September 20-22, 2012
Sep 20 05:45 Jim Graves plays on Verso workers' frustrations Sep 20 07:45 Memo to Romney Campaign Sep 20 09:57 Israel's best friend? Sep 20 13:39 What Mitt should learn from GWB Sep 21 02:22 The LWV turns to censorship at Duluth debate Sep 21 02:46 Nolan will fight for mining jobs? Who knew? Sep 21 08:00 Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? (Biden edition) Sep 22 07:57 America: the paper tiger, Act II Sep 22 09:59 DFL mayor, county commissioner, endorse Chip
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Jim Graves plays on Verso workers' frustrations
Jim Graves' first TV ad is the worst type of political advertising. It plays on laid-off workers' frustrations:
Here's the transcript of Graves' first TV ad:
GRAVES: I'm Jim Graves and I approve this message.
WORKER #1: May 28th, we had an explosion and a fire. The mill is now closed. I lost my job and so did a lot of other workers.
WORKER #2: After the fire, Michele Bachmann never called the workers.
WORKER #3: She didn't reach out.
WORKER #4: We've heard from everyone else.
WORKER #5: She's too worried about her own career to worry about anyone else.
WORKER #4: I know things can be different.
WORKER #1: We need someone focused on Minnesota's middle class.
UNIDENTIFIED WORKER: We need a representative who cares about us.
This is disgusting. In the aftermath of Verso's announcement that they wouldn't reopen the plant, workers' lives were turned upside down. That was made worse by Gov. Dayton, Sen. Klobuchar and other high profile politicians visited Sartell. Lots of news conferences were held, each reassuring workers that they were doing everything they could to rebuild Sartell's economy.
The last thing these workers needed was another high profile politician dropping in to remind them that they weren't forgotten.
What they needed was a solutions-oriented legislator who would work quietly to help unemployed workers get their lives back in order. That's what Michele's staff has been focused on since the explosion.
Once it's established that Michele is working on improving Sartell's, and Central Minnesota's, economies, this ad disappears.
After the ad, we don't know a single thing about Mr. Graves' plan for creating jobs or making life less expensive for Sixth District voters.
Mr. Graves' issues page reads more like a page of empty platitudes. Here's an example:
Strengthening the middle class - the true engine of our economy. In order to jumpstart economic growth, we need to increase aggregate demand for American goods and products. We can do this by making sure more money is in the hands of middle class consumers. In this fragile economy, we cannot afford to burden the middle class with tax hikes.
The only people who've thought about raising taxes on the middle class raised taxes on the middle class when they voted for the Affordable Care Act :
Nearly 6 million Americans, significantly more than first estimated, will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.
The only people that voted for the ACA were Democrats. Republicans voted against the middle class tax increases. Democrats voted for middle class tax increases.
That raises the question of whether Mr. Graves would vote to repeal the ACA. It's important to remember that Graves said that he thought the ACA was a great example of free market capitalism before walking that back a bit. If he wouldn't push for repeal of the ACA, why wouldn't he?
Here's another empty platitude from Mr. Graves:
Cutting meaningless, job-killing red tape. As someone who has started dozens of small businesses, I know that sometimes the best thing the government can do is get out of the way and allow the free market to thrive.
Anyone who's read this blog knows that I think the economy is getting strangled by special interests' regulations. What I need to know is which regulations Mr. Graves thinks are meaningless or that kill jobs. Without that, I don't know if his list of regulations to be eliminated are a nice gesture or if they're solutions to big problems.
Does Mr. Graves think Dodd-Frank hurts community banks and small businesses? If he doesn't think Dodd-Frank hurts community banks, why doesn't he think that? If he thinks Dodd-Frank hurts community banks and small businesses, would he push for repealing Dodd-Frank if elected? If not, why not?
Would Mr. Graves support legislation reining in the EPA, the Interior Department and the US Fish and Wildlife Service? Their regulations have hurt the US economy more than a middle class tax increase would hurt the economy.
Sixth District voters won't vote for a guy who's more about creating questions than he's about providing solutions.
That's especially true since we know where Rep. Bachmann stands on these important issues.
We know that she'll fight to repeal the ACA if she's returned to Congress. We know that she'll fight to repeal Dodd-Frank, then replace it with legislation that will end Too Big to Fail. We know that Michele will work tirelessly with other conservatives to usher in the next great domestic energy generation boom.
Voting for Jim Graves is voting for a businessman without knowing what his public policy positions are. We can't waste our vote on an unknown quantity who asks us to just trust him.
This is too important a decision for that.
Tags: Jim Graves , Verso Paper Mill , Middle Class Tax Increase , Regulations , Dodd-Frank , ACA , EPA , DFL , Michele Bachmann , Oil Exploration , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:45 AM
No comments.
Memo to Romney Campaign
This post isn't meant to disrespect the Romney campaign team. It's meant to call attention to one half of Romney's messaging needs. After reading Mort Zuckerman's latest column , it's apparent that he'd be fantastic shaping the Romney Campaign's economic message. The other part of the Romney Campaign's economic message should be Paul Ryan's responsibility.
Here's what Zuckerman said that's potentially devastating to the Obama campaign:
The Census Bureau validated what middle-class Americans know all too well from their week to week, month to month struggle to make ends meet. The typical family is back to where it was in 1995. The analysis of annual data collected by the bureau indicates that median income in 2011 had fallen to $50,054, the fourth straight year of decline in well-being, and that's adjusted for inflation.
In political terms, the Obama administration can truthfully say that the erosion had begun before the president took office, while Mitt Romney can point out that the administration spent four years of fumbling and quite failed to stop the rot.
.....
These are marginal negative movements, but they underline that the recovery touted by the administration has been the weakest in modern history.
Nobody is entitled to blow a trumpet because the unemployment rate for August can be headlined at 8.1 percent, down two digits from July's 8.3 percent. That's a drop brought about not by more jobs but because 360,000 people left the workforce. It muffles the fact that 5 million people have now been out of work for 27 weeks or more. That's roughly 40 percent of the unemployed. Another 2.6 million people were marginally attached to the labor force, and over eight million people have given up looking for a job, so they are not counted because they had not searched for work in the prior month.
This is what I've been writing about for weeks. The thing that makes this information potentially explosive is the fact that Vice President Biden told the Democratic National Convention that we'd turned the corner , that we were better off as a direct result of President Obama's leadership:
And folks, because of the decisions he's made, and the incredible strength of the American people, America has turned a corner. The worst job loss since the Great Depression, we've since created 4.5 million private-sector jobs in the last 29 months.
Mr. Zuckerman's insightful analysis undercuts Vice President Biden's foolish statements. More importantly, they demolish this administration's credibility on economic issues. When this administration's message that we've turned a corner is proven this false, then it's ripe for ridicule.
Even if he wanted to, President Obama can't admit that things have gone downhill since he took office.
He has to continue his spin that things are improving and that it's just a matter of time before the economy comes bouncing back to life.
Clearly, that won't happen with this administration in office. Businesses have shown that they aren't interested in investing in the US economy. They're interested in investing overseas where regulatory and tax policies are friendlier.
This information might make for a devastating indictment against this administration:
A reality check is offered by the unemployment numbers the government calls U-6. It measures people who have applied for a job in the last six months and also includes people who are involuntary part-time workers - government-speak for people whose jobs have been cut back to two or three days a week or who are working part-time because they have been unable to find a full-time job. That number is almost 15 percent. Include the eight million people who have simply given up looking for a job and the real unemployment rate is closer to 18 or 19 percent. These are the brutal facts behind the Census report on median income.
It's impossible to spin this. Things have gotten worse, not better, under this administration. The number of people who've given up looking for work during this administration is more than the number of people who were unemployed during the average Bush administration year.
That's a stunning statistic and a scary thought.
People know, though, that the economy stinks. What's needed is a balanced message. It's important that people are reminded of this administration's failures.
It's just that it's equally important that people hear the solutions to those problems right after they hear the laundry list of failures.
That way, they hear about the problem, then they're immediately introduced to Mitt Romney's solution. That's a devastating one-two punch to this administration's jaw.
That's precisely what Americans need to hear.
Tags: President Obama , Real Unemployment , Long-term Unemployment , Depression , Joe Biden , Stimulus , Democrats , Mort Zuckerman , Census , Median Household Income , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Sep-12 10:35 AM
By the way, notice that the "4.5 million jobs created" is a completely cherry-picked number, starting only AFTER something like 5 million jobs had been lost, and not counting the number of jobs LOST every month thereafter. Imagine that one poor guy getting hired and fired again, 4.5 million times!
Israel's best friend?
President Obama's insistence that he's Israel's best friend is taking a beating, especially after reading this article :
Tensions between Israel and the current U.S. administration further deteriorated last week when President Barack Obama refused to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his upcoming visit to New York, where he will address the UN General Assembly.It's insulting to Israel and to the Jewish community in the United States that President Obama refuses to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during what I refer to as UN week.
The White House insisted that the meeting would not take place due to the president's pressing 'campaign obligations' which would take him out of New York.
Obama has further snubbed Israeli leaders by refusing to meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who will also be in New York next week, WND news station reported.
Barak is scheduled to attend the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative, an annual summit of high-powered political and business leaders scheduled to overlap with the U.N. General Assembly.
While the President has not cited any pressing 'campaign obligations' that would take him out of New York during Barak's visit, he has, nonetheless, refused a meeting, WND reported.
While Obama will not meet any Israeli leader during their visits to New York, he will, however, find time to meet with Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.
President Obama's insistence that he's Israel's best friend is spin based on his hope that he won't get hurt too badly in Florida by his hostility towards Israel. President Obama knows that he's been the most hostile, anti-Israeli president in this nation's history.
The fact that he's meeting with Egyptian President Morsi, whose government didn't attempt to protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on 9/11, proves that President Obama hates Israel.
Tags: President Obama , Egypt , President Morsi , Muslim Brotherhood , US Embassy , Cairo , 9/11 , Benjamin Netanyahu , Ehud Barak , Israel , Florida , Election 2012
Posted Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:57 AM
No comments.
What Mitt should learn from GWB
When he left office in January, 2009, lots of Republicans were rightfully upset with President Bush. Still, it's important that Republicans learn from President Bush's re-election campaign of 2004.
Just to give a little historical perspective, I started blogging after the election in November, 2004. In September, 2004, President Bush became the first sitting president to visit St. Cloud. I joined with 15,000 of my closest friends that day at Dick Putz Field.
President Bush's speech had people jazzed. Mostly, it got them jazzed because it was a substantive speech. That morning, President Bush talked about how his tax cuts pulled us out of a post-9/11 recession. He explained that staying on the offensive against the terrorists meant that we fought them in their sanctuaries rather than fighting them here in the United States. He talked about the importance of appointing strict constructionist judges.
He didn't get into the weeds on policies but it gave activists a reason to fight for him and volunteer for a massive GOTV operation.
The point is that Mitt Romney, I think, would win if he gave the people substance in each stump speech. This isn't just about resumes. If we know anything about this election, it's that we know people are thirsting for ideas and solutions.
That's why Mitt's polling shot up when he picked Paul Ryan. Ryan immediately launched into substantive critiques of President Obama's agenda. He made the case for reforming Medicare in easy-to-understand terms. GOP enthusiasm reached its apex.
Mitt Romney needs to hit the same themes day after day, opportunity after opportunity, whether that's on Cavuto or Hannity or The View or out on the stump. Forcing the media to cover his agenda would work wonders for Mitt.
Mitt should include the EPA's shutting down coal-fired power plants while preventing new natural gas opportunities in Ohio and other Rust Belt states. He should highlight this administration's foreign policy failures, then use that as a launching pad for telling people how he'd be a better ally to Israel and how he'd go after terrorists in Iran, Yemen and Benghazi. He should talk about the need for repealing the Affordable Care Act. Finally, he should talk about being the president that will usher in the next great domestic energy boom in our nation's history.
Billy Joel wrote a song that's an odd fit for this. Here's that song:
Here's the specific part that Romney needs to excel at:
Tell her about it Tell her everything you feel Give her every reason To accept that you're for realThe lesson Mitt needs to learn is that he's got to give independents a reason to vote for him. The activists are fine with voting against President Obama. To win independents, though, he'll need to give them something substantive to win them over.
Telling independents specifically what he'll do to lower gas prices, create jobs and make them safe from terrorists must be Job One for Mitt Romney every day he's campaigning. There's no alternative.
Tags: Mitt Romney , President Bush , Stump Speech , Activists , Enthusiasm Gap , energy Policy , Regulations , Middle East , National Security , Israel , GOP , Election 2012
Originally posted Thursday, September 20, 2012, revised 21-Sep 4:59 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 20-Sep-12 07:40 PM
Gary:
Like I said in earlier post I wish you were running the Romney campaign. They will be in better shape if they were doing that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 12:38 AM
How about getting state Republicans hiring me for messaging? How about people hiring me to teach messaging? I'd get the messaging squared away in a morning.
PS- Thanks for the compliment, Walter. It's appreciated.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 21-Sep-12 12:17 PM
"The lesson Mitt needs to learn is that he's got to give independents a reason to vote for him."
I wish he'd give conservatives a reason to vote for him other than "I'm not Obama". Oh, well. He's not.
The LWV turns to censorship at Duluth debate
There was a legislative debate in Duluth Thursday night. A loyal reader of this blog called me afterwards so I asked what the most newsworthy thing from the night was. My friend first told me that the League of Women Voters were one of the sponsors of the debate. Then my friend said that the thing conservatives were most talking about after the event was the lengths to which the LWV-MN went to prevent audience participation.
According to my friend's report, the audience was instructed not to applaud or boo any of the candidates. The LWV-MN then made it clear that any such 'participation' would earn the 'participant' a police escort out of the debate hall.
The threat was credible because 2 uniformed law enforcement officers were stationed inside the debate hall.
This is appalling behavior for the LWV-MN, though I can't say that it's surprising. It isn't, unfortunately. The reality is that the LWV-MN has been drifting further left each year. They aren't the organization they once were.
The LWV-MN of 20 years ago would've insisted on voter participation. The St. Cloud chapter of the LWV invited questions about photo ID when they held a townhall meeting in St. Cloud last March. I know because I asked one of the questions.
What caused the LWV-MN to change their practices this dramatically? Why did they go from accepting written questions from the audience in March to threatening removal of people if they uttered a peep in September?
What caused this once-proud organization to turn into an organization that appreciates censorship?
It's time the LWV-MN got called out for turning into just another organization of left-leaning political hacks. Citizen participation should be welcomed, not frowned upon. Censorship should be criticized, not tolerated.
It's worth noting that a 'civility organization' handed out sheets on what would or wouldn't be allowed.
It's a sad day in Minnesota when citizen participation is denied but censorship is viewed as a necessity.
Tags: League of Women Voters-MN , Duluth , Debate , Censorship , Citizen Participation , Partisanship , Elections
Posted Friday, September 21, 2012 2:22 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Sep-12 07:41 AM
Pack with claques? Is that your party's policy? It seems a bit defective to me. It is what was done back when town hall meetings were intentionally disrupted.
And, have you read about Paul Ryan's townhall meetings, and how dissent is handled? No problem, since it is your champion, who you do not want heckled?
An interesting perspective. I applaud you not saying "LWV thugs," i.e., not using a favored usage for anybody on the other side of an issue from your party.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 08:03 AM
Eric, why did the LWV permit audience participation when they thought the room was filled with people that agreed with them but they wouldn't permit audience participation when opposing views were in the audience?
Isn't that the definition & purpose of censorship?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 08:06 AM
Eric, Handling hecklers at a campaign event is entirely different. A campaign has the right to control its audience.
The LWV, we're told, is nonpartisan. Their events are meant to inform & invite citizen participation.
Comment 4 by Aaron Brown at 21-Sep-12 08:37 AM
Really? I mean, really? The reason they have these rules is so that the candidates can speak and people can hear them. When you allow cheering and booing the campaigns stock the crowd with people to cheer or boo so they can say that they "won." When that happens the debates are asinine and useless. Shouting down candidates is not free speech, it's the very thuggery you doth protest.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 08:54 AM
You're kidding, right? Isn't there an acceptable middle ground, where people can participate but where being boorish isn't allowed?
The LWV's restrictions make as much sense as school's zero tolerance policies.
What happened to using the tools of wisdom & judgment? Why aren't we using them instead of the sledgehammer of censorship?
Comment 6 by Kristin Larsen at 21-Sep-12 12:10 PM
A couple years ago I attended a Cravaack Oberstar debatein GR, the audience was so rude (almost all of it from Cravaack supporters) that I found it sickening. Instead of acting like citizens listening to candidates explain their views it was like listening to a boxing match. The audience intentionally flashed cameras when Oberstar was trying to formulate an answer. I think you really have to be disingenuous to say LWV did anything wrong. What they did was try to make it an experience where people could learn.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 03:33 PM
Kristin, With all due respect, the LWV hasn't been nonpartisan in a decade. Their actions last night were reprehensible. If they didn't want a repeat of 2010, they could've found a middle ground solution. I know they could've because I thought of that solution less than a minute after reading Aaron Brown's comment. Instead, they chose censorship.
Comment 7 by Bob J. at 21-Sep-12 12:16 PM
Maybe, Gary, because some idiots at the Cravaack - Oberstar debate in 2010 ruined it for everyone else.
I don't condone the idea of censorship of a public event either. But perhaps they said it was time for everyone to get out of the pool after that.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 04:16 PM
Bob, Don't blame the LWV's decision on Chip. That morning, the unions were attempting to dominate the responses. I know because I watched the livestream of the event. Chip's people stood up for their guy. Good for them.
The undeniable truth is that the LWV had other options than the nuclear option. I know because I thought of a measured response within a minute of reading Aaron Brown's comment. It isn't that difficult to figure out.
Nolan will fight for mining jobs? Who knew?
According to Bill Hanna's article , Rick Nolan said that he'll fight for creating mining jobs. (Presumably, he means that he'll fight for those mining jobs with both arms tied behind his back.)
Nolan on Wednesday morning called on Cravaack to participate in a debate on the Iron Range, pointing to Debate Minnesota's offer of an Oct. 25 event.
"The voters of the Iron Range deserve to be a part of the discussion on the critical issues facing their community," said Nolan. "There is a clear choice in this election. Congressman Cravaack has been all talk and no action when it comes to creating jobs and growing the industries that are so important to the working families on the Iron Range. I will fight for mining, timber and manufacturing jobs, strengthening the middle class and protecting Medicare and Social Security for future generations. Given that Congress will be taking a two month vacation beginning next week, I see no reason why Congressman Cravaack can't find time in his schedule for this important conversation."
Nolan's words are exceptionally empty considering this quote :
Nolan refused to support the House bill, or the larger rush to take environmental laws off the books, saying successful mining can occur with thorough environmental review and safety regulations.
"I would support the parts of the bill that streamline the process when possible," Nolan said. "But that bill does a great deal more than that...It guts basic environmental, health and safety protections...Democrats and Republicans both support mining. The difference is that Democrats insist on rules and regulations to protect human and environmental health."
Nolan's statement that "Democrats and Republicans both support mining" is true in a general sense. Some Democrats support mining-first policies. DFL politicians like Nolan think mining jobs shouldn't ruin the pristine landscape. Does this look like pristine wilderness?
Chip Cravaack has fought the EPA and the MPCA hard since getting to Washington. This administration's EPA has been particularly anti-mining.
The rules currently in place wouldn't just prevent PolyMet from becoming reality. They'd bankrupt Iron Range cities. They're that expensive to implement.
Rick Nolan insists that the EPA's regulations are perfectly appropriate. Iron Range cities and mining companies vehemently disagree with Mr. Nolan's opinion.
Tags: Rick Nolan , EPA , Environmentalists , DFL , Chip Cravaack , Mining , Advocate , PolyMet , Debates , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, September 21, 2012 2:46 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Sep-12 07:37 AM
Pollution does not stay at the mining site. You know that. So, what's the point of that image?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 08:10 AM
The company has to put in place the infrastructure that treats pollution. If they don't, they don't get the EPA permits.
What part of that don't you get?
BTW, is it your intention to bankrupt small cities & keep hard-working people unemployed?
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 21-Sep-12 09:37 AM
Wow Nolan must have a poll that he is losing the iron range vote. Hopefully they will remember to vote for Romney too.
Not to mention this looks like a typical democrat solution. Have a debate there so that shows I support you.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? (Biden edition)
During his speech at the Democrats' convention, Vice President Biden asked whether Osama bin Laden was better off now than he was 4 years ago. Since he set that benchmark, it's only fair to use that criteria across North Africa and the Middle East. Charles Krauthammer's column provides proof that life's pretty good for some disgusting people:
Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad 'meeting' his international 'obligations.' The Gulf states beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain...Israel. Sovereign U.S. territory is breached and U.S. interests are burned.
Life couldn't get much better for state sponsors of terrorism and traditional American enemies. They know that they're on easy street. They know President Obama's foreign policy of appeasement is good for bad guy business.
In a very real sense, Iran, Russia and Syria are much better off today than they were 4 years ago. In fact, it won't take long before Iran's mullahs will be insufferable and unstoppable. Just a little more enrichment and they'll have a nuclear weapon. By any sane administration's measure, that means Iran is the biggest winner in President Obama's high-stakes gamble.
Meanwhile, trusted allies like Israel and Poland were thrown under the bus. President Obama sent the final unmistakable message to Israel when he accepted a meeting with Egyptian President Morsi while refusing to meet with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu or Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
President Obama's message to the Israelis was simple: Drop dead. We don't care.
Another unmistakable message this administration sent was during the protests of the rigged Iranian elections of 2009. This administration's message to the protesters was equally clear: Drop dead. We're siding with the mullahs, not with Iran's freedom-loving people.
Things are badly wrong when the people that should fear the US are smiling and the people that trust the US are worried and fidgeting. That's where we're at right now.
To adapt a phrase from a legendary story, there's no joy in Worldville tonight. The One just made the world a nastier neighborhood.
Tags: President Obama , Foreign Policy , Iran , Russia , Syria , Oppressive Regimes , Democrats , Israel , Poland , Green Revolution , Liberty
Posted Friday, September 21, 2012 8:00 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Sep-12 11:13 AM
Sept. 2008 is when Bush and his Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary crashed the markets when Leahman was eliminated as a GS competitor. We are clearly better off.
Romney's schmoozing bacground with Netanyahu makes it essential that the question not asked yet should be asked, were we having an attentive and fair press.
Is Romney committed 100% to keeping Jonathan Pollard in prison for the remainder of his life for betraying the nation?
Just answer that.
Never mind the south Florida PAC activity featuring Netanyahu in an attempt to impose foreign policies re Iran upon our nation and to tamper in our election processes in ways most would say are improper.
Just, keep Pollard in the jug, or not?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-12 03:43 PM
That's also when President Obama's incompetent Treasury Secretary had his fingers in the TARP bailout. Since then, Geithner's ideas have been failures. The bailouts have kept coming. Community banks are significantly worse off because of Dodd-Frank, which Geithner supported.
Meanwhile, an entire region of the world is rioting against the U.S. That certainly didn't happen with President Bush in office. In fact, most nations sided with President Bush. Again, we're much worse off today than we were 4 years ago.
Thanks to President Obama's shafting Israel, they've felt the need to fight for their lives through American politics. The nation that's supported liberty-loving people around the world suddenly said with their actions that they'd flip liberty-loving people under the bus in their attempt to appease Iran. If you want to argue that that's made the world a safer place, have at it. I look forward to ridiculing you if you choose that path.
As for Pollard, I haven't heard Netanyahu or Romney talk about him. That means his prison status isn't on their radar screens. The issue is moot. He'll die in prison.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 21-Sep-12 10:04 PM
Eric:
Keep in mind what crashed the markets in 2008 was the house mortage crisis. So what caused it?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in need of reform especially not guaranteeing every mortgage (so they had no standards to be paid out). President Bush proposed a plan. Maxine Waters said Fannie Mac and Fredie Mae were doing just fine. Barney Frank saw no problem. In the Senate, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama, filibustered the reform legislation, in part because they took campaign contributions from Countrywide Mortage and got prime loans blocked it.
It seems to me your gripe is with the Democrats who did nothing, including the current President.
Just another reason why, if you vote the way you post, that you're voting for Mitt Romney because you can't stand the damage he did to the country.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
America: the paper tiger, Act II
In 1979, Islamic extremists raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. In 1983, U.S. Marines were ordered out of Beirut after a massive attack killed 241 Marines. In 1993, the Clinton administration ordered U.S. troops out of Somalia after al-Qa'ida terrorists shot down a U.S. Blackhawk helicopter in Mogadishu.
UBL summarized the lesson al-Qa'ida learned from those experiences during an interview with ABC News' John Miller:
Miller: You have said, "If the Americans are so brave they will come and arrest me." Do you think that is something my country will try?
Bin Ladin: We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions, showing they can run in less than twenty-four hours. This was then repeated in Somalia.
It's easy to understand why UBL reached that conclusion. His mistake isn't that Americans haven't fled hotspots. It isn't just that Americans have looked impotent. It's that American presidents have contributed to U.S. soldiers looking impotent by having them flee after terrorist attacks.
The lesson that President Bush learned from these lessons is that terrorists are terrified when U.S. soldiers don't hide from adversity. Terrorists are most worried when U.S. soldiers run towards hotspots. Unfortunately, President Obama didn't learn that lesson. He 'learned' that it's best to be timid, to talk in civil tones to barbarians. That's what he did here :
The president said the disputed election would not change his belief in greater diplomatic efforts with Iran.
'I have always felt that, as odious as I feel some of President Ahmadinejad 's statements (are), as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on core issues, the use of tough hard headed diplomacy, diplomacy without illusions, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of national security interests," the president said. 'We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries.'
That's what ABC's Kristina Wong wrote on June 15, 2009 during the Green Revolution. What the Iranian mullahs heard was that President Obama was giving them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. They essentially heard President Obama say he was ambivalent to the protests.
A short 39 months later, North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia have erupted in anti-American violence. The people serving in the U.S. embassy in Pakistan are only safe because the embassy compound is surrounded with a wall of tear gas. The consulate and annex, aka the safehouse, in Benghazi, Libya are decimated, the ruins the product of a well-planned, coordinated terrorist attack.
This is a great political opportunity for Mitt Romney because it's a great opportunity for him to explain his vision and strategy for the Middle East, Southwest Asia and North Africa. Simply saying that a Romney administration would a) have an open door relationship with Israel, b) use covert assets to prevent terrorist attacks and c) condition foreign aid on nations' willingness to partner with the U.S. in preventing the security nightmares currently erupting around the Mediterranean.
That would dramatically differentiate Mitt's foreign policy from President Obama's failed foreign policy.
Tags: Paper Tiger , Blackhawk Down , Somalia , Bill Clinton , Beirut , President Reagan , Tehran , Hostage Crisis , Ayatollah Khomeini , Jimmy Carter , Benghazi , Pakistan , Terrorist Attacks , Embassies , President Obama , Israel , Covert Operations , Foreign Aid , National Security , Mitt Romney , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:57 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Sep-12 06:47 AM
Is your point that the US should not attempt to remain on friendly relations with foreign powers? If you want to fight Iran, pick up a weapon big guy, and go for it. Sane Republican foreign policy, Ron Paul version, is against that kind of neocon Rambo stupidity - and your embracing W and Iraq and Afghanistan financed by credit card with the Chinese seems a wonked economic policy designed to ship national wealth overseas.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-12 07:23 AM
Eric, Why do you think RP is so smart? This is the guy who said a border fence might be used to keep Americans in.
Guess what? That credit card that liberals whine about to pay for 2 wars under Bush is being used on bailouts for Obama's biggest bundlers on scams like Solyndra, cash for clunkers & other meaningless crap that's been forgotten.
President Bush's 'credit card' liberated 50,000,000 people while keeping unemployment under 6% for 7 of his 8 years.
President Obama's credit card has kept unemployment above 8% for 43 straight months while feathering the nests of his biggest political allies, people in the 'evil 1%'.
Think for yourself for a change. Don't buy everything the machine feeds you. You'll find it liberating.
DFL mayor, county commissioner, endorse Chip
It was a major accomplishment when the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 endorsed Chip Cravaack . It's just as big an accomplishment that 2 DFL politicians from the Iron Range cities have endorsed Chip :
Cravaack this week touted the endorsements of Ely Mayor Roger Skraba and St. Louis County Commissioner Mike Forsman, both Democrats, in the 8th Congressional District race. But Nolan supporters say they're confident the Democrat will draw out voters in the area.
Skraba and Forsman endorsed Duluth City Council member Jeff Anderson in the DFL primary, which he lost to Nolan. Mining has been a key issue.
"The Democratic Party has gone too green for some of us in northeastern Minnesota," Skraba said. "They care more about the environment than jobs and people."
Some unions are doing their best to limit the damage:
But Bob Bratulich, director of the United Steelworkers District 11, said he expects the union to endorse Nolan soon and scoffed at the idea that Cravaack is stronger on mining issues. Bratulich said the first-term congressman is just pandering to voters.
"He talks a good game. He knows the issues, and he talks about them," he said. "We're supportive of these mining projects, but they have to be done right. And that's what Rick's been saying."
What Mr. Bratulich won't say is that Chip "talks a good game" because his actions back up his words. It's amazing that Mr. Bratulich won't admit that Chip's genuinely interested in making mining a reality.
But there's hope for a mining rebirth. Outside of Skraba's town of Ely, a company hopes to tap copper and nickel reserves and operate the largest underground mine in Minnesota history. Twin Metals says the mine could employ more than 1,000 people.
Another copper mine, PolyMet, is in the works near Hoyt Lakes and further along in the planning and regulatory process.
Cravaack supports rolling back mining regulations and shortening the environmental review process. Nolan has said he does not support those changes.
If the EPA, Conservation Minnesota and Alida Messinger weren't intent on killing the mining industry, PolyMet and Twin Metals would've already gotten their permits. The EPA's regulations, if implemented beyond these proposed mining sites, would bankrupt the cities on the Range.
Skraba, who supports Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Gov. Mark Dayton, both Democrats, said his support for Cravaack goes beyond his stance on mining. Cravaack has backed the Boundary Waters land swap, in which the state would trade land there for federal land outside the federal wilderness area that could be mined and logged, and protects gun owners' rights.
"I vote for the person, not the party," Skraba said. "He exemplifies more of what I'm looking for in a candidate. And that's who is going to help Ely most."
If you look at Chip's initiatives, it's pretty clear he's sincere in fighting for things that matter to the Iron Range. At some point, the DFL will have to admit that this isn't an act by Chip. If they don't admit that, then they'll look foolish and petty.
Tags: Endorsements , Roger Skraba , Ely , Mike Forsman , St. Louis County , Mining , Land Swap , Education , GOP , Rick Nolan , Environmentalists , Alida Messinger , Conservation Minnesota , EPA , Unions , Bob Bratulich , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:59 AM
Comment 1 by Bud at 30-Sep-12 08:38 AM
More interesting commentary from Tom Rukavina.
http://www.timberjay.com/stories/Rangers-dont-want-to-become-sherpas,10578
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Sep-12 09:04 AM
Thanks Bud.
