October 26, 2011
Oct 26 04:42 Redistricting gone insane Oct 26 08:38 Mr. Finger-in-the-Wind Strikes Again Oct 26 11:21 Capt. Flip-Flop-Flip runs from comments Oct 26 12:13 Gingrich Momentum Continues Oct 26 14:11 Blogger Conference Call Notes Oct 26 14:50 Which Version Will Mitt Stick With? Oct 26 18:34 HEADLINE: Supercommittee Democrats not serious about cutting debt
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Redistricting gone insane
After reading this article , the first thing I thought was that this is the definition of redistricting gone insane. It's what you'd expect of a redistricting map drawn by someone from Organizing for America . Here's what I'm talking about:
Forty-two Minnesota legislators , more than one in five incumbents, would lose their seats or be forced to move under a plan to redraw the state's political boundaries that a bipartisan citizens' commission will submit to the state's five-judge redistricting panel today.
The plan drafted by a "Draw the Line Minnesota" commission would pair 84 of the 201 House and Senate members against other incumbents in the same districts next year.
Was Linden Wieswerda using hallucinogenic drugs when he drew these redistricting maps? If Wieswerda's redistricting map became law, it would essentially be an end run around the will of Minnesota voters. It isn't accidental that people fled lunatic progressive representation for more conservative representation.
They voted with their mortgages. They fled districts represented by Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum and Tim Walz. They flocked to districts represented by John Kline and Michele Bachmann. They left districts represented by Linda Berglin, Sandy Pappas, Scott Dibble, Richard Cohen, John Harrington and Ellen Anderson like they were selling toxic waste. They flocked to districts represented by rock-solid conservatives in the legislature.
Linden Wieswerda tossed that information aside. He essentially said 'Population shifts be damned. I'm drawing the most competitive map possible.' That's lovely theory but it's nefarious if thought through to any extent.
If there are dozens of close races statewide, that's a perfect situation for the DFL. Since Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, it isn't a stretch to think that most of the 84 legislators paired are Republican vs. Republican.
Simply by pairing Republicans with each other, that leaves alot of open seats for the DFL to target. Couple that with Alida's millions for major independent ad buys and you've got the picture of an exceptionally corrupt DFL racket in the making.
It isn't a stretch to think that 20 GOP seats would turn into open seats in the House. It isn't a stretch to think that 10-15 GOP would turn into open seats in the Senate. With the DFL needing only a 4 seat gain in the Senate and a 6 seat gain in the House, this redistricting map puts them almost there without lifting a finger.
Let me make this abundantly clear. I don't care about competitive districts if it favors Republicans. I don't care about competitive districts if it favors the DFL. I care about being true to the population shifts.
If people left DFL-dominated districts for GOP-dominated districts in sufficient numbers, God bless the people. If people left GOP-dominated districts for DFL-dominated districts in sufficient numbers, then the people will have spoken. Let's honor that.
The group's No. 1 principle is to "preserve communities of interest." They defined such communities as "a grouping of people in a geographic area that share common economic, cultural, demographic or other interests. Cities, counties and sovereign nations are also important communities of interest."
Communities of interest is a scam. The term defies definition because it can mean anything to anyone. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that Linden Wieswerda, the progressive redistricting expert, used the most liberal definition possible of communities of interest in his attempt to create a map that unfairly benefits the DFL.
In last year's census, 17 percent of Minnesotans identified themselves as nonwhite or Hispanic, but minorities hold just 3 percent of the seats in the Legislature. If they were fairly represented, Walz said, they would hold 30 seats instead of the six they now fill.
I'd be interested in seeing where those nonwhite people live. What percentage of the nonwhite community lives in urban St. Paul and Minneapolis? What percentage lives in Duluth, Rochester and St. Cloud? A sweeping statement like Walz's doesn't tell me much if I don't have more details.
A few conservative bloggers have questioned whether the commission is unbiased because some organizations in the sponsoring coalition have liberal ties. But Kaiser, a Republican and Northwestern College communications professor, said that while conservatives are likely to object to the group's map, "our principles are nonpartisan."
That's either an ill-informed opinion or it's an intentional cheapshot.
I'm one of the conservative bloggers they're talking about. Unfortunately, they've mischaracterized what I've said. I haven't questioned the Citizens Commission. I've questioned the outsiders that've hijacked the Citizens Commission's redistricting maps. There's a significant difference.
I'm not questioning the sincerity of the Citizens Commission. I'm confident that they weren't corrupt. I'm arguing that DTL-Minnesota's leadership hijacked the redistricting process, even having Linden Wieswerda, a former Organizing for Obama activist, draw the actual map. The leadership then forbid the Citizens Commission from seeking public input on the redistricting map the Obama activist drew.
It's important to note the distinction between DTL-Minnesota's Citizens Commission and DTL-Minnesota's leadership. The Citizens Commission members aren't the problem. DTL-Minnesota's leadership, however, is corrupt to the core. Just look at the organizations that are DTL-Minnesota's "partners."
Mike Dean, Common Cause MN and TakeAction Minnesota aren't upstanding citizens. They're corrupt political hatchetmen. When Mitch and I debated Dean on the Late Debate, Dean's opening monologue was all about 'we want to raise awareness' and 'getting people involved in the process is a good thing'.
This wasn't about raising awareness or getting people involved. That's the PR speech given to hide a corrupt organization's ulterior motives.
Now DTL-Minnesota's true colors are showing. That color is mostly the DFL's dingy blue.
Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:42 AM
No comments.
Mr. Finger-in-the-Wind Strikes Again
Remember Mitt Romney's leadership during the debt ceiling crisis? Of course you don't because Mitt disappeared from the national stage until a deal had been negotiated. Then he criticized the plan that was negotiated.
Mitt Romney, aka Mr. Finger-in-the-Wind, struck again yesterday in Ohio . Here's what he did:
Campaigning in Ohio today, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney stopped by a Republican Party phone-bank making calls in support of Gov. John Kasich's government union reform referendum, but refused to endorse the actual referendum. CNN's Peter Hamby called the scene an "incredible moment in politics."
Gov. Romney's spine must've been on strike that day. Seriously, what's the objective behind Mitt's visit? Was he there to express his solidarity with GOP grassroots activists? It that's what the objective was, his visit was a total failure.
Expressing solidarity with people means expressing solidarity with the work they're doing. In this instance, the activists were making calls to get people to vote against repealing S.B. 5, the Ohio bill that limits the things that public unions can negotiate.
Instead, Mitt issued this milquetoast, cautious statement :
But Romney would not say specifically if he supports S.B.5, which Ohio voters oppose by a 57-32 margin, according to a Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday
Instead, he issued only generic support for GOP efforts to control spending in Columbus.
"I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues," Romney said, after being pressed by reporters. "Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here."
If Mitt wasn't prepared to talk specifically about those ballot initiatives, he shouldn't have visited this call center. Instead, stopping there makes Gov. Romney look calculating. He obviously loves the photo op but he doesn't want to say anything he thinks is controversial to moderates. That's what gutless wonders do.
Here's what real conservatives do:
" As a true conservative, I stand with Gov. Kasich in promoting S.B.5 for fiscal responsibility and job creation in Ohio ," Perry said in a statement to CNN. "Gov. Kasich and the Republican leadership of Ohio are to be commended for their efforts."
That statement is simple, straightforward. It represents a stark contrast to the non-statement statement Gov. Romney issued. Gov. Perry's been criticized for his gaffes. That's fair game. Still, I'm betting that he's respected because he isn't seen as calculating like Gov. Romney.
Romney's economic plan features what's best described as a cautious corporate tax cut, dropping it from 35% to 25%. By comparison, Gov. Perry's plan cuts it to 20%. Newt's plan drops it to 12.5%.
I'm betting that people aren't looking for cautious and calculating this election cycle. I'm betting they're looking for a candidate who's a leader who won't hesitate to propose bold reforms if that's what makes sense.
Rick Perry hasn't shown himself to be a great debater. His strength are his accomplishments. He's gotten alot of positive things done in Texas. Gov. Perry's economic plan is bold. Most importantly, it'll get America out of the economic mess that President Obama's policies have kept us in.
Gov. Romney is losing the leadership battle. He's too cautious. He isn't willing to take firm stands on issues, then stick to them. In fact, there's rumors that he's thinking about changing his 59-point, 160-page economic plan. Rumor has it that he'll include a flat tax and swap out his timid tax reform plan.
It's instructive to note that the economic projections haven't significantly changed since Labor Day, which is when Mitt introduced his plan. Unemployment hasn't skyrocketed or plummeted since then.
What's changed is that a) Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich have offered economic plans that center on the flat tax and b) Cain and Gingrich have experienced a significant jump in the polls. I suspect that Perry's plan will earn him a significant bump in the polls, too.
It's time for Rick Perry's or Newt Gingrich's bold colors. We don't need Mitt Romney's pale pastels.
Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2011 8:38 AM
No comments.
Capt. Flip-Flop-Flip runs from comments
Mitt Romney can't make up his mind. That's why he lets events sway him so frequently. Yesterday, Mitt visited a phone-bank center in Ohio established for calling about SB5, the Ohio bill limiting the things unions could negotiate. Yesterday, Mitt gave a totally cautious statement that essentially told voters paying attention that he's a weasel who doesn't want to take a stand on things . Here's what Mitt said yesterday:
But Romney would not say specifically if he supports S.B.5, which Ohio voters oppose by a 57-32 margin , according to a Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday
Instead, he issued only generic support for GOP efforts to control spending in Columbus.
'I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues,' Romney said, after being pressed by reporters. 'Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here.'
Here's the question I'm most curious about: How does Mitt know that he's "supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here" if he doesn't know what the efforts are? Is Mitt in the habit of generally supporting everything that the Republican Party does?
This morning, NBC posted this tweet :
Per @GarrettNBCNews, Romney says he "fully supports" Gov. Kasich on Issue 2 and apologizes for yesterday's confusion .
I'm curious about another thing. If Mitt didn't know what people were working on at the call center, why was he there? Was this just a photo op for Mitt? Was it an opportunity for him to look like a grassroots guy?
Here's what Gov. Perry said yesterday after the news spread about Gov. Romney's visit:
' As a true conservative, I stand with Gov. Kasich in promoting S.B.5 for fiscal responsibility and job creation in Ohio ,' Perry said in a statement to CNN. ' Gov. Kasich and the Republican leadership of Ohio are to be commended for their efforts .'
I'd bet the ranch that Romney's non-apology apology had more to do with the damage that's already been done by his photo op visit and his attempt to be on all sides of the union negotiating issue.
That's what weasels do. We don't need weasels in the White House. We need leaders who'll tell us hard truths. We need leaders that can inspire and chart a path to prosperity.
Here's the most likely explanation for Mitt's milquetoast statement yesterday:
But Romney would not say specifically if he supports S.B.5, which Ohio voters oppose by a 57-32 margin, according to a Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday.
I'd bet the ranch Mitt didn't want to stand on principle for an unpopular issue. Again, this is the definition of being a spineless weasel.
Mitt, it's clear you're spineless. Republicans demand that their presidential nominees have spines.
Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2011 11:21 AM
No comments.
Gingrich Momentum Continues
If people doubted that Newt Gingrich was gaining traction, this information should put an end to that speculation:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has raised more money in October than during the previous three months combined, he told reporters Tuesday as he laid out his vision for his campaign's turnaround.
During the previous fundraising quarter that spanned July, August and September, Gingrich raised $800,000.
With fundraising totals like that, it'll be surprising if Newt isn't soon seen as a top-tier candidate by inside-the-Beltway pundits. Activists are already warming up to him, with some committing to support him with others giving him a first serious look.
If Newt's debate performances continue, which I suspect they will, his recent fundraising spike will continue. If that happens, which is a big if, Newt will have caught fire at the right time. It's always better to finish strong than to start strong, then fizzle.
"If we continue to improve at this pace, I think we'll be able to run a full-blown campaign to be totally competitive in terms of advertising and other things, by the time we get to early January," Gingrich said.
A fully-funded Gingrich would be a difficult opponent, both in the GOP primaries and in the general election. He's easily the smartest man on stage in terms of policy, whether the subject is national security, tax reform, regulation reform, implementing free market solutions to the nation's biggest problems or on comprehensive energy policy.
"There was an unedited opportunity to listen to me and to decide that I had, that I actually represent a campaign of real substance," he said of his role in GOP debates. "Given the press coverage of June, July and August, that was sort of a great surprise to people."
The DC pundits started with an animus towards Gingrich, most likely because he wouldn't play their games as Speaker. The new storyline that's popped up this week is that Newt's yesterday's news, which I regard as the DC media's latest attempt to downplay Newt's solutions.
The more people see the top-tier GOP candidates, the more they'll discard the DC media's charicatures. They'll start forming their own opinions of the candidates. I'd argue that that's what's fueling Speaker Gingrich's rise.
Frankly, I think the DC elites don't know which box to put Newt in. He's a voracious reader, reading everything from Alvin Toffler's Future Shock to Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America .
It's difficult to say that someone who's both a world class historian and a futurist "yesterday's news." As more people get to studying Newt, the more impressed they'll be. That doesn't guarantee him the nomination victory.
Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:13 PM
No comments.
Blogger Conference Call Notes
This afternoon, I participated in a blogger conference call with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. Several things from Chairman Ryan's responses were particularly noteworthy to me. One thing that was noteworthy was Chairman Ryan's praise of Gov. Perry's tax and economic plan.
Chairman Ryan noted that it's very similar in construction, not in rates with the Ryan Plan. Chairman Ryan said that he was certain that the Perry tax plan was a pro-growth tax plan.
Another thing that Chairman Ryan said that I found interesting was that he's certain that we're in the "interesting part" of the campaign season. Chairman Ryan said that we're past the "personality phase" of the campaign and that we're getting into the good part of the campaign.
He said that it's good that GOP presidential candidates are offering substantive, bold plans that will pull America out of the current economic doldrums into prosperity and towards a new "American Renaissance."
Chairman Ryan said that the Occupy movement isn't like the TEA Party movement in a number of important ways, noting that people actually clean up the grounds after TEA Party events as opposed to the Occupy activists.
He said that he agrees with the Occupy activists in their disgust for too-big-to-fail banks. He took the opportunity to criticize Dodd-Frank for making too-big-to-fail the law of the land instead of eliminating it.
Ed Morrissey asked whether regulatory reform is getting enough attention. Chairman Ryan said that "it finally is" before saying that the EPA and NLRB are only two of the villains (my words, not Chairman Ryan's) in the regulatory overload.
Chairman Ryan talked about 219 rules that each cost companies north of $100,000,000 annually. That's alot of money taken from the economy in what Chairman calls "hidden taxes."
After Ed, I asked if Chairman Ryan was suggesting that "bold, well thought through economic plans" were better than safe plans. Chairman Ryan said that that's exactly what he's advocating for. He said that we have a moral obligation to put together plans that pull us out of the doldrums.
He said that not offering a bold, well-thought-through plan would lead to a "managed decline" similar to what Europe's going through.
Chairman Ryan wasn't critical of any of the GOP presidential candidates but his answers certainly favored Rick Perry's plan and other bold plans over Mitt Romney's plan.
Finally, Chairman Ryan said that it was important to start offering a positive plan to get America back working again rather than getting bogged down with President Obama's divisive class warfare rhetoric. He said that "there's no question that the GOP plans" that he's seen "will create jobs."
Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:11 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 26-Oct-11 04:52 PM
Gary, what are your thoughts regarding Ryan down the road?
I like him quite a bit (and his speech regarding Chairman Zero today was right on) but since we don't elect our Presidents from the House of Representatives as a general rule, what do you see him doing?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Oct-11 05:21 PM
Bob, He's a young man so he's got that on his side. I see him eventually running for governor, then the White House. Either that or someone might make him their VP pick.
I don't see that happening this cycle, though. He's too valuable as the Budget Committee Chairman.
Which Version Will Mitt Stick With?
The first thing I thought of after reading Greg Sargent's post about Mitt's union stumbles in Ohio, I'm left wondering which version Gov. Romney will stick with. Here's what his press person said yesterday:
His reluctance is about preserving states rights. 'Gov. Romney believes that the citizens of states should be able to make decisions about important matters of policy that affect their states on their own,' Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul explained .
That's significantly different than Mitt's version this morning:
Per @GarrettNBCNews, Romney says he 'fully supports' Gov. Kasich on Issue 2 and apologizes for yesterday's confusion.
It's getting confusing. Was Mitt silent yesterday because he believes in the Tenth Amendment? Or does he stand with Gov. Kasich today for political expediency and because he now understand the firestorm his campaign is in right now? Or is this the rollout of Mitt 48.0, the one who's shown that he doesn't have a spine but he does have the awareness to know that he's in trouble?
Perhaps it's D, none of the above. Perhaps, it's just Mitt getting himself in trouble by being for something unpopular without saying he's for something unpopular.
Isn't that kinda like John Kerry's "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" moment? Coming to think of it, wasn't Kerry's waffling moment the turning point in the election, the point where people realized that he'd say or do anything to get elected?
Might this be Mitt's moment of disaster episode where people just notice he's the type of spineless politician the American people despise?
Only time will tell about the long-range impact Mitt's momentary obfuscation will have on the campaign. Still, it's difficult to picture this not being another significant setback for Mitt.
In the long run, it's probably easier to grow a spine than to continually change stories. Perhaps, that'll be Mitt 49.0.
Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:50 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 26-Oct-11 04:53 PM
Myth got caught with his flip-flops on again. If I want someone who stands for nothing except liberalism, I'll vote for Baraq.
HEADLINE: Supercommittee Democrats not serious about cutting debt
Sometimes, you just have to do a doubletake to make sure you didn't misread something. I just visited Drudge, where I saw these headlines:
Super Committee Holds Public Session on Budget Cuts
Supercommittee Dems push for stimulus to be part of deficit deal
Is it just me or is there a disconnect in those headlines? It seems to me that a committee assigned the responsibility of reducing the debt shouldn't be pushing for additional bailouts. Isn't the stimulus a major contributor to President Obama's exploding the deficits and the national debt?
Democrats on the congressional supercommittee this week presented Republicans with a plan to cut the deficit that included billions of dollars in stimulus spending, aides told The Hill.
In a private meeting of the deficit panel Tuesday, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, presented a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats on the panel that includes more than a trillion dollars in tax increases. The revenue would partially cover stimulus spending for the economy, aides said.
Sen. Baucus and the Democrats can take a hike. Increasing taxes to pay for more pork isn't responsible. Unfortunately, it's what I'd expect from the Democrats.
Speaker Boehner should immediately fire up the other committees and get them working on their own debt reduction plan. They should bring their plan to the House floor for seperate votes, forcing the Democrats to choose between supporting President Obama's and Ms. Pelosi's agenda of out-of-control spending, exploding deficits and growth-stifling debt.
This will require coordination with the Senate leadership, too. Have them attach the House bills to the appropriations bills. They'll get defeated but they'll force members to make some awfully difficult, unpopular votes.
If Harry Reid and Co. whine that Republicans are playing political games, Republicans should send forth Jim Demint, Tom Coburn and Rand Paul to say that the time for games is over, that Democrats have to face the fact that they need to cut spending ASAP. Have these specific senators explain that the Democrats' unwillingness to control spending will put the United States on a glidepath to be the next Greece.
The time for timid politics is over. The time for hardball politics is now. If Democrats insist on spending tons of money that will explode the deficits and bury us in debt, then Republicans must expose them for the spendaholics they are, then reap the rewards next November.
Posted Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:34 PM
No comments.
