October 23-25, 2011
Oct 23 08:27 Forbes for flat tax Oct 23 10:22 Newt's momentum keeps growing Oct 23 11:28 Cain's disappearing MO-mentum Oct 23 19:38 Las Vegas newspaper ridicules Reid Oct 24 01:23 DTL-Minnesota's redistricting scandal Oct 24 10:53 Will Messinger's emergence hurt DFL? Oct 24 13:38 Questioning Gov. Dayton's leadership Oct 25 00:46 Forced unionization suffers major setback Oct 25 11:38 Progressives' multi-pronged election strategy
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DTL-Minnesota's redistricting scandal
Saturday afternoon, I received a letter to the Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel that exposes DTL-Minnesota's redistricting plan as a scam. It's a letter sent to the Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel by the Citizens Commission's vice-chair, Kent Kaiser. Prof. Kaiser's letter is an indictment of the sham process utilized by DTL-Minnesota, Common Cause MN and TakeAction Minnesota. Here's Prof. Kaiser's stunning recommendation to the Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel, followed by his explanation for that recommendation:
I appreciate the work that you have already done in regard to the extremely important process of redrawing the state's legislative and congressional lines in the event the Governor and Legislature cannot reach an agreement.
I have been involved with an organization called 'Draw the Line Minnesota,' as the organization's vice chair. Our chair, Candi Walz, testified before the Panel at your hearing in Saint Paul.
Based on my experiences with Draw the Line over the past several months, I urge the Panel to reject the map submitted to the Panel by Draw the Line because the map drawing process was secretive and flawed and ultimately resulted in a partisan map that fails to reflect the objective demographic shifts that have occurred in Minnesota over the past decade.
I think that because of its high number of incumbent legislator pairings and because it pairs only Republican members of Congress, the map is too likely to benefit the Democratic Party. I am especially concerned that we commission members were not allowed sufficient time or access to the map to critique it objectively or to determine its implications before we were led to approve it.
When I first wrote about DTL-Minnesota's website , I noted their principles for the process, especially the first 2 points:
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 .
As Mr. Kaiser's letter states, the "redistricting process" wasn't "independent and nonpartisan":
In addition, the mapping specialist who was hired at the last minute (Linden Weiswerda) and whom we originally thought was independent and nonpartisan turns out to have worked for President Obama's campaign in 2008.
I've repeatedly stated that it's impossible to take the partisanship out of redistricting. That said, it's quite possible to find someone less partisan than a staffer of President Obama's GOTV operation.
I didn't have high expectations for DTL-Minnesota because of the partisan organizations listed as DTL-Minnesota's partners. I especially didn't trust Common Cause MN, Mike Dean or TakeAction Minnesota.
I didn't trust TakeAction Minnesota because they're the umbrella organization for the DFL's hardline progressive allies. Here's a partial list of TakeAction Minnesota's member organizations :
Clean Water Action Alliance
Communication Workers State Council
Education Minnesota
Land Stewardship Project
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE)
Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless
Minnesota Nurses Association
Unions, environmentalists and the poverty industry are well represented within TakeAction Minnesota. To think that they'd be interested in drawing maps that wouldn't favor the DFL is foolish.
The thought that TakeAction Minnesota would be fair-minded is made more absurd considering the fact that TakeAction Minnesota was one of the organizations that funded the biggest political smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history . That organization, the Alliance for a Better Minnesota is largely financed by Gov. Dayton's first ex-wife, Alida Messinger.
Another reason not to trust DTL-Minnesota was Common Cause MN's involvement, especially considering the fact that Mike Dean is their executive director.
When Mitch and I debated Dean about redistricting a month ago, Dean's opening statement was that DTL-Minnesota's main goal was to raise awareness to the redistricting process and to draw as competitive a map as possible.
Thanks to Mr. Kaiser's letter to the Redistricting Panel, we now know that the Citizens Commission that Mr. Dean enthusiastically touted were stage props designed to hide DTL-Minnesota's hardline progressive agenda. That's a major reason why it's impossible to trust Mr. Dean. He's a political hack with a hard left predisposition. His civic-sounding words don't mean a thing because his actions are the opposite of his words.
It isn't likely that DTL-Minnesota's main consideration was about transparency, accountability, nonpartisanship or citizen participation. DTL-Minnesota's main purpose behind the Citizens Commission apparently was to use them as stage props. That's why this statement is exceptionally telling:
Decisions about how to draw the map , about what criteria to emphasize in drawing the map, and about publicity and messaging about the map were determined heavily behind the scenes, by staff .
Common Cause MN constantly lectures government to be more transparent. In reality, they're masters at manipulating the truth, using civic-minded people as stage props to advance the DFL's agenda.
DTL-Minnesota and Common Cause MN are shills for the DFL. They're utterly dishonest, utterly corrupt. They're hypocrites. They can't be trusted.
That's why DTL-Minnesota's map should and will be thrown out.
Posted Monday, October 24, 2011 9:53 AM
Comment 1 by Duke Powell at 24-Oct-11 07:56 AM
I question the Constitutional authority of either the Governor or the Courts in matters concerning redistricting. While I'm not a lawyer, I am able to read. The MN Constitution seems clear:
'Article IV Sec. 3. CENSUS ENUMERATION APPORTIONMENT; CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES; SENATE DISTRICTS. At its first session after each enumeration of the inhabitants of this state made by the authority of the United States, the legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts.'Nearly all of you might react to this by saying, 'But the Governor has the right to apporove or veto all bills passed by the Legislature.'
My response is 'Yeah, except for when he doesn't.' Consider this section:
'Article III Section 1. DIVISION OF POWERS. The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others except in the instances expressly provided in this constitution.'The powers of redistricting were expressly granted to the Legislative body. The Governor, nor the courts, are given a role.
To further buttress this argument, consider this section:
'Article IV Sec. 24. PRESENTATION OF ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, AND VOTES TO GOVERNOR. Each order, resolution or vote requiring the concurrence of the two houses except such as relate to the business or adjournment of the legislature shall be presented to the governor and is subject to his veto as prescribed in case of a bill.'As we see, there are exceptions to the power of the Governor to veto as they 'relate to the business: of the Legislature.'
It is my position that the MN Constitution has made redistricting the 'business' of the Legislature.
Forbes for flat tax
Steve Forbes has always been a strong flat tax advocate, dating back to at least 2000, when he challenged then-Gov. George W. Bush for the GOP presidential nomination. That's why his op-ed praising Rick Perry's flat tax isn't surprising:
The nightmare on Main Street, the federal income tax code, is ending, which is fantastic news for our beleaguered economy. Dramatically simplifying this monstrosity would unleash a powerful wave of prosperity and job creation.
Thankfully in 2012 we will get a mandate to make this happen. Presidential contender Herman Cain vaulted to the head of the Republican pack when he proposed his 9-9-9 plan, a flat 9% income tax, corporate tax and national sales tax. Even better, Texas Gov. Rick Perry will, in a few days, unveil his version of a flat tax, a concept that I have long advocated.
To put things in perspective: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which defined the character of the American nation, is only 272 words; the Declaration of Independence, 1,500 words; the Constitution with all its amendments, 7,200 words; and the Bible, which took centuries to put together, 773,000.
The federal income tax code and all its attendant rules and regulations, almost 10 million words and rising.
The code has been changed 14,000 times since 1986; last year alone there were 500 changes. The cost of compliance is horrific. The IRS itself calculates that we spend more than 6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms, the equivalent of almost 3 million full-time jobs. The Tax Foundation calculates that by 2015 annual compliance will be costing the American people some $483 billion a year.
The flat tax would junk the current code and replace it with a single rate that would apply to all incomes after generous deductions. There would be no tax on your savings and there would be no death tax, you should be allowed to leave the world unmolested by the IRS. The business profit tax would also be slashed, all those poisonous loopholes would be eliminated. You could do your tax return on a single sheet of paper. Under the plan I introduced in the 1990s, for instance, a family of four would have paid no federal income tax on their first $36,000 of income and only 17 cents on the dollar above that level.
Rest assured that lobbyists would constantly attack the flat tax because it'd end their special carve-outs. Even if passed, the lobbyists, and the companies they represent, would continue fighting against the flat tax.
The best thing about a flat tax is that business's compliance costs would dramatically shrink. This isn't as big a deal with major corporations because they have the resources to defray much of the costs. It's a totally different story for a small business. With a major corporation, the accounting department is the accounting department. With a small business, the 'accounting department' is the business owner or their spouse.
Anytime the federal government imposes less compliance costs on a business, it potentially frees up capital that can be used to expand the business and create jobs. That, by itself, isn't the only thing that's needed to create jobs but jobs won't get created without capital to put at risk.
This is important:
The flat tax would stimulate risk taking and productivity. Combined with a stable dollar, it would usher in a great economic boom.
Mr. Forbes is exactly right. The destabilized dollar has killed jobs. Quantitative easing hasn't created jobs but it has eroded the value of the dollar.
This might be the most important thing selling point for the flat tax:
Both plans would end crony capitalism and reduce political corruption: Half of the lobbying in Washington revolves around the tax code as special interests vie for special tax breaks.
Getting rid of this administration would eliminate much of DC's crony capitalism. Scrapping the current tax code would significantly reduce corporate corruption.
Mr. Forbes makes a compelling case for the flat tax. He's right that dramatically reducing small businesses' compliance costs can't do anything but help the economy.
The economy isn't struggling because big corporations are hurting. The economy is struggling because small businesses have been hurt by this administration's blizzard of crippling regulation, coupled with the tax code's compliance costs.
Dramatically reducing overregulations will trigger an economic boom. Simplifying the tax code would strengthen that recovery. It's that simple.
Posted Sunday, October 23, 2011 8:27 AM
No comments.
Newt's momentum keeps growing
Based on this article , Newt Gingrich wowed the crowd at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition fall banquet. Thanks to his performance last night, coupled with 3 lengthy days of campaigning in Iowa, Newt's stock continues to rise.
For nearly three hours, contenders for the GOP presidential nomination took the stage to proclaim the depth of their commitment to the pro-life movement, denounce activist judges and call on America to open up drilling and explore natural gas resources across the country.
While all the candidates got a warm reception from the audience of nearly 1,000 Christian activists, it was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who won the night's biggest applause. He drew repeated cheers with his calls to get rid of White House czars, replace Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke within 30 days, and defund Planned Parenthood and put the money toward adoption services.
"I don't ask you to be for me," an earnest Gingrich told the audience. "I ask you to be with me , because I think the scale of change we need is going to take eight hard difficult years."
As he has done previously during the campaign, Gingrich challenged President Obama to a series of seven, three-hour debates, mirroring the famed confrontations between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in the 1858 Illinois Senate election. " To be fair I would agree that he can use a teleprompter ," Gingrich said of Obama, drawing laughter from the audience. "After all, if you had to spend an entire three hour debate defending Obamacare, wouldn't you want the help of a teleprompter ?"
Despite the fact that Speaker Gingrich hasn't held an executive branch position in his political career, he's a leader in every sense of the word. He's a visionary. He's a team-builder. He's comfortable praising others for their good ideas.
Aren't those the characteristics that we're looking for right now?
Let's, for a moment, strip away the candidates' poll numbers and the fundraising figures. Let's just discuss whose answers are insightful but aren't canned. Who comes across as being comfortable with himself/herself? Whose plan is comprehensive, bold and well thought out?
I'd argue the only candidate that fits each of those descriptions is Newt.
Now, let's step back into last night's Faith and Freedom Coalition fall fundraiser. Wouldn't it be nice having a candidate that can mock President Obama and Obamacare without coming across as mean-spirited? Newt's answer that he'd let President Obama use a teleprompter for their Lincoln-Douglas style debates was hilarious:
After all, if you had to spend an entire three hour debate defending Obamacare, wouldn't you want the help of a teleprompter?
I wouldn't want to watch President Obama squirm while trying to justify his ramming the PPACA down America's throat. I wouldn't want to watch President Obama try functioning 3 hours without his teleprompter.
That said, I'd pay admission to see Newt grill President Obama on why President Obama won't trust the American people to make their own health care decisions instead of forcing them to accept a bureaucrat's decision on health care from DC.
The only candidate on the GOP presidential stage with the wisdom, debating skill and subject knowledge to effectively prosecute the case against PPACA is Newt Gingrich.
Mitt Romney couldn't effectively prosecute the case because his health care plan is too similar to O'Care. Gov. Perry isn't an expert in health care and would have difficulty prosecuting the case. Sen. Santorum is smart enough to make that case but he comes across too harsh at times.
As long as those dynamics are at play, Newt Gingrich's momentum will continue rising. He's the skilled debater conservatives need to make the compelling case for free markets, capitalism and conservatism.
More importantly, we don't have to settle for a squishy East Coast moderate. Most importantly, conservatives can win with Newt.
Posted Sunday, October 23, 2011 10:22 AM
No comments.
Cain's disappearing MO-mentum
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain hadn't campaigned in Iowa since the Iowa state fair. Based on this article , it's a safe bet that this trip to Iowa won't help Cain. Here's one thing that'll trip Cain up mightily:
Perry, Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum all spent time greeting voters at the Iowa State Fairgrounds before or after their remarks; Bachmann arrived late and Cain declined to spend much time with voters as he was ushered in and out of the room.
As a neighbor to Iowa, I've heard more than a few stories that Iowa voters demand that presidential candidates pay attention to them. In person. Pressing the flesh. Gabbing with them in diners and cafes.
Being approachable is a difference-maker in Iowa. Just ask Mitt Romney whether his money was able to overcome Mike Huckabee's affability in the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. Mitt wasn't approachable, wasn't likeable and got trounced by Gov. Huckabee even though Mitt outspent Gov. Huckabee by a 9:1 margin.
Iowa caucus-goers don't appreciate it when candidates get hurriedly ushered in and out of the room.
Further hurting Cain, especially at this weekend's Faith and Freedom Coalition fall banquet was his stumbling over a life issue. Gov. Perry stuck the knife in, then gave it a sharp twist without mentioning Gov. Cain:
Without mentioning the pizza magnate by name, Gov. Rick Perry used his remarks to ding the recently ascendent Herman Cain for a remark suggesting Cain supports a hands-off attitude towards government curtailing of abortion rights.
"It is a liberal canard to say I am personally pro-life, but government should stay out of that decision," Perry said. "If that is your view, you are not pro-life, you are pro having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too."
Gov. Perry is exactly right with his statement. Throughout the last 25 years, liberals have talked about "making abortion safe, legal and rare", suggesting that they're personally pro-life while arguing that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned.
Mr. Cain's done alot of backtracking on the issues but the damage has been done . What's worse is that the damage can't be undone quickly.
With his rise to the top tier of the Republican 2012 race, Herman Cain has seen the scrutiny of his policy positions increase dramatically, and it is his stance on (illegal?) abortion that stole the limelight and confounded voters this week. On Fox & Friends this morning, Mike Huckabee's weekly take turned to Cain, and he found the candidate's stance to be 'very pro-choice' despite the backtracking- possibly too pro-choice for the people of Iowa.
Unfortunately, Cain didn't put the shovel down after that:
He repeated those comments to Piers Morgan, who was equally perplexed by Cain's insistence that his own pro-life views did not need to be reflected in a government that he ran. Things only got more complicated when Cain went on to say on Fox News that he was so pro-choice, as far as the government's place in the abortion debate stands, that he would disregard the law in an event where a family member was legally prohibited from receiving an abortion. Needless to say, for Huckabee, this was a bridge too far.
Gov. Huckabee used the shovel Mr. Cain gave him to bury Mr. Cain:
Calling the stance 'very pro-choice,' Huckabee argued that even with Cain trying to backtrack by calling himself '100% pro-life,' there was little repair he could do to his comments. 'The damage has been done,' Huckabee concluded, particularly with religious voters and social conservatives. 'He cannot win Iowa by offending them,' Huckabee argued , noting that being pro-choice was far too radical a position for many voters who choose candidates based on their stances on social issues, no matter what his stances on other policy issues that come up in the campaign.
Not greeting Iowans while campaigning there isn't smart but it's correctable. Flip-flopping and overexplaining your position on life issues won't make for an excellent Iowa adventure.
Couple Cain's campaigning style and his pro-choice positions with his disastrous position on freeing Gitmo detainees in exchange for an American hostage and you get the impression that Mr. Cain simply isn't up to the job of being the leader of the free world.
Posted Sunday, October 23, 2011 11:28 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Oct-11 11:01 PM
Gary:
I have to challenge what you have been doing recently in the Presidential race. You go out and attack Cain for his position on abortion in the year when economic issues will be dominant. Yet for Newt you're pretending that Newt never sat down and did a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on global warming.
You just went out and mocked Cain for how he is campaigning in Iowa yet apparently you're not aware that Newt spent several hours in Chicago not fund raising, not campaining, but going through a muesuem.
Yet since you seem to be promoting Newt and trying to tear down Cain so his supporters will go to Newt you're ignoring those things.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 12:00 AM
Walter, Cain's position on abortion isn't just about abortion. It's apparent that he hasn't thought things through. Not instantly telling Wolf Blitzer that he wouldn't trade Gitmo prisoners for an American hostage is proof that he hasn't thought through national security issues to any extent. Mitt, Newt, Santorum, Perry & Michele would instantly say we wouldn't make that type of swap. It's a no-brainer.
It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another to not have a clue on the important issues. Being an outsider is fine. Being a political rube isn't. Newt's an outsider. Cain's a rube.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-11 08:07 AM
Gary:
I'm sorry Newt having sat down and made that commercial with Nancy Pelosi is far dumber than anything you think Cain has done! He certainly didn't think that through just like he didn't think through a proper response on Ryan's budget plan. I'm sorry I can't buy that claim you're making on Cain is a rube unless you concede based on history Gingrich is an even dumber rube which considering he claims he thinks things through is worse. I know a person living at a White House in Washington D.C. who that descrbies.
Yet you seem to promoting that rube Newt.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 08:22 AM
Seriously? Making a commercial with Nancy Pelosi is dumber than releasing the terrorist masterminds imprisoned at Gitmo? You can't be serious. One is a foolish mistake that has little impact on national security. The other is freeing the terrorist masterminds so they can return to the Middle East to start planning a new wave of terrorist attacks.
In 2008, we elected a charismatic manchild who wasn't qualified for the presidency. He knew nothing about the economy. He knew less about national security. Herman Cain would be a better president than President Obama. That isn't a particularly high obstacle to overcome.
Each presidential election, people clamor for the outsider, mostly because they figure they aren't part of DC's corruption. I've seen that scenario play out more times than I can count. Fair enough. What I want more than anything is someone who's a visionary, a man with a lengthy list of accomplishments at the federal level & who's still maintained a healthy disdain for DC. At minimum, I want someone who knew before this campaign what the Palestinian right of return was, who had thought Gitmo policy through & who didn't sound like a pro-choice advocate.
People are romanticizing about how a non-politician would be perfect. That's foolish. Let's state this clearly. I don't want someone who's part of the DC problem. I also don't want a one-trick pony who'll need on-the-job training, either. There is a solution. Find someone whose understanding on a wide range of issue is comprehensive & detailed but who has maintained a healthy disdain for DC.
That describes Newt to a T.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-11 09:02 AM
Gary:
Did you actually just type that? You have done countless posts about how the environmental movement is stopping a mining project that will give us jobs. Newt sitting down and making that commercial is an endorsement of that environmental thinking!
We're not drilling for oil because of the environmental movement.
We're not mining for coal because of the environemntal movement.
We've wasted billions of dollars on solar power because of the environmental.
Yet the person who we need to stand up to Nancy Pelosi and the liberal democrats on the environment sat down and made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi endorsing global warming.
Accomplishments you want. Right now we have the mess we do because the current group in the White House have no idea how to run businesses. Herman Cain has a proven record unlike Newt how to run businesses and understands the things that businesses really need to start growing and employ people. Newt is a thinker who hasn't done anything for real in the private sector just like that O guy!
To conclude if you don't realize it Newt's commercial is something that is far worse than Mitt and his problems on health care.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 10:50 AM
Yet the person who we need to stand up to Nancy Pelosi and the liberal democrats on the environment sat down and made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi endorsing global warming.Actually, if you want to delve into ancient history, that's your choice. If, however, you want to deal with today's reality, realize that Newt's the only candidate that wants to abolish the EPA & create the Environmental Solutions Agency. If that's your definition of squishy, then you need to take a more objective look at things. Perhaps you should read Newt's 21st Century Contract With America.
If you can read that & tell me that Newt's squishy on any of the things you've talked about, then I question your ability to analyze things through an objective lens.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-11 09:05 AM
Gary:
I think you will agree at a minimum the American people want somebody first who they think can get the economy moving again. The issues you mention will only come into play once that person passes the economy test.
Newt for all of your praise has done less to pass the economy test than Cain right now.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 10:26 AM
Walter, I couldn't disagree more vehemently that Newt "has done less to pass the economy test than Cain." When's the last time Cain put in place policies that led to entrepreneurs creating 11,000,000 jobs in 4 years? When's the last time Cain put in place policies that led to 4 strraight federal surpluses, including a $236,000,000,0000 surplus, the biggest surplus in US history?
Finally, what you've failed to notice is that Newt's an entrepreneur, too. Granted, he hasn't run anything as high profile as Godfathers Pizza. That doesn't mean he isn't an accomplished entrepreneur. It simply means you didn't notice it. That's ok. Most people do.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-11 04:27 PM
Gary:
By your logic Mitt Romney because he has said he will give waivers on health care on the first day of his administration that there is no reason to any longer doubt that we have to be concerned about his health care positions. Yet you keep attacking Mitt on that and that's is a major reason why even though I voted for him in 2008 and gave him money won't do that.
You seem to be applying a different standard to Mitt and Newt on problem issues proving the point of the post that I've done which is you're bending over backwards to try to promote Newt.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-11 04:30 PM
Gary:
If you want to point to the success of the 1990's and Newt's great leadership how can you explain since the Ryan plan is basically similiar to the Kasich plan which is what generated that success that Newt totally bombed the question on Meet the Press about supporting the Ryan plan? the fact that he butchered what was a fast ball down the middle of the plate shows his lack of leadership ability.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 04:39 PM
Walter, How is this proof that Newt isn't a leader?
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 04:48 PM
Walter, Comparing Newt with Mitt is intellectually insulting. Newt's made mistakes, which he's since corrected for.
Mitt's made mistakes that he's tried papering over. One minute, Mitt's saying that he'd repeal O'Care via waivers. That sounds pretty but it's BS. Waivers won't exempt people or corporations from the $670,000,000,000 worth of taxes contained in O'Care. It certainly won't abolish the 159 new agencies created by O'Care & definitely won't abolish IPAB, which is O'Care's price control mechanism.
During last week's debate, Mitt was challenged about Romneycare. He immediately said that he'd issue waivers, blah, blah, blah. Immediately after getting challenged again, he resorted to defending the individual mandate, the cornerstone of O'Care.
It's one thing to say something 10, 15, 20 years ago, then change your mind. It's quite another to continue changing your responses multiple times in the course of the past year depending on which group you're in front of.
Newt's message on the EPA has been consistent for the past 20 months. Ditto with the individual mandate.
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 25-Oct-11 10:06 AM
Gary:
Who pretended to be you and typed, "How is that proof Newt isn't a leader?"
Um, one because he butchered the fastball question he got what should be an ally in the fight to become President talking about him in a negative way. Or is that being a good leader?
Two, because he butchered the fastball question he got Democrats able to tell Republicans that you shouldn't pass the Ryan budget or any plan like it because Newt said it was a bad plan. Or is that being a good leader?
Three, you spent a post giving Newt the credit for the 1990's. Well during the 1990's when Kasich put out the budget Newt didn't go out and say we can't do the Kasich plan. Furthermore as Newt could've pointed out that what the Ryan plan shows what we have to do. We have to constrain spending and we're going to have to do some type of entitlement reform just like there was Welfare reform. Yet he shot down the Ryan plan. Or is that good leadership?
Four, we have the problem today of Obama wanting to repeat a bad policy because he thinks it work. The way Newt handled the question (even though you can say he was an expert and had experience which made this worse) he totally forgot to talk about a successful policy that can work. Or is that good leadership?
Gary I'm thinking carefully who to support right now. Unfortunately the way that Newt handled the Ryan question especially given his experience being speaker in the mid 1990's makes me think he isn't ready to get my vote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 10 by walter hanson at 25-Oct-11 10:11 AM
Gary:
As for Newt being consistent on the environment here's the problem with that. The Democrats will keep replaying that commercial and will say that Newt is only saying these things because his ego wants to be President and he's a flip flopper just like Mitt is.
Newt will have no credibility to point out to the public just how stupid the solar spending is. Newt will have no credibility to say that he's not destroying the environment for increasing drilling.
Now if Newt can talk Nancy Pelosi to sit on a couch and make a commercial endorsing that that will be great. I hate Nancy's policies, but she's smart enough not to sit down and make that commercial. Newt wasn't smart enough not to do the commercial. Which means he's going to sell us out to make Nancy and the democrats happy on his so called environmental reforms.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 10.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-11 10:50 AM
Walter, the onslaught is coming regardless of who the Republicans nominate. That's why they're trying to raise $1,000,000,000. That's just their plan. Newt's the most effective person at fighting off these types of attacks because he's been through them before with Bill Clinton & he's learned from that experience.
Saying that Newt's a flip-flopper "just like Mitt is" is insulting. John Meynard Keynes once was asked why he'd changed his mind. He replied "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" Newt's kept on learning, causing him to change positions. That's easily defensible.
Mitt hasn't gotten new information on Romneycare. He's just kept flip-flopping because he's been put in a difficult spot. One minute, he's going to eliminate Obamacare...through waivers which won't get the job done. The next, he's defending the individual mandate. That hasn't been over a 5-10 year period. Those things happened in one night, at the CNN debate.
With all due respect, you're nuts if you think laying out a detailed plan outlining Newt's plan to abolish the EPA & replace it with the Environmental Solutions Agency won't have credibilty with the public. Newt's changes have been totally defensible. Mitt's flip-flops have been arbitrary & constantly subject to change depending on which demographic group he's talking to.
PS-If Newt's plan doesn't have credibilty, why has he been gaining momentum since putting his plan forward?
Comment 11 by walter hanson at 25-Oct-11 11:17 AM
Newt has been gaining mo because people like you have decided to ignore that he sat down and did the commercial with Nancy!
Newt has been gaining mo because people like you have pretended that he never butchered the Ryan question!
Newt has been gaining mo because the 70% (like me who are anti Rommney) are looking for a person who isn't Rommey. It looks like we can't count on Huntsman, Bachmann (even though I like her a great deal), Rick S, Perry. That leaves us with Cain and Gingrich unless there is a candidate who I'm not aware of. Cain's poll numbers have shot up far faster than Newts by the way which is one reason why you're focusing on him.
And if you want to say I'm nuts for thinking that Newt is a flip flopper like Mitt why can't you agree that Newt blew the Ryan question.
Finally if you want to talk about how that billion will be spent Newt will make it far easier for that money to spent and it will stick. I'm thinking of Cain just because that billion won't stick to Cain like it will to Newt.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 11.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-11 11:41 AM
So you're waiting for the perfect candidate, are you? Don't hold your breath.
Response 11.2 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-11 11:48 AM
Walter, I agree that Newt Gingrich did blow the Ryan question. My apologies for not responding to that quicker.
PS- I love Cain for being a capitalist, a free markets advocate & for speaking his mind. Unfortunately, he's blown so many national security questions that he's proven that he isn't ready to be the next president. We've got a wet-behind-the-ears fool in the WH right now. We can't afford another wet-behind-the-ears president who needs on-the-job training at a time when Iran is threatening to develop a nuclear weapon, when Pakistan's fragile government is possibly on the verge of collapse & with Syria's & Iraq's governments on the verge of collapse.
It isn't just about electability. It's about the ability to govern, too. Cain can't govern, at least not at this stage of his political development.
Comment 12 by walter hanson at 25-Oct-11 12:23 PM
Gary:
The reason why I'm thinking carefully is I'm trying to weigh the faults of these candidates which is my choice (at least unlike in 2008 when I had to race to Rommey for a lack of a choice I have a real choice this time). You obviously want Newt despite faults I've pointed out.
Being able to govern is a big deal and Newt along with Bachmann seem to be the only two who are even giving some thought to having to get things passed once elected President.
Though to govern you have to be tell the American people what needs to be done. In 2008 Obama basically got to walz through with the help of the media on this because McCain wasn't a person (with the exception of the acceptance) able to express why his vision was better. That helped sweep out a whole bunch of Senators let alone House members that gave us Obamacare, the failed stimulus bill, etc.
Will Cain or Newt be better for that? You've made up your mind. I'm thinking it can be Cain, but I still have a couple of months to shift for that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Las Vegas newspaper ridicules Reid
Ridiculing Sen. Reid isn't particularly difficult. Nonetheless, Sherman Frederick of the Las Vegas Review-Journal has perfected it to an art form. Frederick's latest column is delightful in ridiculing Reid:
Last week, the bard of Searchlight stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate. In front of C-SPAN and everybody, he said, and I'm not making this up, "It's very clear that private-sector jobs are doing just fine. It's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers."
And all the good people of Nevada, along with all the wild horses, cattle, ground squirrels and sheep, lifted their heads and said: "Is Harry Reid out of his ever-loving mind?"
Nevada's economy has been missing for so long it's pictured on the side of milk cartons. And free-spending, deficit-hiking Harry Reid is listed as the No. 1 suspect.
Harry Reid is a corrupt idiot. What other person is foolish enough to repeatedly state that "the war is lost" in Iraq? What other person thinks that stealing money from taxpayers to prevent unions from suffering is smart?
Sharon Angle wasn't a great candidate. Still, Nevadans should feel ashamed of themselves for returning this idiot to the Senate. I've said many times that Harry Reid is vastly underqualified to be leading the Senate. He's utterly inept.
Thankfully, he won't be majority leader past this Congress.
Posted Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Oct-11 08:16 AM
Apparently the people of Nevada in 2010 were out of their mind when they bought Harry's claims about Sharon to allow him to stay in the Senate and promote this nonsense. Maybe in 2012 and in 2016 the people of Nevada will wake up to their mistakes.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Will Messinger's emergence hurt DFL?
If there's anything that must be said about Baird Helgeson's euphemism-laced article , it's that it doesn't tell the whole story about Gov. Dayton's first ex-wife. One thing that's beyond dispute, it's that Alida Messinger's political beliefs aren't mainstream beliefs beyond the 4th and 5th districts.
She is vowing to do all she can to help the DFL regain control of the Legislature and get President Obama re-elected. Her millions could also become a force in the fight over the constitutional amendment on the ballot next year to define marriage as a union of man and woman, not gay couples. Messinger, 62, contends GOP politicians are harming Minnesota. "We are not a quality-of-life state anymore," she said. "Citizens need to get involved and say we don't like what you are doing to our state."
Alida Messinger's pet project will always be the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, the corrupt organization that ran the biggest, most dishonest, most extensive smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history.
A major part of ABM is TakeAction Minnesota. It isn't coincidence that TakeAction Minnesota has its fingers in the redistricting scam known as DTL-Minnesota. Common Cause MN's Mike Dean touted DTL-Minnesota's Citizens Commission in a recent debate. He said that citizen participation, transparency and nonpartisanship were important to the Citizens Commission. Here are the goals listed on DTL-Minnesota's website:
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.
The vice-chair of DTL-Minnesota's Citizens Commission is Kent Kaiser. Here's a portion of the letter Prof. Kaiser wrote to the Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel:
Based on my experiences with Draw the Line over the past several months, I urge the Panel to reject the map submitted to the Panel by Draw the Line because the map drawing process was secretive and flawed and ultimately resulted in a partisan map that fails to reflect the objective demographic shifts that have occurred in Minnesota over the past decade.
I think that because of its high number of incumbent legislator pairings and because it pairs only Republican members of Congress, the map is too likely to benefit the Democratic Party. I am especially concerned that we commission members were not allowed sufficient time or access to the map to critique it objectively or to determine its implications before we were led to approve it.
Messinger financed the smear campaign against Tom Emmer. Messinger is quoted as saying she'll spend tons of money to help the DFL retake the state legislature. Considering those facts, is it surprising that TakeAction Minnesota is involved in attempting to influence the redistricting plans?
Why wouldn't Alida smile at the thought of bringing in an Obama GOTV operative to oversee the corrupting of the Citizens Commission?
In addition, the mapping specialist who was hired at the last minute (Linden Weiswerda) and whom we originally thought was independent and nonpartisan turns out to have worked for President Obama's campaign in 2008.
Think about this. If you're Alida Messinger, what could be better than having a corrupt organization like TakeAction Minnesota supervise the Citizens Commission. Have an Obama insider draw the map. Tout it as the work of a Citizens Commission in the hopes that the Minnesota Supreme Court buys into DTL-Minnesota's maps.
Ms. Messinger didn't hesitate in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a gubernatorial election. She's announced that she won't hesitate in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy legislative majorities for her liberal ex-husband to work with. Why wouldn't she smile in getting help from one of ABM's partners in making those legislative races a bit easier to win?
In addition to Blodgett, Messinger is close to Ken Martin, the new chairman of the DFL. She also considers one of her dearest friends to be Tina Smith, Dayton's chief of staff.
Messinger ran Brian Melendez off as DFL Party Chairman. She then hand-picked Martin, despite his shortcomings, to be the DFL Chair. She's the person that insisted that her ex hire Paul Aasen, a militant environmentalist, to be Gov. Dayton's first MPCA commissioner. Aasen bragged that he'd sued the Big Stone II project into the ground.
There's no question that Ms. Messinger approves of radical environmental views. If she didn't, she wouldn't have picked Aasen as MPCA Commissioner.
Now, she says, she is angry that many lakes in her chosen state are too polluted for people to eat the fish from them. She is frustrated Minnesota schools no longer lead the nation. All the reasons she loved the state so much when she moved here, she said, are under attack.
Ms. Messinger's worries aren't based in science. They're rooted in climate change junk science and in the belief that humankind is capable of destroying the planet.
Posted Monday, October 24, 2011 11:00 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 25-Oct-11 12:13 PM
Don't shoot the messenger. Messinger. Whichever.
Beyond that, Gary, I bet we agree - it's her money and she can spend it any way she likes.
And in analysis, has Koch money hurt the GOP? Green is green. Spinmeisters have a price. The Koch brothers buy them. Soros buys them. I expect only the IP does not. And it shows.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-11 12:28 PM
Ms. Messinger absolutely has the right to spend her money. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the things said in the advertising were so blatantly false that FactCheck.org & KSTP-TV both gave the ads their equivalent of a Liar, Liar, pants on fire rating. If the DFL wants to attach themselves to a reprehensible, corrupt person like Alida Messinger, that's their right.
If they do, though, rest assured of the fact that I'll tie her corrupt ass to every swing district DFL candidate or incumbent in the state. They'll have to answer whether they'll represent Alida's corrupt agenda or if they'll represent the constituents in that district.
The left hasn't come remotely close to proving that the Koch Brothers have done anything as dishonest as what Alida Messinger has done.
Questioning Gov. Dayton's leadership
During yesterday's Political Analysis segment of @Issue With Tom Hauser, DFL strategist Darin Broton argued that Gov. Dayton was showing leadership by calling a special session of the legislature to address the issue of the Vikings Stadium.
Thus far, Gov. Dayton met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell instead of negotiating with the legislative leadership on the budget:
St. Paul - With just days remaining in the 2011 legislative session, Governor Dayton and his Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner and staff have decided to focus on reaching a stadium resolution rather than a budget resolution.
Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo) and Speaker of the House Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove) sent a letter to Governor Dayton on Tuesday, May 17 requesting commissioners provide committee chairs the changes they were seeking in each conference report. Multiple news sources confirmed reports that Governor Dayton, State Transportation Commissioner Tom Sorel, and agency officials spent time and resources negotiating stadium funding instead:
'State and county transportation officials spent much of the afternoon huddled behind closed doors trying to arrive at a final cost for the necessary state road improvements around the stadium site'
'Budget Battle Impedes Vikings Stadium,' Star Tribune online, May 18, 2011
Despite schmoozing with Commissioner Goodell, Gov. Dayton hasn't put a stadium plan together. Conducting gabfest photo ops isn't leadership, though it apparently fits the DFL's definition for leadership.
By comparison, Jesse Ventura put a plan together for the Twins ballpark. That means that Gov. Dayton has done less than the ultimate gubernatorial failure. That's disgraceful.
Mr. Broton seems like a likeable enough guy. That doesn't mean he isn't shilling for the DFL. If DFL pundits continue with these chanting points, they'll destroy their own credibility. They're simply too easy a target.
How is this different than the DFL not putting a budget together and not creating a set of redistricting maps? The DFL doesn't have a lengthy history of getting things done. Recent DFL history is replete with times where the DFL does nothing except whine.
Gov. Dayton, like DFL legislators, is big into doing nothing, then whining about Republicans not doing what the DFL wants.
That isn't leadership.
Posted Monday, October 24, 2011 1:38 PM
Comment 1 by flataffect at 24-Oct-11 03:38 PM
Dayton sounds like MN's version of Jon Huntsman. Inherited wealth but not leadership.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-11 04:12 PM
I'm no fan of Huntsman's. Frankly, he should be runinng a primary challenge to BHO. That said, I'd take Huntsman over Dayton any day of the week.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 25-Oct-11 09:17 AM
Dayton is just like his boss, Barack.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 25-Oct-11 09:54 AM
Gary:
Keep in mind Governor Ventura had to put something together in 2002 not because he was a forward thinking leader, but because major league baseball had said that the Twins were no longer going to be a baseball team. It took a judge who in effect violated the law to keep the Twins playing.
It was actually governor Tim who worked on a bill that made a stadium possible. Of course I find it odd that leadership is just calling the special session. I thought leadership was putting a bill forward. The problem we had with a shutdown the Republicans never had any real proposal from the governor that they could tweek.
If I was Keller and Koch I call the session to order and wait for the Dayton bill to be proposed.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z at 25-Oct-11 12:05 PM
Gary, you are special. Nobody else could post about the stadium thing, and only use the post to throw stones at Dayton w/o taking a stand publicly on whether Wilfare should/should not be done. Never? Now? What?
Which is it?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Oct-11 12:34 PM
I didn't say anything about the stadium because that isn't what interested me at the time. Gutless wonders like Mark Dayton, Tom Bakk & Paul Thissen yap alot but don't do anything. There's a pattern of the DFL 'leadership' whining all day, then never presenting a solution to the issues. The DFL should change its call letters to LGA, as in Leaderless, Gutless & Aimless. It fits perfectly.
Forced unionization suffers major setback
A loyal reader of this blog notified me that tonight's hearing at the Stearns County Service Center was well attended, with over 100 people in a crowded room. According to the report I received, 18 people testified in opposition to the unionization of in-home child care providers, with only 7-10 people testifying in favor of unionization.
Tonight's hearing exposed the union's corruption. One child care provider said that they signed a card saying they'd like to find out more about the unions. The person said that they received a notice saying that an informational meeting was being held at a local union hall. The notice came complete with date and time.
When the person got there, they were told that only those willing to sign a card saying they were joining the union could attend the 'informational meeting'.
My blogging friend Leo Pusateri attended the meeting, too. Leo said that he attended a union press conference prior to the hearing. Leo said that children were standing with the union representatives and that they had pro-union signs.
Leo stepped forward and talked about Minnesota's Fair Share laws, saying that in-home child care providers that chose not to unionize would be charged 80% of the union dues. Follow this link to read Leo's account, including his video of his question on Fair Share.
As you'll see in the video, SEIU's misinformation evoked a stiff response from Leo. He said that Fair Share is Minnnesota state law, which meant it is etched in stone. Here's part of Leo's report pertaining to Fair Share:
Notice how the SEIU thug at first tries to poo-poo the fact that non-union daycare providers will still have to shell out fair share costs to the union ("Fair Share" in the State of Minnesota is 80 percent of union dues-still a hefty price in anyone's book); but after being pressed on the issue, explains away the higher cost of daycare via unionization by saying that "the increased subsidies" as a result of unionization will "more than offset the (increased) cost.
In other words, the SEIU leadership acknowledges that they will attempt to shift the cost of union membership of daycare providers to taxpayers (yes, that means you and I).
There's nothing fair about forcing independent businesspeople who don't benefit from a union to pay union dues. It isn't fair that people who've hired a lobbying group, like MLFCCA, would have to pay union dues on top of the money paid to their lobbying group.
Simply put, Fair Share should be repealed ASAP. Unfortunately, that won't happen with Gov. Dayton in office. It's maddening to think that the main purpose of Fair Share is to supply additional campaign cash to the unions' coffers.
The thing that unions haven't explained is why they're needed. They won't improve child care providers' pay or benefits. Unions won't improve work conditions or workplace safety.
After these reports, it isn't difficult to think tonight's hearing isn't a major setback in SEIU's and AFSCME's chances to force unionization on child care providers.
It's also easy to see that these unions use less than honest tactics in their presentations. They should be ashamed and discredited for their tactics.
UPDATE: Some of Leo's figures are slightly different than my report. Since Leo was there, I'd trust his numbers.
Posted Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:46 AM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 25-Oct-11 06:47 AM
I currently work in a union shop. Nonmembers pay 80% fair share dues.
Comment 2 by Patrick Mattson at 25-Oct-11 07:13 AM
I used to teach for the state of Minnesota and paid 80% fair share to the IFO over the years. The union never had my best interests at heart as their agenda was far too liberal and leftist for my tastes. This sham of organizing small business owners needs to stopped with enough force that the SEIU or other union never gets another chance to try again.
Comment 3 by Hollee Saville at 03-Nov-11 04:03 PM
Thanks for covering this issue, LFR! This goes so far beyond the partisan rhetoric that has overshadowed the main issue here: I own an independent, private small business as a Licensed Family Child Care Provider. How and why in the heck are we even having to fight this?! Ugh! The laws protect us from this, but here we are, wasting countless hours and tons of money ($800+ from my own pocket) to educate providers, legislators, and the public about this because the unions are spewing lies and deceit (I'm not anti-union, btw, just against childcare unionization and against the tactics that these unions are using to dupe people into joining).
I am a member of MLFCCA (www.MLFCCA.org), NAFCC (www.nafcc.org), MnAEYC (www.mnaeyc.org), NAEYC (www.naeyc.org), and am President and founder of the Wright County Family Child Care Association. All of these organizations work for the unique needs and interests of family childcare providers already, ALL at the bargain rate of only $35/year. I can choose whether or not to join, express any concerns or questions and KNOW that they will listen, and feel that I am valued and respected as a member. These organizations work to help us and the families for whom we care.
Let's not forget that I have a voice! If I want to be respected and treated like a professional, I need to act like one. I have the power to make changes and make a positive difference, even as an individual, through our existing system. Believe me: it is NOT as horrible and burdensome as some union supporters claim, although I know there are legitimate concerns about individuals who work for licensing in various counties. Positive changes have been made to "Rule 2," our regulations for Licensed Family Childcare (9502, for those who wish to read them), by INDIVIDUALS working alone and with other organizations. They didn't cost providers, or taxpayers, any money!
There are many reasons why this is a horribly UNCONSTITUTIONAL issue and a bad idea for providers, children, families, and taxpayers! I have documentation about the facts from other states and providers who have been misled, if you are interested. Also, www.ChildCareUnionInfo.com is a terrific resource that addresses many of these concerns.
Your e-mail form wasn't visible, otherwise I'd send this to you directly. :)
Progressives' multi-pronged election strategy
The more you put the pieces of the puzzle together, the more clear it becomes that the DFL, DTL-Minnesota and Alida Messinger have a plan to influence elections before a single candidate has been chosen. This isn't random. It's part of a plan, a very well thought-out plan.
The first step in the plan was the now-antiquated Secretary of State Project :
Moreover, in 2006 SoSP accused Blackwell and Republicans of conspiring to suppress Democratic voter turnout in Ohio . 'We were tired of Republican manipulation of elections,' said Michael Kieschnick. 'It seemed like lots of decisions were made by people who were pretty clearly political operatives.' 'Any serious commitment to wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party must include removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count,' added Becky Bond.
The 2006 midterm elections were an important part of the plan. Putting progressive Secretaries of State in place meant that progressives controlled the voting rolls. How important is that? It can't be emphasized too much.
In Minnesota, hundreds of felons illegally voted in the 2008 elections because Mark Ritchie didn't update the SVRS, aka the State Voter Registration System to prevent felons from voting. Ritchie's office said that the Minnesota legislature didn't give him the authority to do that.
He's right about that. They didn't. They didn't because HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, didn't just give secretaries of state the authority but the affirmative responsibility to keep SVRS updated.
Another part of the progressives' dream election system is the abolition of Photo ID laws. Initially, progressives said that Photo ID was a poll tax, making it unconstitutional. That argument was shot down when the US Supreme Court ruled on Crawford v. Marion County. What's interesting is that the ruling wasn't the typical 5-4 ruling. It was 6-3, with then-Justice John Paul Stevens writing the majority opinion.
After that, the progressives' argument was that it suppressed turnout. This weekend, that argument got shot down by former Congressional Black Caucus member Artur Davis:
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.
According to Congressman Davis, voter suppression isn't an issue. Voter fraud is:
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.
Let's connect the dots that we've collected thus far.
- Progressives put a plan in place to elect progressive candidates to be the secretaries of state in key battleground states. (For the most part, the progressives' plan was effective.
- These secretaries of state controlled the SVRS. (This can't be overemphasized in importance.)
- Controlling the SVRS allowed corrupt secretaries of state like Mark Ritchie to keep inelligible felons from voting by not updating the SVRS.
- Progressives have waged a continuing campaign against Photo ID, first saying it was a poll tax, then arguing that it suppresses voter turnout.
- Voter fraud exists. In fact, Photo ID would prevent alot of fraud, according to former Congressman Artur Davis, (D-AL).
- Davis has identified a way voter fraud has been committed in painstaking detail.
A shorter summary would read like this: progressives put in place secretaries of state, who then didn't do what the law, specifically HAVA, requires. As a result, felons voted illegally. Progressives also fought against Photo ID laws even though the US Supreme Court ruled the laws constitutional and even though they would've prevented the voter fraud described by former Congressman Davis. As must information as that is, that isn't all of it. In 2010, the nation made a significant shift to the right.
The national righward shift worries progressives because Republicans totally control the redistricting process in alot of key states. That's why progressives are working hard to minimize the impact of redistricting. That's why DTL-Midwest was created. Their goal isn't to take partisanship out of the equation. DTL-Midwest's goal isn't transparency, either.
Their goal is to limit the damage of this year's redistricting. Their goals say one thing. Their actions say the opposite thing. This morning, Kent Kaiser, the vice-chair of DTL-Minnesota's Citizens Commission, told Rod Grams during his interview that "the map that the legislature drew did a better job of reflecting the Citizens Commission's principles" than the map submitted in the Citizens Commission's name.
Progressives are attempting to influence elections using multiple sets of tactics. Corrupt secretaries of state are influencing elections by not keeping SVRS rolls updated properly, which allows felons to vote illegally. Progressives are attempting to influence elections through voter fraud as outlined in a firsthand description of former Congressman Artur Davis, who says people are voting illegally through the "wholesale manufacture of ballots."
Davis further said that "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 voter fraud by any thoughtful person's definition. It's the type of thing that only used to be done in Chicago and Philadelphia. Thanks to the progressives' ends-justifies-the-means attitude, they've now spread that practice to the entire nation.
Progressives can't win elections because their ideas are wildly popular. They can only win elections where the district is overwhelmingly progressive or where they can commit voter fraud. If those things aren't possible, then they'll try influencing elections through scams like DTL-Minnesota's Citizens Commission. Photo ID won't clean up the entire mess so we shouldn't pretend it will. To clean out the progressives' corruption, we'll need competent, honest secretaries of state who'll prevent felons from illegally voting.
We'll also need to continually expose the progressives' attempt to win elections through redistricting.
Posted Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:38 AM
No comments.
