October 21-22, 2011
Oct 21 07:07 DFL stupidity in CD-8 Oct 21 08:30 SRR Followup Oct 21 09:39 Highlighting the DFL's illogical jobs ideology Oct 21 11:24 GOP shouldn't nominate a liberal Oct 21 13:33 Taxes aren't about revenues, they're about fairness? Oct 21 21:33 DTL-Minnesota's, Common Cause MN's true colors showing Oct 22 08:46 Romney's race to lose: I've heard that before Oct 22 10:25 Newt on the move? Oct 22 20:40 Truth stranger than fiction
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DFL stupidity in CD-8
I wrote this post this past Wednesday about Chip Cravaack's Strib op-ed, in which he explained why he opposed the Northern Lights Express, aka the NLX.
In Chip's op-ed, he said this:
The wisest course of action for us is to not spend money on a venture that can't pay for itself. Instead, we must first attend to the crumbling roads, the bridges in urgent need of repair and the incomplete highway projects that we have throughout the state.
Recently, the Minnesota Department of Transportation reported that 1,154 bridges are 'structurally deficient' in Minnesota. That's 8.4 percent of the state's bridges in need of attention.
Yet, some people are clamoring for additional spending projects.
Why is our transportation system in this condition? Because prior Congresses not only raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for an increasing number of government programs, they also diverted funds from the federal gas tax away from maintenance of our roads and bridges.
Gas-tax funds that should have been set aside for transportation purposes were spent elsewhere, on things like bike path bridges, flower plantings and historical preservation.
In other words, Chip said that roads and bridges were a higher priority than a shiny new choo-choo. That came through loud and clear, right? Apparently not for these dimwits:
Duluth-With no end in sight to the jobs crisis, local residents will attempt to get an answer from Rep. Chip Cravaack over why unsafe bridges in the Northland are not slated for investment.
Heather Yun, a concerned constituent, says she's been sending pictures and data regarding dangerously degraded bridges to Cravaack's office since September with no response. Yun and other concerned Duluthians will attend Rep. Cravaack's Military Service Night at Finlayson High School in Hinckley in their search for answers.
WHAT: Rep. Cravaack's Military Service Information Night
WHEN: Thursday, Oct. 20th, 7:30-9:00 PM
WHERE: Finlayson High School (board room) 201 Main Street, Hinckley, MN 55037
WHO: Local residents, unemployed workers
Site contact: Allen Richardson, (218) 428-0290
The following day (Friday Oct 21) Yun and others will hold a noon press conference in front of the Heaney Federal Building to discuss their findings, featuring large color photographs of regional bridges in dangerous condition and their ratings according to Transportation For America. http://t4america.org/statefacts/minnesota/
WHAT: Press Conference in Duluth regarding crumbling regional bridges
WHEN: Noon, Friday, October 21st
WHERE: Steps of the Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building, 515 W. 1st St. Duluth, MN
WHO: Local residents, unemployed workers
'We plan on asking Chip Cravaack why his office is ignoring hard data that there are multiple bridges in our area that are in dangerous condition and overdue for inspection. Why would Cravaack fail to introduce a jobs bill when so many families are hurting and there is so much critical work that needs doing?'
These nitwits obviously need to enroll in a remedial reading class. Either that or they need to start paying attention to what their congressman says. Either that or they should criticize Jim Oberstar for neglecting their district while he chaired the House Transportation Committee.
Apparently, these nitwits think these bridges were in perfect shape until Lord Oberstar's defeat the first Tuesday in November, 2010. Apparently, these nitwits think that these bridges rapidly went to hell in a handbasket a minute after Chip was sworn in.
Put bluntly, Chip's a no-nonsense guy. If there are genuine public safety needs, they'll get his immediate and undivided attention.Chip knows that public safety is one of government's affirmative responsibilities laid out in the US Constitution. Period.
More than likely, these loudmouths are DFL activists hoping they can defeat Chip. If that's the case, they're hypocrites and idiots. It's time for them to pull their head out of their backsides and make sensible statements.
This weak crap won't cut it.
Posted Friday, October 21, 2011 7:07 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 21-Oct-11 09:34 AM
Gary:
Apparently these people can't read the constitution either. They should understand they should be complaing to the department of transportation their county government and the city governments first.
We're in a mess on a federal level because people like this thinks it's the federal job to collect money and give it out to the states.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
SRR Followup
I wrote this post Wednesday night dealing with Tuesday night's ISD47 meeting in Sauk Rapids. It's important to summarize what happened that night. Here's what happened in a nutshell:
- The district announced the meeting as a 'Public Meeting' (Oct Distrcit Newsletter).
- There was a quorum of the school board present, which means they must follow the Open Meeting Law.
- The meeting began as an 'Open Public Meeting'.
- After the Superintendent's presentation, the public was directed to tables in separate rooms and separate tables, which moved the meeting into smaller private/closed meetings.
In other words, it went from an Open meeting to multiple closed meetings. There are multiple reasons for Minnesota's open meeting laws. One of the most important purposes of Minnesota's open meeting laws is to ensure total transparency.
Another important purpose behind Minnesota's open meeting laws is to guarantee that the public can become fully informed. It's important that the public is able to observe all of the proceedings to guarantee that improper influence isn't exerted on constituents. (The law allows districts to provide facts only. It doesn't allow for influencing the voters.)
What's most troubling is that the public wasn't able to hear all private conversations at all tables, insuring the public be fully informed. People couldn't verify that school board members weren't exerting improper influence. That's especially important for issues like levies. The public was unable to hear the various conversations with board members.
Bottom line: The open meeting law orders that the public be given an opportunity to 'observe'. You can't do that when multiple conversations are happening in separate locations.
Bottom line, Part II: Whether open meeting laws were violated or not, the SRR school board didn't operate in a transparent, informative manner. Forcing people to split up isn't the right way to guarantee transparency and accountability.
What's worst is the capricious attitude displayed by telling the public they couldn't speak during 'their' meeting. How dare the SRR School Board show that type of high-handedness and rigidity. If the people want to speak, it's the school board's responsibility to let them speak. After all, the constituents are their bosses. Theoretically at least, they're public servants.
Finally, it's worth noting that the school board didn't adjourn the meeting, which they certainly could've done. Instead, they kept the meeting going while shifting into semi-transparent mode. That's unacceptable.
Posted Friday, October 21, 2011 8:30 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 21-Oct-11 09:20 AM
Well, according to this report from the St. Cloud Times the public was allowed to ask questions at four different tables:
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/110180061/1009/News01
It sounds to me like it went from open meeting to four open meetings where open conversations were held. Were people restricted to a table? I get that your whole existence is to live off government at the same time you demonize it (well, that is except for government jobs of conservative friends) but these accusations are laughable. If you believe a law was broken, file a complaint. I may have to find some time to write yet another gross inaccuracies given the absurdity of this and the previous post.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Oct-11 09:52 AM
According to my post, Eric, I noted that. It's impossible in that setting to tell whether all of the people got all of the information.
Furthermore, it's difficult to tell whether the school board used this tactic so they could sell the levy.
I'm interested in your opinion, though, why they split things up. Wouldn't all of the people get all of the information if they didn't split things up?
Perhaps they split things up because their figures weren't facts?
As for your Austin-taceously Stupid posts, knock yourself out. That's your First Amendment right. I won't bother reading it. I've made that mistake before. I won't make it again.
Highlighting the DFL's illogical jobs ideology
MPP's Keewatin Rose wrote this post that highlights the DFL's incoherent jobs ideology:
Candidate Chip Cravaack campaigned on a promise to create jobs and foster economic development in the 8th congressional district. Congressman Cravaack, however, has joined his right-wing extremist cohorts around the country in routinely obstructing such efforts. Following in the steps of Wisconsin's Tea Party Governor Scott Walker, Cravaack is now actively seeking to kill the proposed Northern Lights Express Passenger Rail Project (NLX) that is part of a comprehensive national rail plan to connect northern Minnesota with the Twin Cities.
In an article written for an out-of-district newspaper, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Cravaack offers a rambling and at times barely coherent explanation for his opposition to the project, meandering from the federal budget to the stimulus bill and finally ending in St Cloud.
I wrote about Chip's Strib op-ed here . Here's the central part of Chip's op-ed:
The wisest course of action for us is to not spend money on a venture that can't pay for itself. Instead, we must first attend to the crumbling roads, the bridges in urgent need of repair and the incomplete highway projects that we have throughout the state.
Recently, the Minnesota Department of Transportation reported that 1,154 bridges are 'structurally deficient' in Minnesota. That's 8.4 percent of the state's bridges in need of attention.
Yet, some people are clamoring for additional spending projects.
Why is our transportation system in this condition? Because prior Congresses not only raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for an increasing number of government programs, they also diverted funds from the federal gas tax away from maintenance of our roads and bridges.
Gas-tax funds that should have been set aside for transportation purposes were spent elsewhere, on things like bike path bridges, flower plantings and historical preservation.
Chip's logic is exceptionally straightforward except, apparently, to DFL activists. Instead of applying logic to the situation, they instead write things like this:
Apparently Chip missed the Transportation Policy 101 lecture to the Freshman class.
Government is always at the forefront of transportation infrastructure, whether it is roads and bridges, seaways or railways. It isn't just about jobs. Accessibility is what drives economic development for an entire region. The economic rent, increased value caused by accessibility, of passenger rail service extends to increased income and property values as well as to employment.
And there is an added benefit to freight railroads through upgrades to existing rail lines. The NLX is expected to directly or indirectly create approximately 14,000 jobs and spur approximately $2 billion in development along the 155 mile corridor. This is significant in a district where unemployment hovers near 14%. In addition, high-speed rail is more environmentally friendly, generating approximately one half to a third of the carbon dioxide emissions of passenger vehicles.
So we should subsidize the NLX to the tune of billions of dollars because a) it'll keep construction workers working a little while longers, b) it'll reduce global warming, at least according to the junk science that currently masquerades as real science and c) it fits the DFL's general infrastructure template.
That's logic that recklessly spends money we don't have on things we can't justify at a time when our national debt is exploding. That can't make sense to anyone except a progressive activist. That's because they apparently didn't get the memo that money doesn't grow on trees.
Other DFL activists are whining that bridges are falling apart and that we have to fix them. Chip agrees with that. He said that in his op-ed. Chip's logic is that NLX takes money away from important projects. Only a lobbyist or a DFL activist thinks that that isn't right thinking.
Posted Friday, October 21, 2011 9:39 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 21-Oct-11 10:30 AM
"Apparently Chip missed the Transportation Policy 101 lecture to the Freshman class."
Hey, Keewatin: That's Congressman Cravaack to you.
Comment 2 by IndyJones at 21-Oct-11 12:04 PM
I think the light rail project in the Twin Cities had a one billion dollar capital cost. And I seem to remember that rider tickets only pay for half the cost to operate the line. Now where does the other half of the operating cost come from?
It requires a permanent subsidy to keep it running and that COSTS jobs. It would seem the light rail and heavy rail promoters need to "invest" their own damn money in this fiasco rather than waste the taxpayers' money. Highways, bridges, and rail are to get people from point A to point B. Their purpose is NOT to create jobs for the constructors.
GOP shouldn't nominate a liberal
Hypothetically speaking, it's never wise for the conservative party to nominate a liberal. Similarly, it isn't wise for liberals to nominate a conservative. What's odd is that, according to the inside-the-beltway punditry, that's what the GOP is fixing to do.
There's no question but that Mitt Romney isn't a conservative. He wants to cut the corporate tax rate...but only from 35% to 25%. He wants to cut capital gains taxes...but only on people making less than $200,000. He wants to cut the EPA's influence...after implementing regulations that look like they're straight from this administration's EPA :
As reported in the conservative blogs Moonbattery and HOTAIR; 'the Romney administration in 2005 essentially did what Barack Obama's EPA wants to do now. He imposed CO2 emission caps, the 'toughest in the nation', in an effort to curtail traditional energy production.
'Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer. As we have seen in Romney-Care, regulation and price controls eventually drive businesses into bankruptcy or relocation.'
More chilling than that bit of socialist nanny-state big government interference is who Romney looked to for advice regarding the plan. As reported by these two conservative sites, it was none other than Obama's Chief 'science' adviser, John Holdren.
Kim Strassel's column highlights Mitt's liberalism is spreading to tax policy:
At a town hall in Iowa Thursday, Mr. Romney took it further: "For me, one of the key criteria in looking at tax policy is to make sure that we help the people that need the help the most."
Doesn't that sound like a line from President Obama's speeches? Conservatives were rightly worried about President Bush's compassionate conservatism. Mitt's brand of politics isn't compassionate conservatism. It's bordering on nanny-state liberalism.
With this great nation at a crossroads badly in need of a major change of direction, this isn't the time to nominate a part-time liberal like Mitt. I say part-time because he pretends to be a conservative when he thinks the spotlight is on him.
He reverts to reality when he thinks the cameras aren't rolling.
These are the sort of statements that cause conservative voters to doubt Mr. Romney's convictions. It also makes them doubt the ability of a President Romney to convince a Congress of the need for fundamental tax reform. If anything he owes a debt to Newt Gingrich, who in a recent debate gave him a taste of how politically and intellectually vulnerable he is on this argument, asking Mr. Romney to justify the $200,000 threshold.
Mr. Romney's non-responsive response included five references to the "middle" class and another admonition that the "rich" are "doing just fine." Mr. Obama can't wait to agree, even as he shames Mr. Romney over his bank account.
Contrary to the inside-the-Beltway pundits, I'll predict that Mitt won't be the GOP nominee. I don't know who will be but it won't be Mitt.
I'm not alone in thinking that. Last night, on Hannnity's Great American Panel, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi said that the food fight that Mitt waged with Rick Perry hurt both candidates. He likened their fights to Dick Gephardt's fight with Howard Dean, saying that it was like Gephardt was on a murder suicide mission.
In the end, Gephardt's criticisms of Dean took both men down.
Starting this week, Mitt's liberal tendencies are getting highlighted. It's difficult to not notice his liberal weaknesses on subjects like taxes, Cap and Trade and Romneycare. He used progressive John Holdren, who consulted with Paul Ehrlich when Ehrlich wrote the 1960's liberal best-seller The Population Bomb.
Romney's advisors on Romneycare later advised President Obama on how to implement O'Care, which is now the law of the land.
He's now sounding like President Obama in saying that we should use the tax code for social engineering. That alone puts into question whether Mitt's the job-creating genius he professes to be.
It's difficult picturing Mitt as being as awful as President Obama. It's worth noting, though, that that isn't a particularly difficult test to pass. Clearing that test shouldn't be particularly valuable in determining the GOP presidential nominee.
The tests that TEA Party activists and other conservatives should apply to candidates is whether a) the candidate's policies are conservative, b) the candidate's policies have been consistent and c) the candidate's policies will get the economy roaring.
Clearly, Mitt hasn't been consistent with his policies. Most importantly, Mitt's policies haven't been conservative or particularly effective. (See Romneycare.)
In this instance, 2 out of 3 is bad:
Posted Friday, October 21, 2011 11:24 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 21-Oct-11 11:35 AM
Gary:
The worst thing in 2008 people like me had to flee to Romney because we were trying to stop liberal John Mccain and he was more conservative than Mccain. If we had a real conservative on the ballot in 2008 debating real conservative issues we could've saved a couple of senate and house seats stopping Obamacare from being passed.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Taxes aren't about revenues, they're about fairness?
Earlier this am, I wrote that Mitt's tax policies sound like liberal social engineering :
At a town hall in Iowa Thursday, Mr. Romney took it further: 'For me, one of the key criteria in looking at tax policy is to make sure that we help the people that need the help the most.'
A few minutes ago, I read Jim Hoft's post highlighting President Obama's debate quote with ABC's Charlie Gibson. Here's the video Jim posted:
ABC ANCHOR CHARLIE GIBSON: You have said, however, that you'd favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%."
It's now 15%, which is almost doubling if you went to 28% but actually, Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains rate to 20% and George Bush has taken it down to 15% and in each instance, when the rate dropped, the revenues from the tax increased.
The government took in more money, and in the 1980's, when the tax rate was increased to 28%, revenues decreased. So why raise it all, especially given that 100,000,000 people in this country own stock and would be affected"?
SEN. OBAMA: Well Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
With Mitt and with President Obama, it's apparent that the tax code is a tool in their social engineering toolbox. That's intellectually disgraceful. It's shoddy tax policy, too. Mitt's statement isn't what the GOP presidential nominee should say. It's the type of thing that TEA Party activists and GOP primary voters should reject with a whithering wave of criticism.
People are discovering that Mitt's political armor is riddled with holes. With each discovery, they're realizing that he isn't the real deal. They're realizing that he should be trusted as much as the ministers of junk science. Mitt's as trustworthy on tax policy as people like John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich are on climate change and population control.
Posted Friday, October 21, 2011 1:33 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Oct-11 05:03 PM
Nothing's wrong with social engineering if the goals are correct. Making California and beltway defense contractors fat while everyone else goes lean is a problem of misdirected social engineering, because the goal sucks, except for the owners of Alliant [moving headquarters to the beltway if I recall reporting] and Carlyle, and they've enough already.
Ron Paul wanting to curb the Fed, what's that besides a social engineering policy? You engineer the money, because that's all you have a handle on, but the aims are improvement of the well being of society.
Ron Paul is not saying curb the Fed because it will be bad for America, is he? He is saying it is a step to make us a better nation and one with sounder economic underpinnings.
Agree or disagree with that policy, it is nothing short of social engineering, however. Reagan, cutting taxes for the wealthy? Social engineering.
It's not the term that is faulted, or pejorative, it is only a matter of looking at the aim of the one wanting to socially engineer a change of some fashion - in a good direction, in a bad one - and then, how in looking at that question do you separate the subjective from the objective? Especially, in advance. Hindsight is better, but in advance, it is policy and belief and how you want to argue history - remote and recent.
DTL-Minnesota's, Common Cause MN's true colors showing
Friday afternoon, Rep. Sarah Anderson harshly criticized DTL-Minnesota's tactics regarding their redistricting map. Here's the text of Rep. Anderson's statement:
House Redistricting Committee chair Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, today criticized a group that has called for transparency in the legislative redistricting process for withholding its final map proposal from public scrutiny.
Activist group 'Draw the Line Minnesota' confirmed on Thursday that it would not putting its alternative congressional and legislative maps on display for public review until Oct. 21, the final day maps from the public may be submitted to the judicial redistricting panel for consideration.
"I question a group's motives when they scream for transparency, honesty, and integrity for everyone else but themselves,' Anderson said, noting the Legislature held 16 hearings, including three in Greater Minnesota, and amended its plan to reflect the testimony received.
'For Draw the Line to hide their final product and put it forward to the courts without public input is troubling,' Anderson said. 'If they feel the maps they've created are fair and reflect established redistricting principles, they should give the public and legislators the opportunity to view the maps before they are submitted to the panel.'
Anderson said she continues to work with colleagues on getting a map signed by the governor. She added she has reached out to the House DFL caucus and is making calls to all 62 House DFL members to solicit their input.
'Between the public input I have received, along with the comments from colleagues, I am eager to get maps passed that are fair to all Minnesotans and reflect the population and demographic shifts within the state,' Anderson said.
DTL-Minnesota's website says that transparency is their top priority :
Draw the Line Minnesota, led by the League of Women Voters Minnesota, is a network of nonprofit organizations working to reform the redistricting process in Minnesota.
The campaign seeks to create a better redistricting process in Minnesota that uses the following principles:
1. The redistricting process should be independent and nonpartisan, to minimize the influence of elected officials and political parties in creating districts to their own political advantage.
2. The redistricting process should be transparent to the public.
3. The redistricting body should provide data, tools, and opportunities for the public to have direct input into the specific plans under consideration.
4. The redistricting process must be reflective of the diversity of the state, especially racial and ethnic diversity.
5. Redistricting plan should preserve communities of interest wherever possible, where communities of interest aregroups of people concentrated in a geographic area that share similar interests and priorities, whether social, cultural, ethnic, racial, economic, or religious.
DTL-Minnesota's website isn't trustworthy. Saying that "the redistricting process should be transparent to the public" is wonderful fluff to the public. What it isn't is the truth. DTL-Minnesota's actions say that they're into secrecy.
I had the privilege of teaming with Mitch Berg and, to a lesser extent, Kent Kaiser, during Late Debate's Sunday night roundtable, which I wrote about here . Follow this link to Mitch's post.
Kent Kaiser explained on Jack and Ben's Late Debate Sunday night roundtable that the legislature's map was actually quite defensible. He went so far as to say that, based on the Citizen's Commission's priorities, the legislature's map was actually pretty good.
The reality is that DTL-Minnesota's tactics aren't surprising considering just how corrupt the organization is, starting with TakeAction Minnesota:
TakeAction Minnesota, aka TAM, is one of the charter organizations that helped start the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM. ABM is the corrupt organization that funded the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history.
Most of ABM's funding comes from Gov. Dayton's first ex-wife, Alida Messinger, and the DFL's public employee unions allies. Considering the fact that TakeAction Minnesota teamed with Gov. Dayton's first ex-wife to run the biggest smear campaign in state gubernatorial history, it isn't surprising that DTL-Minnesota is corrupt. That DTL-Minnesota is corrupt but isn't transparent isn't surprising to anyone who's looked into their history.
Mike Dean and Common Cause MN should be criticized mercilessly for their constant lecturing about the need for transparency and accountability, then doing the opposite of what they've lectured others to do.
Mr. Dean and Common Cause MN are typical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do liberal political hacks. They aren't good government types. They're people who shouldn't be trusted.
Posted Friday, October 21, 2011 9:33 PM
No comments.
Romney's race to lose: I've heard that before
Charles Krauthammer's column concludes with this epitaph:
The Vegas fight mildly unsettled the Republican race. But its central dynamic remains. It awaits the coalescence of anti-Romney sentiment around one challenger. Until and unless that happens, it's Romney's race to lose.
I've heard that line before. I heard it in 2004, when Bob Beckel told FNC's Neil Cavuto that the race was John Kerry's to lose. I commented after President Bush's win that it was wonderful that he had faced someone so overqualified in that department.
Actually, I think Mr. Krauthammer has it backwards. Until Mitt proves that he can persuade conservatives to join his group, we're faced with the very real proposition that Mitt's hit his ceiling. At the moment, that ceiling is approximately 25-27%.
Looking through history's lens, it's now apparent that John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, was more than qualified to lose that race.
With most of the inside-the-Beltway punditry, including Mr. Krauthammer, suggesting that Gov. Romney will eventually win the GOP presidential nomination, a starkly different picture is developing far from the East Coast.
The 'looks presidential' meme has been shattered. It's been replaced with a Mitt's got a climate change problem meme. Don't confuse that with the Mitt isn't a conservative meme. Those memes shouldn't be considered without considering Mitt's difficulty in putting the 'Romneycare is the father of O'Care' meme behind him.
The reality is that Mitt's ego and stubbornness will lead to his demise. On the one hand, he insists that he'll repeal O'Care. The next minute, he's defending Romneycare, the blueprint for O'Care. Those contradicting statements are reenforcing his reputation of being a flip-flopper who shouldn't be trusted.
Mitt's 59-point, 160-page economic blueprint says precious little about reforming the EPA. That makes sense. After all, he put in place the strongest anti-CO2 regulations in the northeast:
As reported in the conservative blogs Moonbattery and HOTAIR; ' the Romney administration in 2005 essentially did what Barack Obama's EPA wants to do now. He imposed CO2 emission caps, the 'toughest in the nation', in an effort to curtail traditional energy production.
'Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer . As we have seen in Romney-Care, regulation and price controls eventually drive businesses into bankruptcy or relocation.'
More chilling than that bit of socialist nanny-state big government interference is who Romney looked to for advice regarding the plan. As reported by these two conservative sites, it was none other than Obama's Chief 'science' adviser, John Holdren.
That this type of information keeps piling up on Mitt's campaign doorstep is a testimony to the fact that Mitt's core convictions aren't conservative. In fact, it's increasingly difficult to consider them moderate.
The immigration dust-up isn't significant from a policy standpoint. It's gigantic, though, in that it thoroughly threw Mitt into a hissy fit. It's understatement to say Mitt didn't handle that situation well. In fact, his calling for Anderson Cooper's help made him look positively weak.
I disagree with this statement from Charles:
On substance, Romney remained as solid as ever, showing by far the most mastery of policy, with the possible exception of Gingrich, but without the lecturing tone and world-weary condescension.
It's impossible to be "solid as ever" when you're giving questionable answers on tax policy :
If anything he owes a debt to Newt Gingrich, who in a recent debate gave him a taste of how politically and intellectually vulnerable he is on this argument, asking Mr. Romney to justify the $200,000 threshold.
Mr. Romney's non-responsive response included five references to the "middle" class and another admonition that the "rich" are "doing just fine." Mr. Obama can't wait to agree, even as he shames Mr. Romney over his bank account.
Incoherence, coupled with class warfare rhetoric, isn't the way to convince people that you're conservative.
Ultimately, this nomination will be determined by activists, not the DC pundit class. It'll be determined by the man with the vision for restoring America's greatness. That vision isn't found in Mitt's 59-point blueprint. For all his virtues, and he has some, Mitt's a chameleon living when people are looking for something solid and consistent.
Ultimately, history might well conclude that Mitt, like Sen. Kerry, was overqualified for the task of losing.
Posted Saturday, October 22, 2011 8:46 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Oct-11 04:52 PM
Gary, it is clear you have doubts about Romney and his ability to energize a win.
Do any other readers see anything to him that makes for strong support and endorsement a power of appeal? Or is it party regulars making a political vs gut-level guess, in Minnesota, Coleman and Pawlenty?
The "power of appeal" factor seems totally missing, to me, but I'm outside the tent.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Oct-11 05:00 PM
Eric, Mitt isn't the type of person that evokes a visceral reaction from party activists. He's a technocrat. He's competent. He's electable. He's checked the right boxes. It's his turn.
Those are the phrases that you'll hear from the pundit class. The phrases that you'll hear from the activists are that he's a phony and he's milquetoast, John McCain & Bob Dole without the military heroism on the resume.
Newt on the move?
It's still too early to say that Newt's momentum will carry him to the GOP nomination. It isn't too early to say that his debate performances have created momentum and buzz. This Human Events article takes a look at what's happening with the Gingrich campaign:
Now, Gingrich said, the atmosphere is positive and the campaign has traction.
'I can't make it through the airport without a dozen people pledging their support and clicking a quick photo,' he said.
The former speaker said he is connecting with voters because the American people need a leader to take the country in a new direction.
'The country is in a lot of trouble. I am going to keep doing what I am doing. Talking about big solutions and how we can beat Obama next fall,' he said.
In his political column for financial news site Street.com, Joe Deaux wrote that Gingrich's debate performances have been key to his campaign's new life.
'Gingrich proved again that he understands the legislative process more fully than any of the other candidates, and he used his weighty House experience to rise above petty eruptions that characterized the event,' Deaux wrote in his article titled, 'Newt Gingrich Upgraded to Buy From Hold.'
Erick Erickson, the leader of the RedState.com blog, said Gingrich was the winner of the Oct. 17 GOP Debate in Las Vegas.
'He gave the most solid answers throughout the night with only one stumble, when he admitted his prior support for an individual mandate,' he said.
Erickson, who hosts a weeknight talk show on Atlanta's WSB-Radio, said he is not convinced Gingrich had turned the corner, but he is doing much better.
'I think it is too soon to tell, he said. "He is going up in the polling to be sure. To find a path to victory, he is going to have to exploit Herman Cain's fumbles and translate debate gains into fund-raising,' Erickson said.
The externals are definitely positive for Newt's campaign. He's coming across as the GOP's statesman, the wonkish combatant who focuses most of his energy, and comments, criticizing President Obama.
He's frequently praised his GOP opponents, too. That's helped bring the candidates together to a greater extent than if he was just a bomb-throwing radical.
What's sure to please his nuts-and-bolts guys are the internals:
R.C. Hammond, the campaign's press secretary, said when he looks at every indicator, it is clear to him that Gingrich will have the momentum through the fall to be the alternative to the front-runner.
Fund-raising has been strong enough to support an expansion of the playing field, he said. 'The campaign has raised more money since the Western Republican debate than it did the entire month of July.'
'Over $175,000 since Tuesday, average contribution of $84, with three out of four donations from new donors. The campaign is currently on pace to raise more in October than it did over the entire FEC [Federal Election Commission] third quarter,' Hammond said.
'The average contribution during the FEC third quarter was $76 - and 50% of contributions in the third quarter came from new donors,' he said.
The increased cash flow to the campaign is making it possible for Gingrich to expand the states in play, and hire new key staff, Hammond said.
The strategy is to concentrate on the first three states, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa, and then have people and structure in place to leverage success into more success, he said.
'In New Hampshire, the campaign has hired Andrew Hemingway as its first paid staffer, to work with volunteer Team 10 Leader Michelle McManus, a 912 project organizer from Bow, N.H.,' he said.
'Hemingway was the most immediate chairman of the NH Liberty Caucus, which helped elect 100 new conservative legislators to the New Hampshire State House,' Hammond said.
'In South Carolina, the campaign has deployed its National Coalitions Director Adam Waldeck to organize the state,' he said.
'Adam is working with volunteer Allen Olson," he said, "who was the founder and most recent chairman of the Columbia Tea Party.'
The fact that Newt's attracting TEA Party support in crucial primary states like New Hampshir and South Carolina is a definite, significant plus. The TEA Party's support will help Newt build an energized organization in fairly short order.
A significant uptick in campaign contributions will certainly help Newt put that organization together. It'll help him put ads up that'll lay out his vision to more people. As fundraising gains strength, he'll highlight this administration's failures. Highlighting his 21st Century Contract With America against the backdrop of this administration's failures will potentially energize the GOP activist base.
It's important we remember that Newt's history at putting together big election victories. Something that Newt said at an early debate indicates that he's thinking in those terms.
In that debate, Newt said that he wants this to be a victory of the American people, not just a GOP victory. Newt's dagger mentality is precisely what TEA Party activists are thirsting for. We're looking for someone that's inspirational. We're looking for someone who's the smartest conservative on policy in the room. (That's why TEA Party activists love Paul Ryan.)
We frown on go-along-to-get-along politicians. That isn't to say TEA Party activists reflexively frown when we don't get everything we wanted. We just don't like politicians who sell out conservative principles.
Whether Newt is able to ride this building wave to victory in November, 2012, remains the $64,000 question. What isn't in question, though, is whether Newt's campaign is on a noticeable upswing, thanks to Newt's debate performances.
Posted Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Oct-11 04:48 PM
Interesting.
Romney has a ton of money, donated specifically for the campaign, and personal wealth.
First question -- With Perry slipping, Gary, do any of your other readers see Newt being the primary roadblock between Romney and being set to worry about second spot picking?
Second question -- Even you, Gary, seem to admit Bachmann's run her course. For her the big question is it how angry will some local people be if she diddles in getting back to running in the Sixth district?
Has she the courage to take a run at Klobuchar? Sub-question, would you like to see her do it? Or sit tight in MN6?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Oct-11 05:13 PM
Romney's done fairly well with fundraising but he isn't setting the world afire with it. Money won't be the final determinant for the GOP presidential nomination.
Q1: I don't know if alot of others see Newt in the same light I do. I know some pretty politically astute people that agree with me on Newt. Newt's been in the pressure cooker. People trust him policy-wise because his list of accomplishments are extensive & impressive. Any 4-year record that includes creating 11,000,000 new jobs and running 4 straight supluses while reforming welfare & giving people the dignity of working is something I think people are thirsting for. But that's just me.
Q2: Michele's having a difficult time on the biggest stage. Still, I'll bet she thinks it's been a great learning experience. Whether she decides to run for office in Minnesota is anyone's guess at this point. If she ran against A-Klo, aka Photo Op Amy, she'd be formidable. Let's remember that she'd be a fundraising dynamo if she ran against A-Klo.
A-Klo isn't as invincible as DFL pundits think. The DFL pundits thought Jim Oberstar was invincible, too. How'd that turn out?
A-Klo's appeared at alot of photo ops but that's about all she's done. She certainly hasn't done anything to make PolyMet a reality. She hasn't done anything to make America energy independent. She's voted repeatedly for spending the taxpayers' money recklessly.
Finally, if Michele ran for re-election, she'd win handily.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 24-Oct-11 09:17 AM
The Tea Partiers I know aren't supporting Newt for, among other reasons, that he's a career politician. He's yesterday.
That's the good thing about the Tea Party, we all make up our own minds.
That said, I know I'd still love to see Newt debate Baraq. Newt would destroy him. However, he's too squishy on issues like AGW (which is an economic issue as much as anything else) for my tastes, and his expressed position on illegal immigration on October 13 is a deal-breaker for me.
His personal history renders him unelectable in my mind and doesn't appeal to most socons I know.
And regarding your other point, I'd love to see Senator Bachmann. We don't elect our Presidents from the House of Representatives anyway.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 10:43 AM
Actually, Bob, social conservatives loved his speech to them Saturday night at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition fall banquet, which I wrote about here.
The unique thing about Newt is that he's always been a futurist. The man's never stopped learning. He's such a nonconventional politician that he defies routine description.
Truth stranger than fiction
This might be the first time I've agreed with Artur Davis. It might be the last time I'll agree with him. After reading his op-ed , I'll enthusiastically agree with Rep. Davis. Here's what he said that I enthusiastically agree with:
I've changed my mind on voter ID laws; I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one; and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.
When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.
The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.
Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights; that's suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
I'll give Rep. Davis alot of credit. Writing this op-ed won't make Davis more popular with his former colleagues. This is a genuine profile in courage, at least on this issue. The thing that jumps off the page most to me is this:
If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
This isn't a conspiracy theory from a white guy living in rural Minnesota. It's a statement by a black man living in the heart of Alabama who's heard people brag about committing voter fraud.
There's no question about Rep. Davis' credibility on this issue. He's got nothing to gain from taking this position. In fact, as I stated earlier, he's got alot to lose by adopting this position. This takes courage to say, too:
The fact that a law that is unlikely to impede a single good faith voter, and that only gives voting the same elements of security as writing a check at the store, or obtaining a library card, is controversial does say much about the raw feelings in our current politics. The ugliest, hardest forms of disfranchisement were practiced in our lifetimes, and its still conventional rhetoric in black political circles to say those times are on the way back. Witness a last-minute automated call to black voters in the 2010 general election by state Sen. Hank Sanders, an ingenious lawyer and a skillful legislator who knew better, but who also knew the attack would resonate.
Think of the importance of the first clause in the sentence: "a law that is unlikely to impede a single good faith voter..." That's a profound statement especially from a black man living in Alabama. Let's remember that Alabama was where racist Gov. George Wallace practiced his racism from. TRIVIA: Wallace ran for president 4 times, 3 times as a Democrat.
The $64,000 question this poses is to the DFL legislature, DFL SecState Mark Ritchie and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. Does the DFL, from Gov. Dayton to SecState Ritchie to Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk, want to fight Photo ID here in Minnesota now that Artur Davis has admitted that voter fraud exists?
Do these DFL 'leaders' want to hang vulnerable swing district DFL legislators out to dry on an issue that garners 80% support statewide? Do these DFL legislators want to argue with a black Democrat from Alabama when he says he's heard people bragging about committing voter fraud?
God bless them if they do. If Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen push their vulnerable legislators into voting against Photo ID, they'll be a much smaller minority caucus in 2013.
Posted Saturday, October 22, 2011 8:40 PM
No comments.
