October 18-23, 2012
Oct 18 02:12 Reckless spending is Dorholt's starting point? Oct 18 03:26 Johnson vs. Newberger: spendaholic vs. fiscal sanity Oct 20 12:12 What Juan Williams thinks (if it can be called that) Oct 21 02:10 Progressive projection Oct 21 09:47 Michele Bachmann solidifies lead Oct 22 06:32 Durbin: "al-Qa'ida is a shadow of its former self" Oct 22 15:21 Tonight's debate UPDATE: preliminary observations & Liveblogging Oct 23 04:11 Questions for Sen. Klobuchar Oct 23 22:57 What's Sen. Klobuchar hiding?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Reckless spending is Dorholt's starting point?
It hasn't been a secret amongst GOP activists that Zach Dorholt isn't a centrist. We've known that he's an extremist for quite some time. This St. Cloud Times article exposes Dorholt's extremism:
Zachary Dorholt, DFL-St. Cloud, who's running against Banaian, said the Legislature should consider all-day kindergarten as just a starting point for expanding early-childhood education. Education for kids at a young age can trigger big gains down the road, he said.
'Let's go earlier, and let's make the real investments where our biggest bang for the buck is,' Dorholt said.
The DFL's been on a "biggest bang for the buck" kick forever. Dr. John Kern gave a revealing presentation to an education forum that focused on all-day kindergarten . Here's the gist of Dr. Kern's presentation:
Dr. John Kern's presentation focused on whether all day pre-K was a wise investment of the public's money. Dr. Kern highlighted the flaws in reports saying that every dollar spent on all day pre-K will yield $16 in return. Dr. Kern noted that this statistic is from a study conducted in Ypsilanti, MI in 1962 and that the students that this report is based off of were from economically challenged homes.
Dr. Kern didn't dispute the possibility that children in similar situations today might well receive similar benefits. What Dr. Kern did dispute, though, was that there'd be a similar rate of return for children living in middle class families.
Dr. Kern said that, based solely on statistical analysis, that it's probably best that all day pre-K is best used as a targeted option where the rate of return is highest.
In short, Dorholt's "biggest bang for the buck" theory is BS.
More importantly, Dorholt's all-day kindergarten idea is expensive. In other words, Dorholt wants to spend tons of money on a program with limited effectiveness. That type of thinking is what threw Minnesota's budget out of balance in 2007.
Let's remember that that was the year that started with a $2.2 billion surplus. By the time the DFL legislature got done spending, they'd spent the surplus, including one-time revenues. When the recession hit, the rainy day fund was quickly drained.
Starting in 2008, the DFL's reckless spending habits created record deficits. This year, Zach Dorholt wants to return to spending excessively to please his union allies.
We've just dug out of the DFL's last spending binge. We don't need to repeat their irresponsible spending habits again.
Tags: Zach Dorholt , Spending , EdMinn , Deficits , All-Day Kindergarten , DFL , King Banaian , Reforms , Surpluses , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:12 AM
Comment 1 by MinnetonkaMoose at 20-Oct-12 03:07 AM
In my school district (Minnetonka 276), all day kindergarten is an option that parents can purchase. My wife and I chose the standard half day option. I told my wife that the kids can't learn that much more or else it would lead to problems in First grade. I didn't see any difference in academic progress between the kids from either option and apparently neither does the district! All day kindergarten is just another sinecure for more teachers and the MEA.
Johnson vs. Newberger: spendaholic vs. fiscal sanity
If there's anything that jumps off the pages of this article about the candidates in HD-15B, it's that DFL candidate Brian Johnson is a cookie cutter liberal spendaholic while GOP candidate Jim Newberger is a fiscal conservative whose first priority is to be the taxpayers' watchdog:
Newberger and Johnson have differing views on statewide issues such as how to resolve a projected $1.1 billion state deficit for the next two years. Newberger says he's committed to balancing the budget without tax increases, while Johnson says he'd consider tax increases on the wealthy as part of a budget solution.
The latest revenue projections for the upcoming biennium are estimated to be north of $36,000,000,000, which is almost $2,000,000,000 more than they're spending this biennium. The thought that we'll need to increase spending by more than $2,000,000,000 is silly. That's a 6% spending increase. It's imperative that we not return to the DFL's reckless spending habits.
In 2007, the DFL legislature took over with a $2,163,000,000 budget surplus and with the rainy day fund full. When the legislature was sworn in in 2009, there was a $5,000,000,000 deficit and the rainy day fund had been drained completely. That's a $7,200,000,000 swing.
When the GOP legislature took over in January, 2011, they were staring at a $6,200,000,000 deficit. Eighteen months later, that $6,200,000,000 deficit had turned into a $1,500,000,000 surplus. More importantly, the GOP legislature had started changing the structure of state government.
To address the state budget deficit, Johnson says he supports a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Johnson says he favors Gov. Mark Dayton's proposal to increase income-tax rates on the wealthiest Minnesotans.
Imagine that. A Democrat that thinks raising taxes on small business owners is smart. As revealing as that paragraph is, this paragraph is more revealing:
'I represent my party,' Johnson said. 'But I know that the ultimate goal is to find a successful resolution with the other party.'
That's stunning. Call me naive but isn't a legislator's first responsibility to represent his constituents? I can't imagine that governing principle will appeal to voters in HD-15B.
This won't sit well with the voters in HD-15B either:
He opposes both constitutional amendments going before voters this fall, calling them distractions. One proposed amendment would define marriage in the state Constitution as between one man and one woman, and the other would require voters to show photo identification, end voter vouching and make other voting changes.
'I'd prefer to focus on the real issues that are affecting Minnesotans,' Johnson said.
Apparently, Mr. Johnson thinks that this type of voter fraud isn't a "real issue affecting Minnesotans." Good luck explaining that during the next debate, Mr. Johnson.
I always projected this district as an uphill fight for the DFL. Based on these quotes, I don't see a reason to change my mind on that projection.
Tags: Brian Johnson , Mark Dayton , Tax the Rich , Deficits , DFL , Jim Newberger , Fiscal Sanity , Constitutional Amendments , Photo ID , Surpluses , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:26 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 18-Oct-12 09:27 AM
Confirming the adage, all politics is local. And it is good to see you focusing that way in a few of the new posts, Gary.
It is good to not lose sight of that adage.
I have leaf raking to do before the snow; and the politicians seem to be aggressively leaf raking too.
Think of the multiplier boost that phone bank spending ripples through the economy. Elections are good for business, for the velocity of the money supply. Regardless of whoever is left standing after election day.
What Juan Williams thinks (if it can be called that)
Prior to this presidential campaign, I'd always thought of Juan Williams as an honorable man despite being a hopeless liberal. I've never thought of him as a towering liberal intellect.
Williams' op-ed reinforces that image:
So if Romney chooses to go back to the topic of Libya he is taking a big risk. It again could prove to be a blind alley where he gets mugged a second time. Meanwhile both sides fear any factual slip or glaring lack of knowledge in this last debate before the election. That fear is large in the Romney camp as they prepare a candidate with no foreign policy experience.
If anyone's at risk on the subject of Libya, it's President Obama. He's the one who's lied about the timeline of events. It's his administration that's went from one explanation to another to another.
If Mitt wants to paint President Obama into a corner, he'd highlight how the Obama State Department monitored the 5-hour-long gunfight in Benghazi as it happened. He'd highlight the cables from Ambassador Christopher Stevens requesting more security forces for Benghazi. He'd highlight the fact that, if Vice President Biden can be believed, the State Department didn't communicate with the White House on the rise of al-Qa'ida terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
What Juan Williams apparently doesn't get is that this administration's policies got a diplomatic team killed.
Romney scored a major win in that first, Denver debate. His poll numbers continue to climb. But after Obama's win in the second debate will that surge come to a halt?
The answer will likely be based on President Obama's success in the third debate.
Two specific sets of voters, women and young people, will be at the heart of judging the winner.
In the first debate Romney was able to reach out to women voters and his rise in the polls is tied to his success in racing into a basic tie for the women's vote, at least according to some polls.
In the foreign policy debate the president will want to appeal to women as a level-headed leader while portraying Romney as a man who wants more wars.
Talk about disgusting. Williams wants President Obama to "appeal to women as a level-headed leader" after this administration ignored the growing threat posed by al-Qa'ida affiliates in Libya, Mali, North Africa and western Iraq?
That might've worked if he'd put a higher priority on dismantling terrorist networks than he paid to picking off high-ranking al-Qa'ida terrorists one-at-a-time.
Americans are starved for true leadership. That isn't something they've seen from this administration.
Mitt Romney can clinch a victory in November by showing the leadership traits and attention to detail that haven't been seen during this administration.
Tags: President Obama , Benghazi , State Department , Chris Stevens , National Security , al-Qa'ida , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Leadership , Foreign Policy , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:12 PM
No comments.
Progressive projection
It isn't surprising that the DFL is resorting to the nastiest negative campaigning in recent history. In fact, it's utterly predictable. This post offers an example of what the DFL is willing to say about Republican candidates:
Banaian is an economics prof. at SCSU, noted for Milton Friedman market fundamentalist rants on the radio and as a blogger. In other words, he's an ultra-pretentious intellectual featherweight.
First, it's indicative of the writer's vitriol when they start with the name-calling that's in this post. Second, it's apparent that the writer isn't a capitalist. It's one thing to argue with parts of Milton Friedman's economic philosophy. It's another to talke about Friedman with this level of disdain.
That isn't what capitalists do. It's what collectivists do.
Third, it's difficult, if not impossible, to take people seriously when they question King's intellectual heft. That comes across as childish behavior. It doesn't leave a positive first impression of the writer.
Most importantly, since arriving in St. Paul, King's focused on solving Minnesota's biggest problems, starting with budget reform. His first legislation, HF2, created the Sunset Advisory Commission. That was signed into law as part of the final budget agreement. He even got Phyllis Kahn and several other prominent Democrats to vote for the bill. That's substantial proof that King is capable of working across the aisle without compromising his free market principles.
I wrote here that King authored legislation that Gov. Dayton signed into law that will reduce the cost of textbooks for MNSCU students.
In his brief time in the legislature, King has built an impressive record of writing legislation that produced solutions that made life better for college students and taxpayers.
That isn't what "ultra-pretentious intellectual featherweights" do. It's what men of gravitas do.
Tags: King Banaian , Budgets , Textbooks , State Government , Students , Reforms , Gravitas , MNGOP , Progressives , Propagandists , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, October 21, 2012 2:10 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Oct-12 08:17 AM
Nasty? Have you ever read the stuff put out by the Bachmann camp, and the camp followers?
That quote? Okay with me.
Last, is "Capitalism" a new religion, what?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Oct-12 08:50 AM
First, capitalism is the only economic philosophy that creates wealth & sustains civil societies. The other philosophies are failures in that respect. In fact, the other philosophies fail every time they're tried.
I wouldn't call capitalism a "new religion." I'd just call it common sense.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 21-Oct-12 01:49 PM
Eric:
Just curious King was one of many lawmakers elected in Minnesota who said we can balance the budget without a tax increase.
The result was a balanced budget and a surplus of over $1 billion.
Sounds like King knows how Capitalism works and what Bachmann is trying to do is the same thing on a federal level.
Of course you might not understand what King and Michelle does because you support the policies of President Obama which doesn't work.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z at 22-Oct-12 07:19 AM
Gary, it is not a "philosophy," it is a way of distributing power and wealth. Get real. In theory ...
Walter, go look at Residual Forces, and see how Hegseth is positioning himself for his wanting to run against Franken. It is as plain as day what he is up to. In the context of KB and others. Starting on party gravitas two years ahead of anybody else, the question being, will it work.
Walter, you insult me, saying I support Obama policies. The man is flawed, but in a two man beauty contest, he is far, far, far less ugly.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 22-Oct-12 04:15 PM
Eric:
Um you were blasting King and Bachmann so it's obvious that you are one of the mind number Obama robots that think Obama is God and we must go with his policies. After all you said that voted for Obama in an earlier post.
If you care about wealth capitialism creates more wealth and better lives for people. I guess you don't want people to have more wealth and better lives.
Oh that's right, you're the person who went to church yesterday to worship Obama and his philopshy to steal wealth from people who work their butts off.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Michele Bachmann solidifies lead
Six days ago, KSTP announced that Michele Bachmann led her opponent by 9 points :
In an election today for the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, high-profile incumbent Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann is re-elected, defeating DFL challenger Jim Graves 50% to 41%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for KSTP-TV in the Twin Cities.
This morning, the Star Tribune's poll shows Michele Bachmann leading by 6 points :
Bachmann, who is waging one of the most expensive House campaigns in the nation against a political newcomer, is favored by 51 percent of likely voters in Minnesota's sprawling Sixth Congressional District, which stretches from west of St. Cloud into Woodbury. Another 45 percent would choose Graves, a St. Cloud native and owner of Graves Hospitality Corp., an expansive hotel chain. Four percent of voters are undecided.
It'd be foolish to say that this race is over. It isn't foolish to say that Michele's opponent is facing an increasingly uphill fight, though.
Michele is getting over the magical 50% mark, which definitely puts a smile on Michele's campaign manager's face. It doesn't mean Chase Kroll's life is all peaches and cream. It just means his client's is in a positive position.
With closing arguments starting, and with Michele's lead solidifying, it'll be difficult for Michele's opponent to get the traction he'd need to mount an effective rally.
This information is welcome news for Michele's campaign:
The Graves campaign has been hitting Bachmann on economic issues, including the recent shutdown at the Verso Paper Corp. mill in Sartell, and working to cast Graves as the pro-business candidate in the race. But when asked which candidate would be more effective at working to improve the economy and create jobs in the district, 49 percent of poll respondents named Bachmann, 43 percent picked Graves and 7 percent were undecided.
This was supposed to be the logic behind Graves' campaign. Instead, Michele's viewed as the better choice for business. That's probably because she's vowed to work on fixing everything that's fatally flawed with Dodd-Frank but it's mostly because Michele's promising to repeal the AHCA.
The strategy could resonate in a district where 55 percent of voters have said they wanted to see the Affordable Health Care Act repealed and only 38 percent want to keep it in place.
In short, Michele's positioned herself well for her district. Her opponent, on the other hand, isn't saying what he's for. That's why it's impossible to tell whether he's positioned himself well on the issue in the Sixth District.
With a little more than 2 weeks left in the campaign, Michele's in a solid position. Defeating isn't impossible, though it'd take an act of God to defeat her.
Tags: Polling , KSTP-SurveyUSA , Strib , Michele Bachmann , Economy , Dodd-Frank , ACA , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:47 AM
Comment 1 by #6 at 21-Oct-12 11:29 AM
This is very bad news for the Graves campaign. If a Democrat poll conducted by the Star Trib shows him down by 6, it's probably worse than that.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 21-Oct-12 01:46 PM
#6 I was going to say what was the breakdown since it was the Star Tribune. I basically think after surviving in 2006 (first race) and 2008 (when she got every Democrat to want to donate against her) that she can easily win any race now for House.
I realize it's not President, but how about Senate in 2014?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by eric z at 22-Oct-12 07:15 AM
Proving what? That CD6 is without a soul?
Do you put any credibility in today's Strib online, a poll with Nolan leading in CD8?
Bachmann is like a national disease.
Walter, Senate in 2014, Pete Hegseth will elbow anybody else out of his way, and if elbows do not work ... The guy is already working on that campaign now. Go figure.
Walter, I am 100% with you, though, favoring Bachmann in the Senate Tea pot derby. I expect Franken would agree.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-Oct-12 02:16 PM
Proving what? That CD6 is without a soul?Proving that CD6 has a brain.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 22-Oct-12 04:12 PM
Eric:
Where to begin with you?
The Star Tribune predicted governor Dayton by something like 10 points the day before the election so I don't take any credibility in their polls.
Bachmann is a great congresswoman who is doing her job. If you want to think of a congressman or senator who is a disease for not doing their job there is Amy K, Al F, Tim W, Mary M, the guy who pretends to be the congressman for my district, and Collin P.
As for 2014 if there is a candidate who wants to run hard to win that is what I'm looking for to be the candidate that takes Franken on. The fact that you don't like either Bachmann or Pete is proof they will be a far better Senator then Al.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by #6 at 22-Oct-12 06:40 PM
The only time the strib poll was anywhere close to accurate was in 2006 with the US Senate race. Their over sample of Democrats voting was accurate of the electorate in that election. So unless it's a Democrat wave election, their poll isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Durbin: "al-Qa'ida is a shadow of its former self"
When I watched Fox News Sunday yesterday, I couldn't believe what I'd just heard. This video of Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham was stunning for reasons that will become clear to everyone who watches it:
Here's a partial transcript of the jawdropping parts:
SEN. DURBIN: What I find hard to accept -- I have to disagree with my friend Sen. Graham -- is this notion about the president's foreign policy. The president has been a strong and steady leader. We have responsibly ended the war in Iraq. We are going to end the war in Afghanistan. Al-Qa'ida is a shadow of its former self. Osama bin Laden is moldering in some watery grave somewhere. And we've now put enough pressure on Iran with the sanctions regime that they won't develop a nuclear weapon that they now want to sit down and talk. These are all positive things.
This is incredible. For the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate to say that "al-Qa'ida is shadow of its former self" is heaping dirt on Christopher Stevens' grave. Do the pictures from Benghazi look like al-Qa'ida is "a shadow of its former self"? Does Sen. Durbin think that the al-Qa'ida flag flying at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is proof of his insulting statement?
This is what's known as Sen. Durbin taking one for the team.
It's jawdropping that Sen. Durbin could say that this administration had "responsibly ended the war in Iraq" when al-Qa'ida is rebuilding in western Iraq :
Iraqi and U.S. officials say al Qaeda is rebuilding in Iraq.
The officials say the extremist group has set up training camps for insurgents in the nation's western deserts, seizing on regional instability and government security failures.
Iraq has seen a jump in al Qaeda attacks over the last 10 weeks, and officials believe most of the fighters are former prisoners who have either escaped from jail or were released by Iraqi authorities for lack of evidence after the U.S. military withdrawal last December. Many are said to be Saudi or from Sunni-dominated Gulf states.
During the war and its aftermath, U.S. forces, joined by allied Sunni groups and later by Iraqi counterterror forces, managed to beat back al Qaeda's Iraqi branch.
But now, Iraqi and U.S. officials say, the insurgent group has more than doubled in numbers from a year ago to about 2,500 fighters. And Pentagon data shows it is carrying out an average of 140 attacks a week.
As a direct result of the Obama administration's failure to put in place an agreement with the Iraqi government to keep troops strategically positioned in Iraq, al-Qa'ida is now rebuilding, training and carrying out attacks inside Iraq.
That isn't the only place where al-Qa'ida and their affiliates are regrouping, as Sen. Graham points out in this last word:
Iraq is falling apart. Bin Laden may be dead. Al-Qa'ida is on the rise. If you don't believe me, visit the training camps that have sprung up after we left. Syria is a contagion affecting the region. Thirty-two thousand people have been killed while we've been doing nothing. Islamic extremists are beginning to infiltrate Syria.
Sen. Graham effectively dismantled Sen. Durbin's statements that al-Qa'ida "is a shadow of its former self" with a blistering recitation of indisputable facts. What part of building new training camps in western Iraq and carrying out 140 terrorist attacks a week sounds like "al-Qa'ida is a shadow of its former self"?
It isn't a secret that Sen. Graham isn't my picture of a conservative. That said, he's done a great job of laying out the facts about al-Qa'ida's resurgence since President Obama discontinued the Bush Doctrine . Thanks to that foolish decision, al-Qa'ida is building new bases throughout north Africa, Pakistan, Syria and Iraq.
If that's Sen. Durbin's picture of "responsibly ending the war in Iraq", then he's a too irresponsible to trust foreign policy and national security to.
Tags: Dick Durbin , President Obama , al-Qa'ida , Iraq , Benghazi , Terrorist Attacks , Syria , Foreign Policy , Christopher Stevens , Libya , National Security , Democrats
Posted Monday, October 22, 2012 6:32 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Oct-12 07:10 AM
We never should have gone into Iraq. Your guy Bush (Cheney?) put us there. It was bad karma from the start.
You want more?
You are in the minority. Why not keep troops in every nation of the world? It only drains our scarce cash elsewhere. Bravo for that idea, man.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 22-Oct-12 04:18 PM
Eric:
We tried your approach of not going after terrorists and saying Muslim is a great religion. Four Americans are dead because of that.
Iran has no reason to fear Obama from trying to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.
So are you looking forward to the day that Iran uses their nuclear weapon on Isreal where the radioactive materials in the air eventually comes to Minnesota?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Tonight's debate UPDATE: preliminary observations & Liveblogging
This is just a heads-up that I'll be liveblogging tonight's final presidential debate. I'll also be periodically posting thoughts on Twitter.
7:10 PM CT -- Before tonight's debate, it's probably wise to comment on what President Obama & Gov. Romney need to talk about. While the subject is the same for both, each man's goals are distinctly different. President Obama needs a great night. He needs to stop Mitt Romney's momentum. If he doesn't stop Mitt Romney's momentum, the topics of tonight's debate are irrelevant.
Mitt Romney simply needs to show he's capable of handling the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief.
7:30 -- Gen. Wesley Clark was just on O'Reilly. First, he tried filibustering. Next, he tried rewriting history about the Democrats not attempting to take partisan advantage over 9/11. Finally, he didn't answer O'Reilly when O'Reilly asked him about why the American people can't get a straight answer from this administration on Benghazi. Question: Will President Obama follow the same strategy tonight? If that's what President Obama attempts to do, this election will quickly slide away from him.
8:02 -- President Obama & Gov. Romney are introduced.
8:03 -- First question is on Libya. Gov. Romney up first.
8:04 -- Congratulates Obama on killing bin Laden, then talks about comprehensive strategy on terrorism.
8:07 -- Obama: al-Qa'ida's core has been decimated. Then he says Romney's foreign policy "has been all over the place."
8:12 -- Romney: Mr. President, attacking me isn't an agenda. Then he says he "certainly won't say that I'll have more flexibility after the election."
8:16 -- Did I hear right? Did Obama say that Libya stands with us?
8:23 -- Obama: I think it's important that America stands with democracy.
8:25 -- Romney: I wish we would've done more to promote principles of freedom.
8:30 -- Romney: It was an enormous mistake when President Obama didn't stand with the Green Revolution.
8:31 -- Obama: We have unprecedented relationship with Israel as a result of Obama's leadership. Now he's talking about cutting spending. Seriously? Now he's playing the blame Bush card.
8:33 -- Romney: we need to focus on trade. Good topic for Romney, bad for Obama.
8:36 -- Obama: Going on & on & on about education & raising taxes.
8:37 -- Romney: I've put in place education policies that work. Great shot.
8:42 -- Obama: This isn't a game of Battleship.
8:45 -- Obama: If Israel is attacked, we will stand with Israel. Why not prevent attacks?
8:50 -- Romney: Ships that carry Iranian oil can't come into our ports.
8:55 -- Romney: talks about apology tour. Then talks about how President Obama skipped stopping in Israel when on his apology tour.
9:00 -- Romney: Russia said that they're "no longer going to abide by Nunn-Lugar." Great shot on President Obama.
9:01 -- Obama's back to Romney being erratic.
9:13 -- Obama talking about always standing on the side of democracy. Tell that to the families of the Iranian protesters who died while rioting.
9:23 -- Romney to Obama when Obama interrupts: Saying that I want to decimate Detroit is the height of silliness.
9:25 -- Obama now equating tax simplification with tax breaks for the rich. That's scary.
Posted Monday, October 22, 2012 9:28 PM
No comments.
Questions for Sen. Klobuchar
This article by TheDC's Matthew Boyle strongly suggests that Sen. Klobuchar, when she was the Hennepin County Attorney, took prosecutorial discretion to the extreme. Here's what I'm talking about:
In January 1999, evidence of what the St. Paul Pioneer Press called 'early signs' of Petters' Ponzi scheme crossed Klobuchar's desk when officers from her Hennepin County Attorney's Office raided the home Richard Hettler shared with Ruth Kahn, another Petters investor.
Documents retrieved in that raid, including those TheDC is publishing with this report, showed Hettler, Kahn and Petters engaged in a mutually beneficial and highly illegal financial scheme.
Klobuchar would ultimately prosecute Kahn and Hettler on the basis of this evidence, but not Petters.
Why didn't Ms. Klobuchar prosecute Tom Petters at that point? Did she investigate his finances? If she investigated Petters, how could she not have found out about his improprieties? At minimum, shouldn't she have found evidence that could've been referred to a federal prosecutor?
A promissory note obtained by TheDC, dated Nov. 19, 1997, shows Hettler loaned Petters $600,000 and promised to pay him $60,000 profit after just two months - a 120 percent annual interest rate that would have been a red flag for any financial crimes investigator.
In a second document TheDC obtained, Hettler legally assigned that promised $60,000 interest payment to Kahn on Jan. 5, 1998. Kahn then used that assigned interest as collateral for a $1.2 million loan from Premier Bank.
These days, Sen. Klobuchar is one of the Senate's leading advocates for consumer protection legislation. Based on this information, it looks like she's a better advocate than she was a prosecutor. It also looks like she cut her share of corners for the politically well-connected:
Documents obtained by The Daily Caller show that U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar helped keep a multibillion-dollar Ponzi schemer out of prison in the late 1990s when she was the County Attorney in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
That financial criminal, Tom Petters, presided over companies whose employees gave Klobuchar $8,500 for her re-election campaign, and would later contribute more than $120,000 toward her U.S. Senate run.
One of those companies' vice presidents was Ted Mondale, a former state senator and son of former U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale. Before taking office as Hennepin County Attorney, Klobuchar was a partner at the Minneapolis law firm of Dorsey & Whitney, where Walter Mondale has practiced law since 1987.
When asked about this article, Sen. Klobuchar's sole response was "No comment." That response speaks volumes.
Tags: Amy Klobuchar , Investigation , Tom Petters , Ponzi Scheme , Ted Mondale , Cronyism , Prosecution
Posted Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:11 PM
No comments.
What's Sen. Klobuchar hiding?
When I first read TheDC's article about Sen. Klobuchar, I was curious to find out what they'd found. After reading the Klobuchar campaign's explanation in this article , though, it's apparent that they're trying to shovel this past the election. This non-explanation explanation is finely parsed messaging:
"Senator Klobuchar did not ask her county attorney staff or law enforcement to refrain from investigating or prosecuting Tom Petters," Klobuchar campaign spokesman Linden Zakula said in a prepared statement. "She was not presented with evidence for prosecution of charges against him."
I don't doubt that this statement is accurate. I'm equally certain that it's exceptionally evasive. It's quite possible Sen. Klobuchar didn't tell her staff to not investigate or prosecute. That isn't what I'm questioning. What I'm questioning, though, is why Sen. Klobuchar didn't direct her staff to investigate Petters.
Sen. Klobuchar saw the evidence against Mr. Hettler and Ms. Kahn. Sen. Klobuchar went above and beyond her authority:
The documents also show that Klobuchar exceeded the bounds of her jurisdiction as County Attorney to intervene in federal bankruptcy and other legal proceedings whose results helped Petters erase the earliest indications of his criminal activity.
Why did Sen. Klobuchar take these extraordinary steps? It's unthinkable to have a county attorney assist in erasing Petters' previous criminal activities. At minimum, this shows she knew about Petters' past criminal tendencies. At minimum, shouldn't that be enough to start an investigation?
It's one thing to investigate and find nothing for find out that potential crimes committed didn't fall into local jurisdiction. If Klobuchar's office investigated but found evidence of a federal crime, she could've referred it to the U.S. Attorney's office.
Sen. Klobuchar has often touted herself as a consumer watchdog. It appears as though she failed in that capacity at a critical time when she could've protected others from having their life savings stolen. One wonders whether she ignored the biggest case because of political considerations.
It's beginning to look like that.
Tags: Amy Klobuchar , Prosecution , Ponzi Scheme , Tom Petters , Richard Hettler , Ruth Kahn , Cover-up , Scandal , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:57 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 25-Oct-12 01:09 PM
Why did Michele Bachmann and Norm Coleman use their pull writing letters to get Frank Vennes a pardon? It was Vennes who recruited the Jesus-jockey folks Petters flim-flammed. And if you want a DFL name, try Mondale with Petters, Ted, Bill and Fritz, but this Klobuchar stuff is a total crock, and while Bills may be desperate and not know better, Gary, Gary, Gary.
Petters worked both sides of the street, like Keating had back in the Bush (the elder) savings-and-loan scandal days. Be realistic, since jumping a clearly false bandwagon is out of character for you, Gary. You most certainly are and have been an advocate, but having a crook like Petters working both sides of the street, and then piling on against the wrong Democrat - it's unbecoming.
Comment 2 by eric z at 25-Oct-12 01:10 PM
And it will prove wholly ineffective.
