - Please do not confuse me with an Obama enthusiast. He's failed on being strong on true healthcare reform. Failed on a number of things because he was too wiling to try to work with intransigent opposition. But it's a lesser evil choice. Walter, if you say you love Willard Mitt Romney to death and would not have liked a different candidate, I'd not ever buy a used car from you. Neither is top notch. Romney and Ryan are vulture and voucher. Ryan in particular deserves fear and loathing. He's a menace to polite and thinking society. Romney is just a spoiled rich brat; but Ryan is a danger.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 05-Oct-12 03:56 PM
Eric:
You didn't vote for Romney. That translated to despite your objections:
I love Obama!!!!
I want government running my life!!!!
I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it!
So Eric if you want to post here just be honest. One reason why me, Gary, and millions of Americans hate Obama is that he's not being honest with us.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 05-Oct-12 05:21 PM
Sounds as if polls in the battleground states of Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin all show Romney ahead, up 5 points from pre-debate.
Comment 7 by eric z. at 06-Oct-12 07:05 AM
Gary, Walter, J.Ewing - do any of you know the debate ratings, vs. say a typical NFL Sunday? I ask because J.E. mentions polls, and it would surprise me if enough people watched to make a difference. Also, whose poll says what always matters. The press, they always want a horse race and talk a photo finish. They don't want "Decided in August."
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-12 08:41 AM
Wednesday's debate was watched by more people than watched President Obama's acceptance speech in Denver in 2008.
The pro-Mitt Bounce is already happening in Florida, Ohio & Virginia that we know of.
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 06-Oct-12 02:49 PM
Eric:
lets see in 2008 130 million people voted for preisdent. 70 million watched or 53.85% of that vote total.
Rasmussen national poll went from Obama head 1 or 2 points before the debate to Romney leading by 2 points. A gain of at least 3 percent or 3.9 million votes. Quite easy to achieve on the debate performance and the size of the audience.
What is even worse Obama which I thought couldn't top the lie of the video caused the attacks is doing it with Romney lied at the debate.
Eric the reality is this will do more damage to Obama than Mike D's tank ride did to him in 1988.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
