October 15-17, 2010
Oct 15 15:51 Reid Loses Debate, Beginning of End in Sight? Oct 16 08:16 Pawlenty: Emmer Is the Clear Choice Oct 16 09:23 Friday's Debate Produces Defining Moments Oct 17 00:13 What Is Oberstar's Motivation? Oct 17 09:42 MPP goes off the deep end Oct 17 14:07 Hauser Interview: Dayton's MAJOR Gaffe Oct 17 16:08 Times' endorsing Tarryl the final straw
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Reid Loses Debate, Beginning of End in Sight?
Last night, Sharron Angle squared off with Harry Reid and got the better of the fight. That's the word from the LV Sun's Jon Ralston:
Let's get the easy part out of the way first:
Sharron Angle won The Big Debate.
Angle won because she looked relatively credible, appearing not to be the Wicked Witch of the West (Christine O'Donnell is the good witch of the Tea Party) and scoring many more rhetorical points. And she won because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid looked as if he could barely stay on a linear argument, abruptly switching gears and failing to effectively parry or thrust.
Whether the debate affects the outcome; I believe very few Nevadans are undecided; it also perfectly encapsulated the race: An aging senator who has mastered the inside political game but fundamentally does not seem to care about his public role (and is terrible at it) versus an ever-smiling political climber who can deliver message points but sometimes changes her message or denies a previous one even existed.
When the moderator asked about Social Security, Reid said "Don't frighten people about Social Security." That was the opening Angle was looking for and she made the most of it, saying "Man up Harry Reid, you need to" admit there's a problem with Social Security.
From what was tweeted, everyone knew that Sen. Reid was hit hard by Angle. NRO's Rich Lowry tweeted that he thought Angle was winning the Social Security issue.
The other thing Angle hit Reid with a crushing blow was when Reid declared that it was his job to create jobs. Roll Call's David Drucker quotes Angle as saying "It's not your job 2 create jobs, its your job 2 create policies that create confidence 4 private sector 2 create jobs."
Both those quotes hit Reid hard.
Ralston quotes other pundits:
NBC's Chuck Todd: "Reid's problem tonight is that while Angle wasn't great, his performance made her look passable."
Politico's Dave Catanese: "Utterly subpar."
Political Wire's Taegan Goddard: "Reid didn't knock out Angle but she had him on the ropes. Have to give the edge to Angle ..."
Political writer Taylor Marsh may have summed it up best: "Sharron Angle passed the 'I'm not crazy test' with flying colors. Focused too. This lady just might pull this off. Reid didn't take her out."
Taegan Goddard's analysis is a bit baffling but he's right that Angle had Reid on the ropes. I'd argue that it was pretty clear that Reid's entire strategy was to paint Sharron Angle as an extremist not worthy of Nevadans' votes. That strategy failed.
MarketWatch's Russell Britt summed things up nicely in this article :
"Man up, Harry Reid," said Angle, when Thursday's debate turned to the subject of Social Security. Angle had accused Reid of raiding social security and used the term "man up" in an attempt to get him to acknowledge the nation's retirement account had been used from time to time to offset shortfalls elsewhere in the nation's budget.
But Reid maintained that he never touched Social Security, calling it a "promise we have to keep." He added the plan will keep paying benefits for at least another four decades, and longer with some minor tinkering. He paid homage to a former Republican president for striking a bipartisan deal to make sure Social Security stayed solvent.
"The deal that was made by President Reagan and [House Speaker] Tip O'Neill [in 1983] is holding strong," Reid said.
Angle, who has advocated the phasing out the system, countered: "Social Security had $2.5 trillion in it, and now it has IOUs."
There aren't many people out there that think SocSec is solvent anymore. Reid saying that it's still strong is likely being laughed at by younger voters in the 25-45 age range.
This is, in my opinion, the beginning of the end for Sen. Reid. Angle's "man up" comment caught him flush on the jaw. It's one of those "There you go again" moments that happen all too rarely in debates.
Posted Friday, October 15, 2010 3:51 PM
Comment 1 by Daniel B. C. Gardiner at 15-Oct-10 04:52 PM
Reid is an old fool and should have retired long ago!
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Oct-10 05:15 PM
Is Sharron Angle really so wigged out that she makes Christine O'Donnell look bland?
It seems that's the media impression, and the coverage.
More right-wing than Bachmann.
Is it more of the liberal bias in the MSM that you've mentioned before? Or is she as bad as the quotes getting published imply?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Oct-10 05:29 PM
Eric, Sharron Angle thinks, as I do & Michele Bachmann & other conservatives think, that the federal Dept. of Education hurts the education product. We think that of many things because we know that the closer the decisions are made to the people involved, the better the product. That's because we know that when a school board member makes a bad decision, we can hold him/her accountable. We can't if it's an unelected bureaucrat in DC.
Another great thing about federalism is that we keep the money here instead of sending it to DC, where they take 'their cut' before returning part of OUR MONEY to us. How 'GENEROUS' of them.
Finally, as Sharron Angle said, DC's policies are frequently the one-size-fits-all variety.
Sharron Angle is the top tier conservative candidate but she'll do fine in the Senate.
PS- Get out the butter because Reid's toast, especially after last night's debate.
Pawlenty: Emmer Is the Clear Choice
Tom Emmer is getting alot of help in the closing days of the campaign. Gov. Pawlenty is helping by doing this commercial for Tom:
Here's the transcript to the commercial:
GOV. PAWLENTY: Making tough decisions,That's what being governor is all about.
I stood my ground on taxes and now, Minnesota is positioned to lead the nation in job growth.
Only Tom Emmer has promised not to raise job-killing taxes.
Mark Dayton's plan,raises income taxes.
Tom Horner's plan,expands the sales tax to clothes.
Only Tom Emmer's plan will grow jobs by cutting wasteful government spending and holding the line on taxes.
The choice is clear: Minnesota needs Tom Emmer.
Mark Dayton has never been an executive. When he worked in the Perpich administration, he never was THE DECIDER. He was just the recommender. Tom Emmer owns his own business. He's made executive decisions. Tom won't hesitate in making decisions.
Sen. Dayton's senate career was distinguished by the fact that he was practically invisible...until he shut his office down in 2004. He was a laughingstock. Mark Kennedy was salivating at the opportunity to run against him. That's why he retired. In 2006, a great year for Democrats, Sen. Dayton would've lost by 10 points, if not more.
Most importantly, Dayton isn't the real deal. Tom Emmer is the real deal. He's the man that wants to streamline government, not just to spend less money but to make government more business friendly.
The goal of government in a Dayton or Horner administration would be serving the bureaucrats. In an Emmer administration, it would be about serving Minnesotans. That's as it should be. Government that serves the bureaucrats is shoddy government.
Minnesota's families can't afford a government where the governor's philosophy is growing government because that's what government demands. Minnesota families are hurting. They need government that doesn't intrude into their lives. They need a government that gets out of the way and stays out of the way.
Businesses need government to return to the basics: good roads to get people and products where they need to go, health care that's affordable and accessable and maintaining a strong public safety section. After that, get out of business's way.
Tom Emmer gets that. He knows that government needs to get out of the private sector's way more often. He gets it that government putting 68 different mandates on insurance coverages does nothing but drive up premiums.
That's inexcusable. Businesses are leaving the state because they've seen the DFL's unwillingness to say no to their special interest allies, which is where most of those mandates originated.
It's time for a leader who will downsize government so We The People can keep more of our money. It's time for a leader who will streamline the permitting process so businesses can expand and hire people. It's time for a leader who will trim the administrative fat from higher ed so tuitions stabilize.
That leader is Tom Emmer.
Posted Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:16 AM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 16-Oct-10 09:17 AM
I'd like to comment on this post by expanding the debate slightly and talking about Emmer's TV ads.
So far, they've been pretty much what I thought they'd be. The ads look and sound like any other ad produced by a DC Beltway political advertising agency.
Whether we want to admit it or not, the Alliance for A Better Minnesota has landed some body blows on Emmer. Through their collective lying, they have shaped the public's image of Emmer. It shows in Emmer's high negatives.
Maybe it's time that Emmer addressed this matter in a new ad. The ad should be one of these "Don't you think Minnesota deserves better?" ads.
The ad doesn't have to be defensive or one of those "Gosh, people are sure picking on me these days" ads.
I'm sure that there's a line of thinking out there that says "You don't reply to an opponent's (or their surrogates) attacks. It only validates what your oppone t is saying" - but let's face it, the damage has been done. Maybe it's time for Emmer to address these attacks.
Friday's Debate Produces Defining Moments
Friday afternoon, Tom Emmer, Mark Dayton and Tom Horner squared off in a debate on the U of M campus. For the most part, Horner stuck with his I'm not them storyline while Dayton was in full pander mode.
Meanwhile, Tom Emmer emerged as a leader. This is, I believe, the start of Tom's finishing kick.
The debate had a defining moment. Sen. Dayton, in full pander mode, told the college audience that he'd increase spending on higher ed, which would hold tuitions down. In truth, there's no proof that spending more holds tuitions down.
When it was Tom Emmer's turn, he simply said that Dayton shouldn't make promises to the students that he couldn't pay for. Emmer then followed that shot with another. He said that being a leader doesn't mean saying you'll be all things to all people with money you don't have.
Dayton's budget already has a $1,650,000,000 deficit. Dayton promising that he'll increase higher ed funding at a time after he's admitted his budget won't allow him to even pay off the education shifts until the 2014 biennium is dealing with sheer fantasy.
Tom finished his reply by saying that higher ed is too top heavy with administrators and that that needed to be trimmed. He said that that's the only way to stabilize tuitions.
Here's Tom's money quote:
"State funding is not the only problem," Emmer said. "In fact, it's not necessarily a matter of not having enough state funding, because there will never be enough. It's not a matter of students not being able to pay.
"It's a matter of our higher education institutions not delivering an affordable product," he said. "They've got to start looking at their own overhead expenses."
The crowd's applause for that answer spoke volumes.
The reality is that, unless you have a governor who's willing to hold colleges' feet to the fire about holding down costs, higher ed will just be another budget black hole.
Tom came away looking like a leader. Dayton came away looking little, like a man who wouldn't say no to the educators. Rest assured that neither Dayton nor Horner would demand a reduction in higher ed administration. Tom Emmer is the only candidate who will hold them accountable.
Dayton's feeble response was to say higher ed had to look for "greater efficiencies". He didn't offer any specifics, proving that he hasn't studied the issue. Most likely, Dayton didn't expect to have to deal with the issue of reform.
Horner, for the most part, looked lifeless and idealess. His I'm not them schtick is wearing thin. He doesn't have any ideas much less appealing ideas.
This debate was the first part of Tom's closing argument. Based on the young audience's response, so far so good. More importantly, Tom's calls for higher ed to act more responsibly will play well with parents paying for their kids' tuitions.
There was another defining moment that went largely unnoticed. It came early when Tom told Dayton that his budget didn't balance, falling $1,000,000,000 short, then telling Horner that his budget fell $2,350,000,000 short of balancing. Horner's and Dayton's silence spoke volumes.
Things are crystallizing. That's bad news for Dayton and Horner because their proposals don't add up. Tom Emmer is the only candidate whose budget balances. Tom Emmer's proposal is the only budget proposal that includes reforms in addition to balancing the budget.
Expect Tom Emmer to hammer that point home in each of his stops the rest of the way.
That's bad news for Dayton and Horner, especially after their lackluster performances in Friday's debate.
Posted Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:23 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Oct-10 01:05 PM
Emmer in finger pointing mode.
Okay.
Noted.
Is his only answers that others should change?
Keeping up the roads and infrastructure will cost the same whoever is governor.
Emmer seems to imply he'll handle it without taxing people.
That and Santa Clause leaves Christmas presents, the bunny hides the eggs, and other improbable legends.
I suppose the military in Afghanistan should also "tighten the belt" and throw stones when they run out of ammo, because that is being accountable. Within a budget.
I've seen Emmer. He appears as if a bit of belt tightening would help him. Corpulent during hard times for others is a non-verbal message but one people see.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Oct-10 04:15 PM
College tuitions have been going up even while we've been giving Higher Ed big increases in funding. In the 2007 session, the legislature increased funding by $296,000,000, an 11% increase. Sen. Sandy Pappas whined that we were "starving higher education." Even though it was a huge increase, she expected more. After that increase, tuition still spiked. They didn't use the big increase to stabilize tuitions like they'd promised. They used it to just increase spending on more administrators and more programs from their wish list.
Minnesota taxpayers have had it with unaccountable public employees whining that we aren't spending enough of our taxes on them. We The People are finally saying that we fire some of these worthless administrators because they add nothing to improving the quality of the education the students get.
Liberals whine about Wall Street fat cats getting big bonuses but you're silent when these bureaucrats get 6-figure salaries & great retirement benefits to boot while doing nothing. The bureaucrats are doing it on our dime.
Tom Emmer is siding with the majority of Minnesotans.
As for transportation, that isn't a general fund item. Unfortunately, the 2008 Transportation Bill tax increases raise money for transit. They do little for roads & bridges. The DFL instead chose to pay off their transit political allies.
More than anything else, the TEA Party is tired of the politicians ignoring us. NO MORE!!! is our battle cry. It's time that the DFL got the message that they work for us, that their seats are endangered.
Comment 2 by Gretchen Leisen at 16-Oct-10 04:35 PM
Thanks, Gary, for a fine blog and such timely evaluation of Minnesota's politics. I'm happy to have spoken to you on Oct. 13th at King's fund raiser. I went right home and found your blog and have it now set as one of my "must read" blogs every day.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Oct-10 04:51 PM
Thanks, Gretchen, for your compliment & your readership. Thanks, too, for supporting King. It's time to retake that seat.
What Is Oberstar's Motivation?
This week, in a moment of extreme petulence, Jim Oberstar said that organizations like MCCL have become political arms of the GOP. That's rubbish. Here's Rep. Oberstar's 'proof':
While the Oberstar campaign expressed disappointment with MCCL's decision, spokesperson John Schadl said the group's endorsement reflects MCCL's increasingly partisan slant, rather than any shift in pro-life commitment from Oberstar. "Jim has been consistent. He has not changed on this issue at all," said Schadl.
According to Schadl, the MCCL is "drifting from pro-life to pro-partisan, a change that he said began when the Mgroup began accepting funding from the Republican Party two years ago. He said the group has strayed from pro-life issues to support other partisan positions. For example, he said, MCCL and Oberstar recently parted company over a federal measure supported by Oberstar that would have required groups that run political attack ads against candidates to disclose their funding sources.
With this administration in place and with their allies like John Podesta's CAP and other Soros-funded organizations primed to attack at a moment's notice, why would MCCL open their donors up to criticism?
Rep. Oberstar's claim that MCCL is drifting into the political arena isn't without merit but that's because Congress keeps attempting to ignore the First Amendment. The more Democrats attempt to change the First Amendment, the more organizations like MCCL have gotten worried that politicians would limit these organizations' ability to speak out on the issues that are important to them.
Rep. Oberstar's spokesman makes it sound totally innocent. Just disclose your donors. Doesn't that sound innocent? Again, let's remember that the Soros/Obama/Pelosi/Podesta was established to attack groups that disagree with the administration or their allies. With this administration's proclivity towards political intimidation, why wouldn't MCCL take advantage of that tax provision?
Factcheck.org had this to say about the issue: "the new law states specifically that federal funds are not to be used for coverage of any other kinds of abortions, and that only premium dollars paid by individuals out of their own pockets may be used to pay for coverage of other kinds of abortions."
Oberstar said such protections were put in place, in part, through his efforts. "I worked with pro-life Democrats to make sure that no federal funding would go towards abortion," said Oberstar. "The leadership knew that they couldn't pass the bill without our support, and we withheld our support until we were certain those concerns were met. To ignore our work on this issue and then to distort the facts is proof positive that MCCL has lost its way."
Factcheck.com's characterization that it really isn't federal funding that's paying for abortions. It's just money that's sent to the federal government, then sent out to pay for the abortions. To borrow a phrase, this is a distinction without a difference.
I'd further argue that this provision can't be that solid because, had it been that solid, Bart Stupak wouldn't have insisted on President Obama signing that worthless executive order.
Bart Stupak and Rep. Oberstar can't have it both ways. They can't say that there isn't federal funding for abortion, then insist that President Obama sign an EO that's designed for political cover and nothing else.
I wrote here that the Senate watered down the language from the Stupak language:
Senator Nelson said today a proposed compromise he's studied does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.
Nelson said without further improvements the compromise is not sufficient.
"The compromise adds important new initiatives addressing teen pregnancy and tax credits to help with adoptions," Senator Nelson said. "These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life. But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient."
It's the Senate bill that the House passed in March. That didn't have the Stupak language in it. Stupak and Oberstar caved because universal health care is the Holy Grail to liberals. If it meant sacrificing their firstborn, so be it. (That's sarcasm.)
Rep. Oberstar didn't vote for life. He voted for the government takeover of the health insurance industry.
Rep. Oberstar can whine all he likes about MCCL becoming political but the truth is he's getting hurt politically because he walked away from his pro-life record.
Posted Sunday, October 17, 2010 12:13 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Oct-10 01:22 PM
all they had to do was put back in the original Stupak language and take it back to the Senate.
Oh the Republicans had 41 votes and could've stopped it from passing.
They sarcarificed life to get the bill passed. Everyone knows that!
And Oberstar is pro-choice now because he sold out his vote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
MPP goes off the deep end
While progressives insist that voter fraud doesn't exist, Minnesota Majority is putting troops on the ground to make sure voter fraud doesn't happen. Because Minnesota Majority is working within Minnesota's election laws by putting pollwatchers at each voting station, some progressives are lashing out. This Minnesota Progressive Project post is a prime example:
'Minnesota Majority' is a far-right activist group of whimpering, conspiracy-obsessed, authoritarian paranoids for whom no tactic for trying to suppress voter turnout, short of outright violence (so far), seems to be too extreme. The group's sordid history was well documented a while back. They recently announced they'll place 'voter surveillance teams' at polling places. Here's reality on voter fraud in the state.
And now, they're offering 'bounties.'
We are putting a price on the heads of anyone who would attempt to organize people with the intent of cheating in our election," said Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority. "We've received reports of organizers enticing people to vote fraudulently with small financial incentives such as gift cards. We've also seen evidence of this illegal practice in the official incident logs from the 2008 election. We will now offer individuals a more lucrative incentive for turning-in these organizers of voter fraud."
That's as breathless, not to mention mindless, a bit of of opining I'd ever read. Until I read this:
Let's be clear. Everything about Minnesota Majority indicates that its purpose is to try to suppress turnout among certain targeted groups of voters, those least likely to vote for the right wing lunatic base candidates preferred by the group. Its tactics include outright threats and open displays of hostility and efforts at intimidation.
This means that Minnesota Majority is a criminal organization .
Where in Minnesota Majority's statement does it indicate that they want to prevent legal voters from voting? Is MPP saying that when Minnesota Majority says that they've "received reports of organizers enticing people to vote fraudulently with small financial incentives" that they're really saying they're offering rewards to suppress voter turnout? That's absurd.
MPP is accusing Minnesota Majority of doing the exact opposite of what they said. These are wild accusations that don't have even a tiny scintilla of credibility.
It's time for Minnesotans of all political persuasions to tell MPP that their pattern of spewing the most hateful things imaginable without even a bit of proof isn't acceptable.
MPP's accusations are based on pure hatred of anyone they disagree with. MPP is arguing that doing what the law allows is the equivalent of suppressing the vote. What Minnesota Majority is well within the boundaries of Minnesota's election laws.
It's instructive that the radical left thinks that making sure that illegal voters don't vote is voter suppression. You can't reason with MPP, Mark Ritchie and their like-minded allies. You can only defeat them and wipe them out of office.
That's the goal.
It's worth noting that MPP and their allies oppose 80 percent of Minnesotans on the issue of Photo ID. I can't say that I can prove that they're doing everything possible to enable voter fraud but it's curious why they insist that voter fraud doesn't exist when people have been convicted of voter fraud in the last 9 months.
It's time for the lying left to stop making these accusations up when they know the truth contradicts them. MPP's sole purpose seems to be making up the most outlandish statements out of whole cloth, then publishing them as worthy statements.
This time especially, they've gone too far. They've accused people of criminal behavior without proof. Wild imaginations aren't proof of anything except a wild imagination.
Posted Sunday, October 17, 2010 9:42 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Oct-10 01:18 PM
Gary:
Since when did MN Majority become the black panthers. I suppose since most people of MN majority are white the Holder Justice Department will have no trouble going after this so called voter imitation.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Oct-10 02:43 PM
Since when did MN Majority become the black panthers.Since MPP lost its marbles.
Comment 2 by quoteworthy at 17-Oct-10 06:57 PM
It seems to me that there is a lot of projection going on here. It is a truth that we can only see in others what we recognize in ourselves. So for The Minnesota Progressive Project to assign all of this blame, fault and tragedy to the Minnesota Majority, it appears that they are looking at the world through WOES-colored glasses.
Aesop told a story of a fox and a bramble (http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?2&TheFoxandtheBramble). The moral of the story is, "To the selfish, all are selfish." We see in others what we are ourselves. Let those who have ears to hear, hear.
Comment 3 by Walter Hudson at 18-Oct-10 05:39 AM
You can almost hear the hyperventilating in MPP's mindless rant.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Oct-10 08:19 AM
That you can, Walter.
Comment 4 by eric z at 18-Oct-10 01:24 PM
Send them a post link, Gary. That way, having notice, they get a fair shot at responding in the comments.
And, MPP is not a monolith.
There are a number of authors, each responsible for his/her posts.
It is not unfamiliar to you, instead, you participate similarly on the True North effort. Consider it elsewhere on the political spectrum, but similar in its being an outlet for individuals, and not monolithic.
Hauser Interview: Dayton's MAJOR Gaffe
During his interview with KSTP's Tom Hauser, Mark Dayton made a major mistake. Specifically, when pressed by Tom Hauser about how he'd fund his education promises considering how big his budget falls short of balancing, Dayton said that he hasn't made promises, that he's just set goals .
Sen. Dayton is relying on voter amnesia because he's repeatedly used the line that he'd "increase funding for education every year without exception and without excuses." In the real world, that's considered a promise. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of promise :
a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises; an express assurance on which expectation is to be based: promises that an enemy will not win.
Certainly, Sen. Dayton's statement gave people the impression that, come hell or high water, education funding would increase each year with the expectation that increased funding would lead to smaller class sizes. With real families, that's considered a promise. To career politicians, that's considered to be something with an expiring deadline.
Earlier in the interview, Dayton said that he'd get new agency heads in place, who would then identify new spending cuts. Later, he essentially said that education funding would go forward. In addition, Dayton talked about his initiatives of smaller class sizes, eliminating 4 day school weeks and all day kindergarten.
For a man who isn't promising anything, that sounds an awful lot like a lengthy list of promises.
In addition to his major gaffe on education, Dayton got just about every policy issue wrong or, at minimum, set the wrong priorities for Minnesota.
At one point, Hauser asked Sen. Dayton if he was worried about chasing rich families out of Minnesota with his tax increases. Dayton said that, for him, it's about tax fairness. He then launched into how the tax system was more progressive under Arne Carlson than it is now.
I won't defend Carlson because he's indefensible. Instead, I'll just mention that the DFL has created or raised a series of regressive taxes, like the list of regressive taxes in the 2008 Transportation Bill, the sales tax increase for the Legacy Amendment and other regressive taxes.
Dayton is foolish if he thinks that his tax-the-rich scheme won't drive businesses from Minnesota. Of course they will. Just because Art Rolnick can't put a specific number on it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
The latest KSTP-SurveyUSA poll shows that 53% of likely voters prefer balancing the budget with spending cuts alone, 38% prefer a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. It's interesting to note that, when listing who the tax increases should fall on would be appropriately titled not me.
In other words, tax increases are fine as long as they aren't hit with the tax.
Dayton's message is pure doublespeak. He'll tell his agency chiefs to find new budget cuts...except in education...except that he isn't promising to increase education spending...at least not when asked by a reporter. I'm sure, though, that he'll tell his EdMinn allies that he'll keep his education spending increase promises.
Dayton still won't make an economic argument for raising taxes. That's because he knows that every time taxes have been increased during a recession, they've failed miserably. That's why he's framing it as a fairness issue.
Minnesotans, there's a spending, taxing trainwreck on the ticket. His name is Mark Dayton. Avoid at all costs.
Posted Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:07 PM
No comments.
Times' endorsing Tarryl the final straw
This morning, the SCTimes endorsed Tarryl Clark . That they endorsed her isn't surprising. It's what they said in endorsing her that will make the Times a laughingstock. Here's a little sample of what they said:
She does it so effectively (and relentlessly) that she's become a grass-roots tea party heroine even while supporting a public policy agenda that helps entities that are anything but grass roots. Best example: In the wake of America's financial collapse, do you really think Bachmann's push to leave Wall Street alone was in the best interests of 6th District voters?
That the Times would say that Michele left Wall Street alone is disturbing enough because it isn't factual. Michele fought hard to strip out of the bill the provisions that gives the Treasury Secretary the authority to bail out financial institutions without congressional approval.
I'd argue that that's acting in this district's, and all other congressional districts', best interests. Giving that authority to an unelected official lacks the necessary system of checks and balances that prevent the type of corruption that gave us this mess in the first place.
That the Times made this type of statement isn't surprising. They didn't do their homework because their minds were made up. Their darling was Tarryl from the outset. In fact, the whole editorial reads like a Tarryl press release.
Here's how the Times added insult to injury:
In fact, these past four years renew our appreciation for House representation that provided this area with voices like Collin Peterson and Mark Kennedy. Sure, they have their partisan allegiances, but they realized when it was time to set those aside and do what was best for the district, not themselves.
Apparently, the Times thinks that fighting against out of control spending is putting Michele's agenda ahead of the best interests of the district. Apparently, the Times thinks that fighting against the government takeover of health care is putting Michele's agenda ahead of the best interests of the district. Apparently, the Times thinks that fighting against giving future Treasury Secretaries the authority to bail out their Goldman Sachs/Wall St. cronies is putting Michele's agenda ahead of the best interests of the district.
Here's a sample of what the commenters think of the Times' endorsement:
Len_Hopkins wrote: And the Saint Cloud Times slips further into the abyss of irrelevancy.
coolcreations101 wrote: This op-ed piece just goes to show how out of step the St Cloud Times is with central Minnesota. Bachmann has done more than most in Minnesota. Thankfully she has opposed the tax and spend liberals in Washington, that alone is enough to get her reelected and it should. The Times should be embarrased for writing this dribble, what a joke some of these dolts have become. There's a reason liberal rags like the Times are going under.
Myrts1 wrote: I knew the times was liberal; however, after reading this column, I see just how far left they really are....one more step to the left, they may actually circumnavigate all the way to the right......simply amazing
The Times is about to find out that their reckless political musings come with a steep financial price. They could've released this endorsement 6 months ago because their mind was made up back then. In fact, it was probably made up 4 years ago.
What's most shameful is that they didn't bother doing their research. The things they misstated were things I wrote about months ago. It isn't like it would've been difficult to find out about the FinReg bill.
That they didn't know this information tells me that they didn't interview Michele. Had they asked about the FinReg bill, Michele certainly would've pointed them to that provision and other objectionable provisions to justify her voting against the bill.
It's time to stop taking the Times as a serious newspaper. With this level of sloppiness, laziness and prejudice against candidates, there's no reason to think that their endorsements are informed opinions.
In many readers' minds, this endorsement is the final straw that forces them to cancel their Times subscription. I can't say I blame them.
Posted Sunday, October 17, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 17-Oct-10 06:29 PM
This is one of those slavish, mindless endorsements that needs no refutation. The sole basis of the endorsement is simply that Clark is DFL. She has no accomplishments, no demonstrated knowledge of the issues. In fact, the DFL quietly locked her in the closet after just a few weeks of continual unfocused blabbering as Pogey's assistant.
Comment 2 by Gretchen Leisen at 18-Oct-10 12:40 AM
Actually this endorsement was no surprise at all. Can anyone seriously believe the Times' statement that they actually analyzed the two candidates? For the past 12 months the SC Times has consistently begun every story about Michele Bachmann with a negative headline! If they think this was not noticed, they are the stupid ones.
I could write that their editorial board is only half as smart as the average Tea Party folks, but that would be seriously insulting to the Tea Partiers.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Oct-10 02:16 AM
Gretchen is exactly right. This was utterly predictable. Their endorsement included most of Tarryl's talking point, especially the one about protecting Wall Street. Tarryl's been spouting that crap since she entered the race.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 18-Oct-10 01:19 AM
Maybe the Times believe the bull that Clark is saying that she wants to cut taxes for businesses.
Really you increase the sales tax thus reducing sales.
You propose increasing the income tax so if you make a profit you have to hand it over to the government instead of maybe hiring another worker.
The people who work for the Times don't live in the real world.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z at 18-Oct-10 01:14 PM
Clark is leagues ahead of the carnival barker incumbent.
The really interesting endorsement is Strib, endorsing Horner. For a GOP paper to endorse the traditional GOP candidate, running IP, instead of Emmer, IS news.
Any paper that would endorse Bachmann would have zero credibility.
So don't expect it to happen.
Bachmann is shameful to the district.
Comment 5 by eric z at 18-Oct-10 01:18 PM
Forgot to say - Bob Anderson is a really good guy.
If you want a conservative, one not flawed as a rabble rouser, he's your choice.
Another good candidate forced by a caucus-packing bloc of the GOP to have to run IP.
However, that's a simplification. I believe Bob Anderson believes having a centrist third party with some strength is best. I know last cycle he was opposed to the IP cross-endorsing major party folks, and his view has gained IP traction.
Anybody not liking either Clark or Bachmann has a very, very, very sensible alternative -
Bob Anderson.
Comment 6 by eric z at 18-Oct-10 03:09 PM
What's the official spin on these:
http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/pdfs/BachmannRequest.pdf
They are from Minn Post, here:
http://www.minnpost.com/derekwallbank/2010/10/18/22432/despite_opposing_stimulus_bachmann_paulsen_sought_money_for_their_home_districts
Do the quotes in that item say enough or is there more to say, in terms of transportation needs to match the growth the Sixth District can anticipate - and how they were "advocated" by the politicians?
It seems that this reporting fits into that St. Cloud Times editorial, its contentions, etc.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 18-Oct-10 09:54 PM
eric:
The Star Tribune isn't a Republican newspaper. In 2006 the endorsed Hatch. The only reason why coleman got the endorsement over Franken was that Franken was such a bad candidate.
They fawn over Democrats. In 2006 the day that Bachman and ellison got their endorsement Ellison's platform was described as mainstream while Bachmann's was described as extreme.
The Star Tribune that day was trying to show that Bachmann was too extreme for the district.
so the big surprise is why didn't the Democrat Star Tribune endorse Dayton which is what most people expected.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 8 by Citizen Jayne at 19-Oct-10 03:03 AM
Clark has a lot of accomplishments.
What has Michele Bachmann done for the district that I live in? Nothing.
I know that because I've lived here 23 years. Bachmann is the worst Congressman I've ever had since moving to St. Cloud. She has not just done nothing for the district, she has actually done harm by refusing federal money that could have helped us.
Bachmann needs to go. You guys need to read more about her and stop fawning over her appearance.
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Oct-10 07:08 AM
Clark has a lot of accomplishments.I agree. Other than a ton of small, nice stuff, Tarryl's accomplishments are that she's raised taxes, refused to look for spending cuts &, in 2007, voted for a budget that would've raised spending by 17+ percent. On top of all that, she lied directly to me the last Saturday of January, 2007.
Not exactly a ton of POSITIVE accomplishments, huh???
In Michele's favor, she's voted to stop the single worst piece of legislation in the history of the United States, aka Obamacare. She's voted against the biggest tax increase in U.S. history when she voted against Cap & Trade.
It's time you set aside your hatred for capitalism, understood that you can't keep spending like drunken idiots & re-enter the land of sanity. You're giving stupidity a bad reputation.
