October 8-11, 2010
Oct 08 09:15 Oberstar's Biggest Worry Oct 08 12:56 Jerry Brown's Fatal Mistake Oct 08 21:20 Look Who's Calling Pollwatchers Thugs Oct 11 05:11 Rep. Oberstar's Nepotism Oct 10 10:02 TEA Party Notes Oct 10 13:32 It's the Government, Stupid Oct 10 22:14 Pawlenty Weighs In Oct 11 21:48 Newt on @Issue: The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Economy Failed
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Oberstar's Biggest Worry
Based on this MPR article , it's apparent that Jim Oberstar has a thin skin when challenged. Since the Cravaack poll was released, Rep. Oberstar has been saying that the poll taken by a "reputable Republican polling firm" ( Michael Barone's words ) is actually a push poll.
The poll shows Oberstar leading Cravaack by just three percentage points, 45-42 percent, which is within the poll's margin of error.
But the Oberstar camp is crying foul. Campaign manager Blake Chaffee calls the survey a push poll, a poll with wording designed to prompt answers favorable to the sponsor.
"Over the weekend we were contacted by a number of constituents that were respondents on the poll, and they expressed some concern to us about the calls ba,sically that the calls were not aimed at getting responses," said Chaffee. "They were aimed at shaping the respondent's opinion with outright falsehoods."
Here's how POS responded:
The poll is legitimate, said Neil Newhouse, a spokesman for Public Opinion Strategies. Newhouse said the results are based on an initial series of questions with neutral wording. After that came what he calls message questions, which challenge Oberstar's record and test which messages resonate with voters.
He said the poll results are not based on the message questions.
"We certainly ask a couple of issue questions about the congressman based on his record, but we certainly did not ask any questions before the ballot test that would bias in any way the numbers that I've given you," said Newhouse.
Rep. Oberstar is fighting an uphill fight with this argument:
Longtime pollster Rob Daves describes a push poll as unethical telemarketing. A legitimate sample survey with a legitimate tally is not a push poll. But he says testing messages can be done without biasing the results.
"Surveys that test messages often present positive and negative messages about candidates and see how respondents react to them, so that campaigns can take these messages and craft strategies around them," said Daves. "Those are legitimate surveys, if done in a methodologically acceptable way."
Rob Daves is anything but a friend of Republicans. That he admits that a poll can be legit while asking questions about messaging is damaging to Rep. Oberstar.
More important in all this is the facts on the ground. Chip Cravaack has tapped into the unions' disgust with Rep. Oberstar. That disgust was triggered by his voting for Cap and Trade. In their opinion, Cap and Trade would raise mining companies' expenses to the point they wouldn't be profitable.
By voting for Cap and Trade, Rep. Oberstar sent the message that toeing Speaker Pelosi's line was a higher priority than representing his constituents.
Rep. Oberstar can whine about polls all he wants but that's the least of his worries. He isn't connecting with his constituents. Chip Cravaack is because he's paying attention to what MN-08 is saying.
Also worth noting is that Jim Oberstar's money won't save him. His message isn't getting traction. It's falling on deaf ears. If Rep. Oberstar had spent more time paying attention to his district, he'd connect with his constituents.
The bottom line is this: Jim Oberstar hasn't acted in the best economic interests of his district. In fact, he's voted against his district's economic engine by voting to cripple the mining industry.
No amount of whining about a poll will change that fact. I'll bet the proverbial ranch that people will care more about the mining industry than about this poll.
Posted Friday, October 8, 2010 9:15 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Oct-10 12:37 PM
Keep up the reporting. It is interesting, but not otherwise covered around the Twin Cities. Rod Grams went up there from Anoka County, carpet bag and all, and could get no traction. Your reports indicate that there is GOP traction now. We are getting close to the first week of November. A serious challenge to Oberstar, if real, is big news.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Oct-10 03:01 PM
I've had libbloggers question Cravaack's chances but the 8th isn't as wildly liberal as people think. John Kerry only got 53% of the vote in the 8th in 2004. Obama only got 53% in 2008. Those aren't the scores of a wildly liberal district.
Oberstar voted for Cap & Trade. That's the death knell to the mining industry. The steelworkers have noticed & they ain't happy. I'm not predicting a Cravaack victory just yet but if he won, it wouldn't be a surprise to me.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 08-Oct-10 04:02 PM
Eric:
Keep in mind Grams ran in 2006 in what was a good year for Democrats. On top of that the ticket above him Amy K and Mike weren't hurting him.
Dayton running at best 50% won't be a big help on the ticket. And with Emmer running to help get thousands of jobs for the district by imporving the permit process Emmer might help pull up Cravaack.
Lets not forget besides cap and trade Oberstar also voted for a stimulus plan that didn't work and Obamacare which is proving more and more to be a bad thing.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by FORMER DEMOCRAT at 11-Oct-10 05:42 AM
Oberstar has been in office since 1976... 34 years, and Minnesota's economy has gone downhill. It's time to retire this guy who made being a politican a life time career at our tax dollars expense. Go to Megavote.com and check out his record of voting with Pelosi and Obama. He votes strictly for Democratic laws, for his parties interest only. VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE... RETIRE HIM!
Jerry Brown's Fatal Mistake
Jerry Brown's voicemail message for someone in the LA Police Protection League is likely his political undoing. Here's what has him in deep trouble :
After asking Rate for the league's endorsement, Brown says 'thanks' and hangs up the phone, but the call doesn't end. Instead, the message continues to record and Brown can be heard talking about the situation with his aides.Explaining the context doesn't make it any less forgiveable. There's no acceptable context for using that word in a political campaign. Period.
After Brown discusses his frustration with Whitman potentially cutting a deal for several seconds, another voice appears to interject saying, "What about saying that she's a whore?"
"Well I'm going to use that," Brown replies. "It proves you've cut a secret deal to protect the pensions."
The tape was released to the paper by the Los Angeles police union, the newspaper reported.
A Brown campaign spokesman confirmed the tape's authenticity, but "said that Brown was responding to the notion of accusing Whitman of cutting a deal to gain endorsements, not to the use of the word 'whore,'" the L.A. Times said.
It's a vulgar term that should never be used in polite society.
It might be a stretch to call Jerry Brown a geriatric mysogenist. It isn't a stretch to call him a disgusting man who doesn't respect women.
Posted Friday, October 8, 2010 12:56 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-Oct-10 03:56 PM
You know a couple of night's ago Jerry was criticizing Meg for not taking responsibility for what he said was her actions even though you can make a credibile case you had a person who lied to get employment and her husband had passed forward the letter to the employee.
Here it's Jerry Brown saying it. His excuse was he wasn't using the word in the way that people will say it.
Can you say double standard?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Look Who's Calling Pollwatchers Thugs
In this MNPublius post , Jeff Rosenberg inexplicably calls Republican pollwatchers thugs:
Minnesota Majority, a conservative group that agrees with Dan Severson that it should be harder for Minnesotans to vote, will send bands of thugs to intimidate voters in liberal-leaning precincts this November. With the Emmer campaign in disarray, conservatives are going to try to suppress the DFL vote in a last desperate bid to salvage the election.Once we cut through Mr. Rosenberg's overexcited verbiage, we find out the truth:
The conservative group, Minnesota Majority, has been raising the issue of election fraud since 2008. Some of its claims haven't been validated. Others have prompted county attorneys to investigate possible cases of voter fraud. Now the group's president Jeff Davis, says the goal is to prevent voter fraud.This information is coming from the post that Mr. Rosenberg characterizes as a "band of thugs." That, by itself, speaks volumes about Mr. Rosenberg's state of mind.
"Once a ballot is cast it's almost impossible to undo that," said Davis. "So our program is intended to prevent those illegitimate ballots from being cast in the first place."
Davis' group has been pushing to require people to present photo identification at the polls. State law allows Minnesotans to vote without a photo ID, if they have a utility bill showing their current address or someone vouches for their residency.
Davis says his group is joining with a tea party group and the Minnesota Voters Alliance to ensure that individuals know who they're vouching for, and to videotape and track buses and vans that deliver large numbers of voters to the polls.
Minnesota election law provides for challenging the eligibility of people who've been vouched for, with the election judge making a final determination. People exercising their rights afforded by Minnesota's election laws aren't thugs. They're citizens acting within the law.
This paragraph is pure demagoguery from Mr. Rosenberg:
Mark Ritchie has based his tenure as Secretary of State on a simple principle: We should be proud of our high voter turnout, and we should make it as easy as possible for eligible voters to exercise their right to vote. That's an admirable goal, and it should be one that all Minnesotans stand behind. But Minnesota Majority and Dan Severson don't support that vision. They want a system where the poor and old have to jump through hoops to exercise their right to vote.Actually, that isn't what Mark Ritchie stands for. He stands for letting as many people vote as possible, whether they're eligible or not. There's no proof that determining whether they're eligible or not is a priority with him. If it was a priority with him, he would've updated the voter lists, as required by law, when Minnesota Majority gave him a list of felons still serving prison time that were listed as eligible voters. That isn't an admirable goal.
Ritchie knew about this. The day after being notified about the felons, Ritchie held a press conference telling everyone that everything was fine. Ritchie's proven that he isn't interested in checking for a person's eligibility.
Not removing ineligible voters from the voters list is in direct violation of HAVA's provisions. HAVA gives each state's chief election officer the affirmative responsibility to keep the voter list updated.
Finally, Mr. Rosenberg throws in this straw man statement:
Minnesota citizens, don't let these thugs tell you that you don't have the right to vote. That is your absolute, inalienable right, and nobody can take it away from you.Mr. Rosenberg can't point to anything that Minnesota Majority or any conservative organization has done that indicates that they're interested in denying people their right to vote.
What Mr. Rosenberg is referring to is conservatives' desire to make sure that ONLY eligible voters cast ballots. We want voter turnout to be high. It's just that we don't want felons and other ineligible people voting.
It's insulting that the leftosphere thinks people are trying to suppress the vote when all we're trying to do is make sure the laws are followed. That he's implied that we're thugs for demanding that Minnesota's election laws be followed speaks volumes about Mr. Rosenberg.
It also speaks volumes that he's steadfastly opposed to Photo ID, something that 80 percent of Minnesotans support.
Originally posted Friday, October 8, 2010, revised 09-Oct 3:27 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 11-Oct-10 01:03 PM
Somehow, the adjective "integrity" connecting with the word, "vote" is always mysteriously missing from the lexicon of Ritchie and his toadies.
Rep. Oberstar's Nepotism
Based on this Washington Monthly article , there's certainly reason to think that Rep. Jim Oberstar's wife benefited from his position as ranking member, then chairman, of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee:
Jean Kurth Oberstar, wife of Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, owns an airport-consulting firm which contracts with airports for which her husband helped secure federal grants.I'd be surprised if Mr. Oberstar broke any laws. I'd be surprised if Rep. Oberstar violated any ethics laws of the House. That's part of what bothers most people about DC.
Dick Morris once said that it isn't what's illegal that bothers people. It's what isn't illegal that people are appalled by. Whether Mrs. Oberstar recused herself or not, whether the airport projects had merit or not, the reality is that her clients benefitted from her husband being on the Transportation Committee.
At a time when people are worried about crony capitalism, people would be just as appalled at crony government, where Jean Oberstar's clients got grants from her husband's committee.
This information isn't likely to help Rep. Oberstar, either:
Then there is Jean Kurth Oberstar, wife of Minnesota Democratic congressman James Oberstar. He sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and his wife owns a consulting firm that contracts with airports for which her husband helped secure federal grants. Among James Oberstar's 2004 campaign contributors were the Air Line Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association, FAA Managers Association, Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union, and Professional Airways Systems Specialists. According to Oberstar's office, she has retired from the airport consultancy. Oberstar's website as of last month described her as an "aviation consultant based in Washington, D.C."Jim Oberstar is corrupt. There's nothing in his record that says he wouldn't continue accepting tons of contributions from special interest groups, whether they're his wife's clients or another special interest group.
Rep. Oberstar's vote for Cap and Trade is at least partially attributable to his devotion to environmental special interest groups. He could've said no. Instead, he voted with environmental extremists. Instead of representing his constituents, Rep. Oberstar voted to kill the mining industry.
That's the cost of corruption. That's too high a price for Iron Rangers.
Posted Monday, October 11, 2010 5:11 AM
No comments.
TEA Party Notes
I attended the 4th St. Cloud TEA Party event Saturday afternoon. While it was the least attended of the TEA Party events, there's actually a silver lining that shouldn't be lost on people.
I talked with the various candidates that were there: King, Steve Gottwalt and Tom Ellenbecker. Each had groups of people that would've attended had they not been out litdropping or doorknocking.
Frankly, this is an encouraging sign because people have transitioned from being TEA Party activists to being activists campaigning for principled conservatives. They're the reason why conservative candidates have covered the various legislative districts so thoroughly. These TEA Party activists turned conservative activists are providing the energy that's affecting the House and Senate races.
Pat Anderson was the highest profile speaker at the event. Pat is the former state auditor. Now she's running to get her old job back. I expect Pat to beat Rebecca Otto 3 weeks from now. Pat summed up TEA Party's motivation with this statement:
There is far more at stake than the fate of any one particular piece of legislation. Right now, we have leadership in Washington and St. Paul that believes there is no limit to government power. They continue to demand more authority and when their demands are met with resistance, they find a way to seize the power they want. Nothing stands in their way except the will of We The People.
Pat Anderson is exactly right. The TEA Party movement is about exerting the will of We The People when career politicians attempt to ignore We The People's wishes.
This isn't just a movement built out of our frustration for passing Obamacare or the bailouts or the stimulus. It's a movement built on the fact that the ruling class has ignored We The People because they think, wrongly, that they know better than know better.
TEA Party patriots have steered the ship towards personal responsibility and liberty. It's that thinking that's stirred the nation. (A recent poll said that 71 percent of Republicans think of themselves TEA Party patriots .)
While the attendance numbers weren't as audacious as past TEA Party events, the reality is that the number of people who've gotten connected to principled politicians has never been higher. In the end, that's the real story.
The TEA Party movement started as a protest to tell career politicians NO MORE!!! NO MORE!!! to politics as usual. NO MORE!!! to bringing home the bacon. NO MORE!!! to ignoring We The People.
From that audacious start to today, politicians have adopted the TEA Party movement's principles. Leaders have emerged. We The People have noticed. As a result, conservatives are poised to retake the Minnesota and U.S. House and with conservatives making up a bigger percentage of the U.S. and Minnesota Senate.
In short, they've changed the face of politics for the foreseeable future. That's worth celebrating.
Posted Sunday, October 10, 2010 10:02 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Oct-10 11:01 PM
71 percent of Republicans think Tea Party discontent can be co-opted. Big news.
How is NOT taxing the rich going to help the NON-rich?
Oh, right, I forgot.
Trickle down.
Ya sure.
Good luck 71 percent believers - and go for this: the Easter Bunny hides the eggs, while the fat guy on Christmas fits down chimneys all over the world overnight because of the flying sled and moving quickly for a portly old guy.
Delusional.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Oct-10 01:51 PM
Thanx for twisting words. Shame on you. It said that 71 percent of Republicans agree with TEA Party principles.
Make jokes if you'd like. I'd just tell you to prepare for the destruction for Democrats that's fast approaching. Then I'll ask you who was delusional & who got the elections right.
It's the Government, Stupid
If there's a theme to Lori Sturdevant's column , it would be 'It's the Government, Stupid'. Here's a sample of her column:
The complex state-local governmental web that several generations of DFL politicians helped weave may be entangling them now, as they try to convince voters that the no-new-taxes budget solution Republicans favor isn't in their best interests.
The simplicity of Emmer's message resonated with a recent crowd in Crookston, said Mike Christopherson of the Crookston Daily Times. "He spent a whole hour just tearing the Pollution Control Agency to shreds. It's just: 'Government is terrible; vote for me.'"
Mr. Christopherson's oversimplification of Tom Emmer's policies is insulting. If I lived in Crookston, I promise I wouldn't subscribe to his paper simply because he isn't into reporting accurately the policies of major statewide candidates. That's unacceptable.
What Tom Emmer is talking about with regards to the PCA is that he's opposed to having a multitude of agencies involved in regulating pollution. He wants to streamline Minnesota's regulatory regime. Instead of saying something thoughtful, and accurate, Christopherson resorts to being a political hack.
I don't know if it's because he's a hardline liberal. What I know is that Mr. Christopherson hasn't proved to me that he's willing to present the full picture to his readers. That's unacceptable.
Mr. Christopherson's statements sound like he's more attached to government than conservatives.
"In my community, you have two very distinct camps," Krebs said. "There are those who understand the importance of state government, everything from LGA [local government aid] to schools and so on. And there are those who think none of that is needed. They don't have a child in school, they don't see government involved in their jobs, and they don't get involved in their community a lot.
"People don't understand, if the state actually has to cut, how deep it's going to go."
With all due respect to Randy, there isn't talk about cutting the overall budget. Minnesota's Department of Revenue is forecasting more than $2,000,000,000 in additional revenue for the upcoming biennium than in this biennium. There are specific agencies that will be cut, possibly eliminated, in an Emmer administration.
My question for Lori Sturdevant, Randy Krebs and Mr. Christopherson is simple: Why don't you think cutting specific government agencies is healthy? Why not examine the possibility that merging the PCA, the DNR and the Agriculture Department's regulatory regimes into a single agency is a positive idea that helps eliminate the structural deficits?
Why the predisposition to the premise that all government is healthy?
But in this electoral environment, the editors said, DFLer Mark Dayton has an advantage too familiarity. He's much better known than either Emmer or the Independence Party's Tom Horner.
Minnesotans buffeted by a frightening economy and fast-changing world may not know what to think about the issues. But several generations of Minnesotans knew that the name Dayton stood for business integrity and civic betterment. Mark Dayton has been working Minnesota campaign trails for nearly 30 years, and has spent 10 of them in elective office. He's old shoe.
Will voters' familiarity with Dayton's mental health issues think of him positively? Will voters familiarity with Dayton's shutting down his DC office think he's erratic or mentally unstable or will they applaud him? I'm betting that they'll think he's unstable.
In case people haven't noticed, this isn't about familiarity. It's about whose ideas make the most sense. It's about whose plan to limit government makes the most sense. It's about who's best at building a 21st Century economy.
This isn't a popularity contest. People are dialed in. They know as much about the issues as the politicians asking for their votes. They're certainly more informed than the editorial page editors. The 2006 midterms was called the "ideology free election." This is the exact opposite.
This election is all about policy. This election is about which party's vision is the most appealing going forward. The reality is that Mark Dayton's agenda is rearward looking. There's nothing in it that's visionary.
Which DFL gubernatorial candidate hasn't talked up green jobs or growing government? Dayton's agenda is all about a link to the 1970s and growing government. That won't play well this year.
Posted Sunday, October 10, 2010 1:32 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 10-Oct-10 10:20 PM
Gary:
One point that this misguided writer wrote was that people don't see the government involved with their jobs. Um a lot of the people who are voting for Emmer are doing so because they see too much government involvement in their lifes which they consider bad.
Such as taxes denying us the right to spend our own money. Regulatations that affect how we do our job. Or rules that affects how many people a business might hire.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Pawlenty Weighs In
Tim Pawlenty has weighed in on the Emmer vs. Dayton/Horner gubernatorial race. His powerful letter outlines why picking Dayton or Horner would be a disaster and why picking Tom Emmer is the only wise choice. Here's part of Gov. Pawlenty's letter:
Nobody understands the danger of raising taxes better than Republicans, which is why my party is so energized in Minnesota and across the nation. Republicans of all stripes, moderate, conservative, and libertarian, agree with Tom Emmer's central principles: government must live within its means; we cannot raise taxes if we want to preserve existing jobs and create new jobs; and government must be reformed.The DFL has fought to maintain a 20th century government model. It isn't just antiquated. It's inefficient and it's costing Minnesota's familes far too much money. The Independance Party is nothing more than Socialist Lite. There's no reform agenda. There's just lots of platitudes about not being too far left or right.
Horner's message seems to be "I like capitalism. I just don't believe in it like Tom Emmer" The other thing Horner seems to say is "I'm for big government, just not in the same way that Dayton is."
This isn't a triangulation election. It's an election for bold choices that cost Minnesotans less money while delivering services through a 21st Century model, not a 1970s model, government agency.
If you don't believe in capitalism, you aren't trusting the people because all capitalism is is betting on human nature. Those that don't believe in capitalism wholeheartedly need to explain what part of human nature they don't believe in.
Gov. Pawlenty nails it here:
I've known Tom Horner for 30 years, and while he's a decent man, his proposals to raise billions in new taxes and allow government to grow unsustainably will take Minnesota in the wrong direction. Any Republican who votes for Tom Horner is not only helping Mark Dayton become governor, but casting a vote to undo the tax and spending cuts we've fought so hard for over the last 8 years.
Horner buys into the big spending agenda because he buys into the $5.8 billion deficit number. This am on Esme's show, Horner said that the deficit was huge was both parties' fault. WRONG. The DFL legislators wrote the bills to have supersized tails for the upcoming biennium.
They do that because then it looks like there's a huge deficit. How many people would buy that a 25 percent spending increase from this biennium to next biennium is a rational decision? Yet that's precisely what Horner and Dayton are doing.
Only Tom Emmer is saying that the deficit isn't real if you say that we don't have to increase spending as much as the DFL wrote into the spending bills. For sticking with that position, the DFL, the Shiny Object Media (PTR) and Tom Horner ridicule him when he's exactly right.
Future legislatures and future governors aren't obligated to spend what the DFL legislature wrote into last year's bills.
The bottom line is this: Tom Horner and Mark Dayton don't have a plan to create jobs. They have a plan to raise taxes and spend money we don't have. That won't give the business community confidence to put their capital at risk.
Posted Sunday, October 10, 2010 10:14 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Oct-10 10:44 PM
Trickle down failed big time, under Pawlenty. Emmer has no different flavor of anything. So, sure, Pawlenty is going to be a party-first, my way too, first individual. So what?
It is interesting that PiPress headlined the Horner situation, not mentioning Dayton as you did.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_16306144
Isn't PiPress being more direct about what Pawlenty is doing? Sabotaging Horner.
It's a calculated gamble. It might anger as many people in the middle, as cause them to back Emmer.
It probably would be a turn-off for me if I were on the fence, that side of center, but I cannot say since I already strongly favor Dayton - it's a hypothetical that means little, my reaction. Your readers in a straddle for now should weigh in on it. Helping Emmer, or not??
I suppose that's next month's item to prove. I would love to be privy to each candidate's internal polling.
You too, Gary? What they see trending, etc.? What is to be offered as news and advertisement, over the last two weeks of October.
Newt on @Issue: The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Economy Failed
Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich was Tom Hauser's guest on @Issue With Tom Hauser. As might be expected, he made the case for the conservative/TEA Party movement powerfully. I've transcribed a portion of the interview. Here's part of that transcript:
NEWT: Virtually all of the hemmorhaging in spending started with Pelosi and Reid winning in 06. You look at the Democratic Congress for 4 years and you compare it with the 4 years I was speaker, we cut taxes, they raised taxes. We balanced the budget for 4 years. They've had huge increases in deficits. We reduced unemployment. They've raised unemployment. We reduced the number of people on food stamps. They now have the largest number of people on food stamps in U.S. history.That's the starkest contrast I've heard made by a politician this year. Each of the statements are verifiable facts.
So if you have a paycheck party as Republicans and a food stamp party as Democrats and people get to choose which future you want for your kids between whether you want to earn money through a paycheck or you want to be reliant on government through food stamps, and I think the Democrats are going to have a very hard time with the high unemployment rate and the problems we're faced with.
Here's another significant part of Newt's interview:
NEWT: I want to draw a contrast. We have a clear record right now. We know that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid team favors giant, centralized government, huge programs. If you look at the impact of the health bill, where right here in Minnesota, 3M has said the result may well be that they eliminate all of the health insurance they've been buying for people who have retired from 3M.Newt also had a blueprint for how to balance budgets:
All across the country, businesses are saying that the Obama health plan is utterly destructive and will end up with more people uninsured and everyone else paying a higher price for what is really turning out to be a really bad idea.
NEWT: Not just free market forces but, having worked with Reagan to get the economy growing again out of the last big recession, and having the Contract With America, worked with President Clinton to cut taxes, first of all, the first tax cut in 16 years, reform welfare, control spending, lowest increase in spending since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s was the 4 years I was speaker, there's a lesson there: If you control government, keep spending down, get taxes down, make American businesses competitive with China and India, you suddenly create lots of jobs.The proof is in the pudding. All that happened during Newt's time as speaker is that millions of jobs were created and we experienced the first surpluses in a generation.
Compare that with what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have given us. Yes, the recession started during President Bush's administration but it's the Democrats who've passed bills that exploded the deficits.
They're pointing to the paltry private sector job numbers as proof that their policies are working. I'd argue that the paltry numbers are proof that their policies are failing. During the past recoveries, job growth jumped once the economy stabilized. Mssrs. Obama and Biden tell us frequently that the stimulus pulled us back from the brink of disaster with the clear implication that it's stabilizing.
Job growth should be exploding. It isn't. The economy should have a upward growth trajectory. It's shrinking. Still, I'm supposed to accept Biden's and Obama's statements as though they were chiseled in stone tablets on Mount Sinai? I think not.
Given the choice between the Clinton-Gingrich-Kasich economic model and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid economic model, I wouldn't hesitate in saying that I'll take the Clinton-Gingrich-Kasich economic model.
I didn't transcribe it but Newt said that Tom Emmer was following the Clinton-Gingrich-Kasich plan, which he's confident will help Minnesota return to more prosperous times.
Posted Monday, October 11, 2010 9:48 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 11-Oct-10 10:54 PM
I am glad to see you calling it the Clinton-Gingrich-Kasich model.
Clinton's name does belong there. I applaud your saying it.
On the left, nobody's happy, since Obama - Clinton - Gingrich, all of them differ only on detail, not really on substance. Outsourcing jobs, letting the labor pool inflate so workers will shut up and take less and not complain, all that. It is correct to say Bush tanked things big time and the GOP and the Dems, each bellowing about the other, have joyously done a lot of finger pointing but substantively they've collectively done little.
Obama has not been exactly a Roosevelt in using presidential powers for the better. But here's the score: I see Dayton saying tax the rich. I hope he's not being a hypocrite and just saying it to be elected. I trust he means it.
I see Emmer saying, don't tax the rich. I believe he means exactly what he says. He means it.
Hence, my gamble is on Mark Dayton.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Oct-10 04:49 PM
Obama - Clinton - Gingrich, all of them differ only on detail, not really on substance.
That's right. Their policies are practically identical. Eric, you can't seriously think that. Clinton, Gingrich & Kasich all believed in cutting regulations & cutting taxes. Obama doesn't believe in cutting regulations. He's passed tons of counterproductive regulations and $670,000,000,000 in tax increases.
If Dayton's proposed tax increases become law & if Obama's tax increases go into effect, Minnesota businesses will be devastated. Many will leave for North & South Dakota.
Hating employers might be emotionally satisfying for liberals but it's counterproductive if you want to create jobs & prosperity.
