September 19, 2012
Sep 19 02:39 WCCO cancels House Majority PAC ad buy Sep 19 03:04 Regional airport authority talks Sep 19 04:01 Being politically correct vs. getting things right Sep 19 07:07 Obama recovery hurting people Sep 19 10:49 Mitt's messaging is improving Sep 19 16:43 Is Gov. Dayton serving all of Minnesota?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
WCCO cancels House Majority PAC ad buy
It isn't often that a TV station cancels a political ad buy. To their credit, that's precisely what WCCO did with this ad :
WCCO apparently stopped airing the House Majority PAC spot on Friday, the same day the Cravaack campaign complained in writing that it is 'a blatant attempt to defame Mr. Cravaack.'
The claim is based partly on a $10-a-head luncheon with Cravaack in Duluth last year sponsored by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). Cravaack says that the $10 charge was for lunch, not for admission.
Another part of the ad that's 'incomplete' is the fact that House Majority PAC didn't talk about why Chip's leased vehicle costs $1,000 a month. There are two main drivers behind this expensive lease. First, the lease will cost more because it's a 2 year lease, which is the maximum length for a lease allowed by the rules of the House of Representatives.
Second, Chip's gone way over in terms of mileage because he's spent so much time travelling his district in staying in touch with his constituents in a sprawling 33,000 sq. mi. district. If Chip didn't stay in touch with his constituents, the vast majority of the miles he's being penalized for would disappear.
In essence, House Majority PAC is criticizing Chip for doing the right thing by his constituents.
The fact that House Majority PAC stands by their ad speaks volumes about their lack of integrity. These aren't people of integrity.
Lots of ads get put through factchecks or truth tests. There are few ads that a TV or radio station will pull because it's verifiably untruthful.
This ad is so dishonest that WCCO pulled the ad.
Tags: House Majority PAC , Corruption , Democrats , Chip Cravaack , Constituents , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Sep-12 06:31 AM
Here, you are focusing on something your people may yet again win. Hopefully not, but at least it is where your GOP has a chance. My hope would be a strong GOTV effort among the 47%, realizing CC represents the 1%. CC has been cunning, but will that be enough?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-12 07:20 AM
Chip's kept his promises to his constituents. If that's your definition of being cunning, then yes, Chip's been cunning.
Conservatives think that keeping promises is the decent, principled thing to do. We don't think it's cunnning.
Chip's fought more for the blue collar mining worker in his 2 years in office than Jim Oberstar fought for them in 8 years. If fighting for blue collar mining jobs makes Chip part of the 1% in your estimation, then I'd argue that you need to take a remedial math course.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 19-Sep-12 10:26 AM
Eric:
Just curious are you willing to admit that miners are part of the 53%? If they aren't why haven't Obama, Dayton, Saint Louis County, the environmental people have already helped to open the mines and create jobs?
Chip is doing what Obama, Dayton, and the others haven't done.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Regional airport authority talks
Monday night, the St. Cloud City Council met for a scheduled study session for the purpose of laying the groundwork for creating a regional airport authority. The meeting opened with Councilman Jeff Johnson speaking about the role that workforce infrastructure might play in attracting an airlines. Johnson teaches aviation at St. Cloud State.
Something Councilman Johnson mentioned in his address was reaching an agreement with a prospective airlines to do maintenance work in St. Cloud. Johnson said he could envision a tech college, presumably St. Cloud Tech College, offering a training course that would teach aviation maintenance.
Johnson said "Having an overnight regional airline maintenance facility at our airport would be much more cost efficient than having it in Chicago."
Johnson pointed out that St. Cloud is playing catch up because they're attempting to bring in an airline while bigger cities are attempting to keep regional air service. He cited the need for the entire community to pull together to attract regional air service, including the city, the education community and the business community.
Workforce feeder programs for pilots and maintenance personnel might tip the scales in St. Cloud's favor, Johnson said.
In an interview with retired Aviation Professor Emeritus Patrick Mattson, Professor Mattson said "St. Cloud offers plenty of open airspace and airport space that could easily accommodate aircraft maintenance."
During the study session, Mayor Kleis cited the fact that St. Cloud wouldn't be in the running for air service if not for the entire region being behind it. Mayor Kleis said that the inclusion of cities and Benton, Stearns and Sherburne County was critical to attacting the airlines' attention and consideration.
The next step in the process of creating a regional airport authority is drafting the resolution, followed by the St. Cloud City Council approving the resolution before sending the resolution to other cities and counties for their approval.
The most apparent negative to the process is St. Cloud State's unwillingness to be a team player in helping attract a regional airline. Having them on board would be seen as a positive. At this point, that isn't likely.
Tags: St. Cloud , City Council , Airlines , Workforce Development , Pilots , Maintenance , Regional Air Service , SCSU , St. Cloud Technical College , Competition , Chicago
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2012 3:04 AM
No comments.
Being politically correct vs. getting things right
Liberals were outraged when Mitt Romney said that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace. Thanks to this article , we now know that Mitt had it right:
Palestinian Authority head, Mahmoud Abbas, proposed cancelling the Oslo Accords with Israel at a weekend meeting of the PA leadership, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) told AFP on Tuesday.
PLO Executive Committee member Wassel Abu Yusef said Abbas raised the idea of "cancelling the Oslo agreement as well as the associated economic and security arrangements," at the meeting on Saturday and Sunday.
Abu Yusef said that "members of the Palestinian leadership had mixed opinions on the issue, and it was decided to postpone any decision until their next meeting," due to be held after Abbas's return from the UN General Assembly later this month. "It was the first time the Palestinian leadership put the issue of the Oslo agreement on the table since it was signed in 1993," Abu Yusef added.
Cancelling the Oslo Accords means Hamas/Fatah/the PA is free to resume their terrorist attacks. The Accords were political cover for their terrorist attacks. Nobody really thought that they'd lost their love of pushing the Jewish state into the Mediterranean.
Liberals touted the agreements as proof of the PLO's seriousness about peace. We have an agreement, they said at the time.
Conservatives laughed at the notion that that leopard had changed its spots.
The most telling thing about the media's going ballistic over Mitt Romney's statement is that they think it's wrong to state what's painfully obvious. If the media thinks it's wrong to state what's painfully obvious, what other principles do they are important?
I know this administration won't agree with this but it's time to call terrorists terrorists. Mahmoud Abbas is the leader of a government of terrorists.
Rather than sticking the nation's head in the sand and pretending like the Middle East isn't one lit match away from erupting in violence, perhaps it's time for the US to push aside this administration's fantasies that Iran can be held in check by sanctions.
Perhaps, it's time that the US government took a harder line stance with the Muslim Brotherhood.
President Obama's belief that we should coddle state sponsors of terrorism while turning our backs on our greatest allies is repulsive.
Tags: Mahmoud Abbas , Palestinian Authority , PLO , Muslim Brotherhood , Political Correctness , Terrorism , Benghazi , Iran , President Obama , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Israel , National Security , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:01 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Sep-12 06:12 AM
Outrage is over the 47% remark at the fundraiser hosted by the nude-party guy, Marc Leder.
This diversionary attempt is not going to work. Veterans grateful fot the VA are not going to like that moocher wanting a handout characterization, nor people who receive Social Security payments, as Ayn Rand did.
Concentrate on Senate and House and State races at this point.
Not that vluture and voucher helps much there, but Willard's mistepped several times too many to be taken seriously any longer, and Ryan is scary.
Your New Hampshire guy in Oberstar's seat may be sucked under the bus.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-12 06:23 AM
Dream on, Eric. Getting things right, which is what Mitt's been, will hurt President Obama.
Frankly, I'd think you'd be disgusted with the thought of the corrupt media totally ignoring President Obama's failed economic & foreign policies while hyping Mitt's dramatically overblown mistakes.
I guess you really don't care about eliminating corruption as long as it helps incompetent Democrats. That's disgusting, Eric. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Comment 3 by eric z at 19-Sep-12 06:24 AM
Also, AIPAC is weakened by the neocon war history in Iraq. Being a neocon infested thing, not entirely but to an undeniably great degree, means that AIPAC cannot as much as in the past deliver US Jewish votes; and add to that, Ryan is scary. Forced discourse on areas where vulture-voucher are weak, such as foreign policy, is not going to bode well for your folks in Main Street contests. Andy and his tout-guy Hegseth have the right idea, form a PAC and build gravitas for Hegseth's aim of challenging Franken next cycle. To to that by trying to push a few state GOP folks over the hump. Of course, I hope they fail, but at least they are not chasing pipe dreams and instead grounding their effort in actual opportunity.
Comment 4 by eric z at 19-Sep-12 06:27 AM
Gary, you bandy the word "corruption" around far too loosely. Don't get your way is not "corruption." Corruption is the wealthy not paying a fair share to maintain the nation that allowed their prosperity. You refuse to face that simple fact. You are blowing smoke.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-12 07:25 AM
Corruption is when the media ignores important stories that the American people have a right to know about.
As for the rich not paying their fair share, please put a numerical value on that so I know that it isn't forever shifting. As for raising taxes, I don't want anyone paying more taxes when the GAO's reports show $100,000,000,000 a year being wasted on duplicative programs, when the HHS IG reports that $75,000,000,000 a year is getting paid to scam artists.
If the Democrats eliminated that waste & still couldn't balance the budget, then & only then would I support a tax increase on anyone.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 19-Sep-12 10:22 AM
Eric:
Just curious with all of the distractions you're trying to throw out here why don't you answer these two simple questions.
One, do you think the PLO accept Isreal being allowed to exist. Romney has let his position be known. If you want to crtizie Romney, Gary, or me we're entitled to it.
Two, what kind of foreign policy do you want? The one where Obama waves the white flag and let Americans die even though common sense and warnings said precaution was needed or one where you get tough on enemies of American interests like the PLO?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama recovery hurting people
This devastating new study is additional proof that President Obama's economic policies are failing the American people:
According to Pew, the Census Bureau showed that the median income for American households in 2009, the official end of the Great Recession, was $52,195 (in 2011 dollars), while the median income dipped to $50,054 last year, falling 4.1 percent over two years.
'The decrease in household income from 2009 to 2011 almost exactly equaled the decrease in income in the two years of the recession,' the Pew report stated. 'During the Great Recession, the median U.S. household income (in 2011 dollars) dropped from $54,489 in 2007 to $52,195 in 2009, a loss of 4.2 percent. By this yardstick, the recovery from the Great Recession is bypassing the nation's households.'
This administration will repeat their tired lines about not returning to "the failed policies of the past 8 years" and "29 consecutive months of private sector job growth." Those lines are talking right past the American people.
The key for the Romney-Ryan ticket is to highlight the differences between free market capitalism and redistributionist policies similar to those proposed by President Obama.
President Obama can rightly say that he inherited a mess. He can't say that today's economic failures are the direct result of President Bush's policies.
His regulations and his hostility towards the mining industry and entrepreneurship have strangled this economic 'recovery'.
Median household income dropped $2,254 during the Bush Recession. Median household income dropped $2,141 during the Obama 'recovery'. Meanwhile, real unemployment is 3.6 points higher than when President Bush left office.
Almost 100 coal-fired power plants have either shut down or announced that they're shutting down as a direct result of the EPA's oppressive regulations. Finally, gas prices have more than doubled as a direct result of President Obama's wayward energy policies.
This administration's energy policy is long on bailing out Solyndra but short on promoting a robust fossil fuel energy policy.
President Obama's economic policies are strangling the economy. They aren't moving America forward.
Tags: Pew Research Center , Median Household Income , Unemployment , Gas Prices , Coal-Fired Power Plants , EPA , Regulations , Bush Recession , Obama Recovery , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:07 AM
No comments.
Mitt's messaging is improving
Mitt Romney's campaign has stumbled a bit lately by not highlighting the right things. If Matt Rhoades' memo can be trusted , that pattern will end soon:
We are experiencing the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. More Americans than ever before are in poverty or on food stamps. President Obama's government-heavy policies have not worked, and we need a new direction.
Mitt Romney places his trust in the American people, not in government. His plan includes tax relief to spur growth and increase take-home pay, trade policies that allow American companies to compete and win, and a commitment to championing small business as the engine of our economic growth. Policies like these define what an opportunity society is all about.
Mitt needs to give the American people more details to his economic plan but it's a nice start.
For instance, I'd recommend Mitt talk specifically about what he'll do to increase domestic oil exploration, how he'll streamline regulations to get coal-fired power plants back online and what he'll do about giving small businesses regulatory certainty so they'll invest their money and create the jobs we badly need.
If politicians should've learned anything from Bob McDonnell's campaign in 2009, it's that the American people are thirsting for solutions. McDonnell ran a solutions-oriented campaign. He won 76% of the independent vote.
If Mitt's messaging focuses on what and why questions, he'll win. If he doesn't, it'll be a tight fight with President Obama having a slight edge.
Mitt's right, too, in saying he trusts people over government.
According to recent polling, people prefer government leaving them alone more than they want government offering a helping hand . By putting himself on the 54% side of a 54-35% argument, Mitt Romney is siding with a strong undercurrent of public sentiment.
While it's true most voters don't hate government, it's equally true that they're frustrated with this administration's failed policies.
More than seeing President Obama's policies as having utterly failed, they see President Obama's policies as not having fixed an important problem.
While people will argue that that's splitting hairs, it's perfectly logical. People started this administration hoping President Obama would succeed in fixing America's economy.
They're thinking that the recession didn't really end.
They're thinking back to either the Clinton or Reagan recoveries and remembering America as a prosperous nation. They haven't thought that since the start of this administration.
If Mitt can talk specifically about how he'd get the economy growing without the government's heavyhanded involvement, he'll dramatically improve his chances of winning this election.
Tags: Mitt Romney , Jobs , Energy , Entrepreneurship , Capitalism , GOP , President Obama , Big Government , Regulations , Recession , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:49 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 19-Sep-12 11:34 AM
Gary:
What you didn't say in your post is critical. The public knows Obama has failed. What they need to see is that why Romney will make things better (aka the solutions).
Obama hasn't offered solutions. All he has done is say that he killed Bin Laden and saved General Motors. One a lie and the other as events showed last week it hasn't totally helped American respect and safety overseas.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-12 11:39 AM
Walter, what part of this don't you understand?
If Mitt can talk specifically about how he'd get the economy growing without the government's heavyhanded involvement, he'll dramatically improve his chances of winning this election.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 19-Sep-12 07:32 PM
Gary:
Maybe it's a difference of how I would've written the post compared with you. The point I was spefically trying to make was that Romney needed to be specific to show the public he has the solutions while Obama doesn't have a plan that will work.
While you pointed out a lot impressive things (wish you were the campaign manager for Romney compared with his wimpy consultants) that sort of got lost since you were building up to the paragraph that you highlighted for me.
Some readers might have stopped reading earlier and would've missed that point.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Sep-12 03:28 AM
I know what your point was, Walter. I merely pointed out that I addressed your point. The point is that you need to read what I wrote. If you want to express it differently, get your own blog & write it that way.
Is Gov. Dayton serving all of Minnesota?
After reading Rep. Steve Drazkowski's op-ed in the Albert Lea Tribune, voters have the right to question whether Gov. Dayton represents the special interests or all voters.
The tentative contract agreements negotiated by Governor Mark Dayton with the state's two largest unions, AFSCME and MAPE, include a 2 percent across-the-board increase beginning in January, as well as seniority-based step increases to eligible employees. For some AFSCME employees, this represents a 2.75 percent increase in fiscal year 2012 and a 4.75 percent biennial increase over the base in fiscal year 2013.
For some MAPE employees, it totals a 3.5 percent increase in fiscal year 2012 and a 5.5 percent biennial increase over the base in fiscal year 2013.
And that's not all. Along with the salary increase, the unions and Gov. Mark Dayton also maintain what can only be described as free taxpayer-paid health insurance for their members.
The new contracts total a $59 million increase in fiscal year 2013, which is $13 million more than the automatic escalations baked into the current contract. Accepting the contracts would position Minnesota taxpayers to pay for an additional $174 million for contract costs in fiscal year 2014-2015.
Having state employees pay some of their health insurance premiums like everyone else is far from unreasonable. Neither is asking for pay increases to be based on performance.
Over 50,000 state employees do not pay a dime for the premium on their state health insurance policy. In addition to their free individual coverage, state employees are given dependent coverage when they pay roughly $130 a month in total to fully cover their family. It costs taxpayers nearly $500 million per biennium to provide these 50,000 enrolled workers with fully paid health insurance premiums.
With a forecasted premium increase of 9 percent in 2013, Gov. Dayton expects taxpayers to cover these costs rather than asking state employees to pay a fair share.
If I hear unionists talk about Republicans waging war against working families, I'll clobber them. The people whose taxes pay for their salaries certainly aren't getting that type of pay increases. I'll guarantee that few taxpayers are getting their entire family insured for $130 a month in premiums.
MAPE and AFSCME apparently think they're entitled to pay raises when taxpayers are getting wages cut ( wages have dropped more during the Obama recovery than during the Bush Recession ) or they're losing their jobs outright.
These unionistas are whining constantly about "the rich" not paying their fair share. If they want to mlke that argument, they certainly aren't paying their fair share of their health insurance.
Gov. Dayton has served his special interest masters since he took office. This is just the latest 'payment' to the unions. Before this, he danced to their tune about in-home child care small business unionization. He even tried rigging that vote . Gov. Dayton did that by attempting to bypass the legislature .
At minimum, Gov. Dayton should at least pretend like he's fighting for the taxpayers. He isn't even attempting to look evenhanded. Thankfully, the subcommittee voted against this big expansion of spending.
Tags: Steve Drazkowski , Op-ed , Taxpayers , MNGOP , Mark Dayton , Special Interests , Health Insurance , Insurance Premiums , Union Contract , DFL
Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:43 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Sep-12 10:44 AM
Hmmm, your general point is valid, but my private-sector health plan only cost me $100/month for family coverage, the last I looked. Bought outside a group plan, supposedly, it's now an average $15,000/year, though, so you could be right.
Comment 2 by Terry Stone at 20-Sep-12 11:49 AM
This issue will provide the quintessential test of legislative willpower.
