September 5-13, 2015
Sep 05 10:59 The wrong metric Sep 08 01:49 Obama's Labor Day diatribe Sep 08 11:12 Pope Francis vs. Cardinal Burke? Sep 08 18:27 DFL dodges Dill decision Sep 10 15:39 Sarah Palin's disastrous drop Sep 12 22:48 The greatness that was Bob Hope Sep 13 01:34 Vote no on Tech/Apollo referendum Sep 13 16:02 Vote no on Tech/Apollo rip-off
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
The wrong metric
By now, conservatives everywhere know that Donald Trump utterly failed his test on what he knew about terrorism, which I wrote about in this article . There's no questioning whether Mr. Trump's supporters will continue supporting him. They're certain that he's capable of walking on water or, at minimum, of hiring someone who will walk on water for him.
Thankfully, Jonah Goldberg has written this article about how normally principled people have had their principles disappear (my words, not Jonah's) when they talk about Mr. Trump. One of the principled people who didn't think this through is HotAir's Allahpundit. This post highlights the fact that AP is answering the wrong question. Here's the part of AP's post that I'm talking about:
I don't think there's a straight line between better knowledge as a candidate to having more success abroad once in office, but I doubt Hewitt would say so either. The questions he asked Trump were really proxies, I think, for testing how seriously he takes the threat from jihadis. As a general but certainly not firm rule, the more worried you are about Iran, ISIS, and expansionist Islamist groups, the deeper into the weeds you're willing to go to learn who they are. (Interestingly, Rand Paul the most dovish candidate in the GOP field and a strident Trump critic otherwise, sided with Trump today in knocking Hewitt's questions as gotchas.) That's also why, I assume, Hewitt presses nearly every candidate he interviews about whether they've read 'The Looming Tower,' Lawrence Wright's book about the rise of Al Qaeda and 9/11. He's probing their intellectual curiosity about jihadism, I take it, as a measure of how alert they are to the risk and how committed they'd be as president to defeating it. How'd Trump do on that metric?
The correct answer, I think, is 'voters won't care.'
The right answer isn't "voters won't care." The right answer is that Donald Trump didn't prove he understood terrorism. In fact, he proved that he wasn't that interested in the subject. AP's answer is only right if you're asking what the political consequences are to Trump's campaign.
That's setting the bar far too low. Presidential campaigns should be thought of as extended job interviews. Think of it this way. If you owned a business, would you hire an applicant to be your accountant that didn't know the difference between assets and liabilities? Would you hire an applicant to be your accountant who didn't know the difference between income and expenses? If you said you wouldn't hire those applicants to be your accountant, why would you hire Trump to be the next commander-in-chief to be the next person to fight and eliminate the terrorist threat?
Posted Saturday, September 5, 2015 10:59 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Sep-15 12:49 PM
You're joking about the campaign being a job interview, right? Obama was elected TWICE even though everyone knew he was not qualified to do the job. Obama knew nothing and still knows noting about terrorism, foreign policy, the economy, etc.
I believe the reason Trump is currently ahead in the polls is that most people are sick and tired of politics and politicians as usual and they want something different. Trump is different and is talking about issues that concern most people and is talking TO the people instead of over or under them as most politicians have done in the past. It's really no different than what Obama did in 2008 and 2012. He got people interested in what he was saying even if there wasn't any substance to what he was saying. If the other GOP candidates can't figure out how to sell themselves better than saying "I'm going to fight for you", the Trump sideshow might just be the ticket people have been waiting for. I hope not and there's still a lot of time between now and November 2016 for a candidate to shine.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Sep-15 04:13 PM
Actually, I couldn't be more serious. The campaign should be a job interview. It isn't my fault that few people didn't figure that out. It isn't my fault that We The People have gotten so transfixed on celebrity rather than on qualifications.
As for Trump leading in the polls, I attribute it to We The People not figuring it out that they're making a false choice between the "all-talk-no-action" idiots in DC and Mr. Trump.
The other option (actually the best option) is to pick someone who isn't from Washington but who is actually qualified for the job.
The fact that people failed that responsibility the last 2 elections doesn't give us permission to fail that responsibility this election.
I've talked frequently with friends. I agree that DC politicians have failed us. (My congressman has failed me.)
What's disheartening isn't that people hate Obamacare when he supports it. It's disheartening that, in the same poll, people support Obamacare when Mr. Trump supports it.
It's our responsibility to get it right this time. That means not running from the foundational principles that this nation was built upon.
This nation's foundational principles don't change. They're as solid a foundation as any nation was built upon. Swap out one name & swap in another name. Fine.
The principles remain the same.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 06-Sep-15 06:50 AM
A VERY fruitful and necessary discussion, and I would like to go one step further with it. I have complained (to NO listeners) for years that one of the country's biggest problems is this seeming belief that, if we just elect the RIGHT person as President, that will solve all of our problems and we can go flop down on the couch for 4 more years. This is compounded by the fact that, IMHO, 40% of voters are "low information voters" and 40% more are "MISinformation voters." Trump appeals to both groups because he makes them feel smart, by echoing their gut feeling that Washington is "broken" and not doing the job (of fixing all problems), while reassuring them he, and probably he alone, can fix it. He has properly identified the general problem, but doesn't really have any workable, specific solutions. Those 80% won't care.
And Republicans still haven't figured that out.
Comment 4 by eric z at 06-Sep-15 07:51 AM
Isn't there, in Trump and the seventeen, a bit of the old saying, "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king?"
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 06-Sep-15 01:16 PM
Gary:
A key part where Trump is failing the question and missed by AP unless you're able to define the threat so the American people can see how serious it is the President won't be able to get Congress to approve the necessary use of military forces.
Keep in mind in 2008 and 2012 one reason why Obama was passing his job interview was because he was saying exactly what the American people wanted to hear.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by Gretchen Leisen at 06-Sep-15 04:20 PM
Newt Gingrich said today that the reason Trump is leading is that Trump is talking like a winner and the people are tired of losing and want a winner. Donald Trump is not my favorite candidate, but his observation that Jeb Bush [and perhaps most of the others as well] is a low energy sort of guy. What we need is a high energy person who is willing to take on the liberals/socialists and the news media types who are always trolling to trip up the GOPers and never challenge the Democrat candidates.
The issues of today are the rotten economy, the threat to our national security by terrorists, a weakened military with a lousy foreign policy, a country divided by race, and uncontrolled borders. Where has our country gone? It does not look like the country of my childhood, and neither does it look a bit like the country we had 20 years ago.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 06-Sep-15 04:50 PM
Well put, Gretchen. Trump sounds good but he isn't qualified. I don't want someone that sounds fantastic but isn't qualified.
We've suffered through 7 years of that already.
Comment 8 by eric z at 14-Sep-15 09:35 AM
Newt said the same "talking like a winner" thing Sarah Palin said?
Gee.
Is either of the two of them relevant any longer?
Obama's Labor Day diatribe
I wish I could say that I'm surprised with President Obama's Labor Day diatribe but I'd be lying if I said that. If people haven't noticed by now, 2 of President Obama's dominant character traits are his love of NBA-style trash-talking and his inability to resist bragging up his pathetic economic policies. Simply put, he's a legend in his own mind. He's also a confirmed liar.
Part of the freshest proof that he's a confirmed liar is when he said "The fact is the verdict is in: Middle-class economics works." Mr. President, that isn't a fact. That's an opinion. Actually, it's an opinion that's shared only within the farthest left part of the Democratic Party. Vice President Biden doesn't even believe that . Mr. President, if "middle class economics" is working, why did Vice President Biden say that "the U.S. economy" was "devastating for workers"? Mr. President, if "middle-class economics" work, why are the U.S. economic policies you've put in place producing the most anemic 'sustained' economic growth since the Great Depression?
This part of President Obama's speech is exceptionally ironic:
'Unfortunately, there are some folks in Washington and some folks who are trying to get to Washington who don't want to face these facts : in their world, the only way to help the country grow and help the country get ahead is to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires.'
'And then you just wait,' he said, 'you look up at the sky and prosperity will come raining down on us from whatever high rise is in your city. But that's not how the economy works. These folks are pretty stubborn. I will give them credit. They don't let facts or evidence get in the way.'
Mr. President, why do you insist that your opponents "don't let facts or evidence get in the way" of their economic arguments when it's you that has ignored anemic GDP statistics and things like the Workforce Participation Rate, which is at its lowest rate in 38 years? If "middle-class economics" works, why are 94,000,000 people who normally would be in the workforce not looking for work?
The truth is that President Obama's policies are failed policies. It's time to stop this disaster. It's time to implement pro-growth economic policies. It's time to roll back 90% of the Obama administration's job-killing regulations.
President Obama still hasn't admitted that you can't be for a strong middle class and anti-job creators.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2015 1:49 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-Sep-15 08:02 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget the things that the President is ignoring.
People who are campaigning for his job want to put in a sound energy policy to lower energy costs for Americans.
People who are running for his job realize that there have been a lot of government regulations which are ruining economic growth.
People who are running for his job realize that the Federal reserve printing lots of free money isn't generating economic growth.
People who are running for his job have looked at what Obama said the economy will perform if the stimulus bill worked and have realized it's a failure.
The people who are running for his job have realized that even though interest rates were far higher in 1980 than today it was the tax cuts that caused the 1980 economic recovery.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Pope Francis vs. Cardinal Burke?
Pope Francis' political agenda is finally meeting with substantial resistance. Cardinal Raymond Burke issued a warning to Pope Francis, saying "The pope does not have the power to change teaching [or] doctrine."
Since becoming pope, Francis has embarked on a liberal political agenda that isn't well thought out. I wrote about a pair of his disasters in this post . Pope Francis' closest advisor "castigated conservative climate change skeptics in the United States Tuesday, blaming capitalism for their views." The other heresy propagated by Pope Francis was the Vatican "officially [recognizing] the state of Palestine in a new treaty finalized Wednesday."
Based on what we've seen thus far, Pope Francis isn't a man of faith. Instead, he's apparently a man with deeply held political beliefs.
A staunch conservative and Vatican bureaucrat, Burke had been demoted by the pope a few months earlier, but it did not take the fight out of him. Francis had been backing a more inclusive era, giving space to progressive voices on divorced Catholics as well as gays and lesbians. In front of the camera, Burke said he would 'resist' liberal changes - and seemed to caution Francis about the limits of his authority. 'One must be very attentive regarding the power of the pope,' Burke told the French news crew.
It's understandable that a pope would want to sound inclusive. It's also wrong when it contradicts the teachings of the Bible. It's one thing to offer forgiveness to repentant sinners. That's the true nature of forgiveness. It's another to provide political cover for unrepentant sinners. That's known as appeasement. HINT: There's nothing virtuous about appeasement.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2015 11:12 AM
Comment 1 by Charles J Murphy at 09-Sep-15 08:22 AM
Cardinal RL Burke has become enamored with his own media clippings. He has become dangerously self-exalting and judgmental. He wallows in self-pity from a completely normal reassignment by the one to who he swore obedience...even to death as a cardinal. The patronage of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI is over and the Cardinal cannot adjust.
When he was Bishop of LaCrosse in Wisconsin he was not kind, gentle or respectful to those who felt his authority. Was he concerned about that? No. He was, in his mind, completely justified and compelled to do so. "The measure you measure with will be measured back to you," said the Savior.
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Sep-15 04:39 PM
What is Burke's church position, Cardinal out of which order, which nation/continent? Hat tip to Charles Murphy, where if I get the drift correctly, Burke is a midwestern American, and has not had international seasoning to any great degree, but now holds a position within the Vatican, itself. Not being of that belief, I am unfamiliar with the man behind the name, so a sentence or two, or an addiitonal link might help. From what position within the church does he criticize, and does he base his criticism on church precedent of long standing, or is he navigating seat of the pants, gut feeling, whatever metaphor fits? Last, when the College of Cardinals elects a Pope, isn't it to lead, not to be a quiet Vatican janitor? In particular, out of which order? Last, that sentence in the linked item, " 'One must be very attentive regarding the power of the pope,' isn't that in some way related to Burke's own possible inattentiveness, and a subsequent demotion, as the linked article almost implied?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Sep-15 06:30 PM
This pope isn't a great man of faith. He's a progressive secularist with few redeeming qualities.
Comment 3 by eric z at 14-Sep-15 09:30 AM
After a bit of websearch: Burke sticks his nose into politics and disrespects Sheryl Crow. He opposes fetal stem cell research. He contends divorce/remarriage is mortal sin. He was elevated to Cardinal by Ratzinger. On the whole, a disruptive force for counterproductive backward-thinking things. Hopefully he enjoys being head of the Knights of Malta, his duty in the Church hierarchy; as assigned him by the Pope. It seems to be an easy job allowing Burke much bloviating time, which he seems to not manage too well.
Comment 4 by eric z at 14-Sep-15 09:31 AM
There is not a thing wrong with progressive secularism.
Comment 5 by eric z at 14-Sep-15 09:53 AM
Wikipedia entries on Cardinal Burke, and on Canon 915 are interesting on the question of separation of Church and State. Burke not denying that separation of the two is proper, but wanting to deny sacraments to politicians with those advancing secular-question positions with which he disagrees. Family liberty re abortion and the scientific community's use of fetal tissue research being primary examples. Ben Carson has done fetal tissue research, so he is what to the good Cardinal, a mortal sinner?
Comment 6 by Wes V at 14-Sep-15 09:13 PM
Kind of gross, pun intended, to have a nobody like you proclaim that Pope Francis is not a man of faith, but in effect, just a mere liberal politician - simply because, after a series of very conservative Papal leaders in Paul, John Paul and Benedict, you can't handle a different philosophy - perfectly legitimate, but certainly upsetting to the status quo thinking - coming in for the 4, 5 years that he'll likely serve in the office.
Mind you, this is the very humble servant of God, who eschews many of the overwrought trappings of the Papacy, who serves the poor and the infirm, who washes the feet of the most humble of those he serves, and who has continued to provide leadership in Rome to the millions of Catholics around the world.
Shame on you for both ignoring the teachings of this Pope, and demeaning the Holy Father of the Catholic Church.
Don't worry, Gary. After John's transformative 5 years, it took 50 years to bring another like-minded Pope. I'm sure the College of Cardinals will reverse the course with Francis's successor, and perhaps bring you another Pius for the 21st Century.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Sep-15 12:22 AM
Notice that Wes, at no point, did anything to refute my arguments.
DFL dodges Dill decision
David Dill was a diehard mining advocate. Following his death, though, the DFL doesn't want to hold an endorsing convention , most likely to avoid a fight between the pro-mining parts of the Iron Range DFL and the anti-mining progressives. Paul Fish, the DFL chairman of the district, issued a statement on why they chose not to hold an endorsing convention, saying "The residents of House District 3A lost a true champion with the passing of Rep. David Dill. The voters of 3A deserve the opportunity to select the DFL candidate who best represents their interests. Therefore, a DFL endorsing convention for the 3A seat will not be held. Participation in the September 29th primary is encouraged."
What's interesting about that decision is that Bill Hansen, "a favorite of many progressive party activists, was also widely favored to win the endorsement." This throws everything up in the air. Is Fish trying to hide Mr. Hansen's anti-mining credentials? What's known is that Rob Ecklund has a major endorsement from US Steel. While I don't know the district that well, I'd have to think that the candidate with a major endorsement like that should be the favorite.
Posted Tuesday, September 8, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Sep-15 09:44 AM
One of the things I would be looking for very carefully is to see if the DFL doesn't secretly push their "favorite" in ways inappropriate (not that the DFL understands the word) for a local party committee.
Nothing stops them from endorsing AND a primary. What are they trying to pull?
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Sep-15 04:24 PM
Tom Bakk is an idiot. A turncoat. Sure, off point a bit, but I wanted to get the thought off my chest.
J. Ewing - Misunderstand what word? "Favorite," or "push?"
Comment 3 by WSMM at 14-Sep-15 08:04 AM
The range knows very well about what Hansen is about and his environmental activist history. In the middle part of 3A he has as much love as Becky Rom.(Sarcasm)
A straight forward answer where he stands. Background information on where environmental activist Bill Hansen turned candidate Bill Hansen in 3A stands.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2250&dat=20040705&id=j8RkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pIYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3389,2736959&hl=en
House candidates to debate in Ely this Thursday at 7 p.m. at VCC
http://elyecho.com/articles/2015/09/11/house-candidates-debate-ely-thursday-7-pm-vcc
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Sep-15 08:28 AM
Thanks for that information. I'd appreciate it if you could return & comment on Thursday's debate.
Comment 4 by WSMM at 15-Sep-15 08:44 AM
I'm not sure I can make it. You can listen to the debate on WELY Radio and that is online as well. Hope that helps.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Sep-15 12:57 PM
Thanks. That helps quite a bit, actually.
Comment 5 by WSMM at 19-Sep-15 12:12 PM
If you missed it, here is the video online, streaming via Ely TV.
Ely TV Show Detail: District 3A DFL forum primary Video:
Show ID 1013 Streaming
Event Date: 9/18/2015
Length: 01:34:29
http://70.100.64.202/cablecast/public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=1&ShowID=1013
Comment 6 by WSMM at 19-Sep-15 12:33 PM
Polymet comments appears to run from 1:06:30 to around 1:14:30. in the above video.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Sep-15 02:40 AM
Thanks for that information. I'll check it out this am.
Sarah Palin's disastrous drop
When Sarah Palin first burst on the scene in 2008, she burst onto the scene in a big way. Since then, she's fallen like a meteor from the sky. Here in Minnesota, Palin's star started falling when she endorsed a liberal Republican for the US Senate race against Al Franken. Now she's falling again by abandoning logic in supporting Donald Trump .
When Palin endorsed Julianne Ortman, I asked Palin if "a politician who won't repeal Obamacare , who's proposed raising taxes and who's voted for Cap and Trade was 'a conservative champion'"?
Saying that Palin's logic is flimsy is being gentle. Apparently, she's bought into the beltway media's thinking that there's only one tough guy in the race. Apparently, she's bought into Trump's spin that everyone else is wimpy and "pathetic." Check out Palin's foolishness from her interview on CNN today:
I think I would rather have a president who is tough and puts America first than win a game of trivial pursuit. I don't know if other candidates were posed the same question, I don't know if they have the answers. I don't think the public gives a flying flip if somebody knows who, today, is a specific leader of a specific region because that will change. Of course, when the next president comes into power, based on the volatility of politics in these other areas. I don't think the public is concerned about that. It's kind of subjective, too. Whether a candidate is worthy to be given attention, and respect and be taken seriously if they don't know the leader of some - religion, even a country. How about other candidates who may not know the price of a barrel of oil today, or how much oil it is that we are importing from foreign nations, unfriendly foreign nations and we have a ban on exporting our own oil and prohibitions and bans on drilling for our own oil. Details maybe involved in that that a candidate doesn't know. Hey, I'd be subjective and say, if you don't know that, you're not worthy of being taken seriously, Mr. Candidate.
Ms. Palin, other candidates have been asked the same questions by Mr. Hewitt. They've passed with flying colors. Mr. Trump failed miserably. Now he's making excuses. As for whether "the public gives a flying flip," that's irrelevant. It's important that the next commander-in-chief a) know the major terrorists on the world stage and b) better have a strategy to eliminate them starting on Day One in the Oval Office.
It's disgraceful to characterize Mr. Hewitt's questions as Trivial Pursuit questions. They weren't questions about obscure leaders of countries that don't pose a threat to the United States. Hewitt's questions were about the leaders of the biggest terrorist organizations on the planet. Saying that "I'll hire the next Douglas MacArthur" isn't a strategy. It's a worthless prediction.
As for "candidates who may not know" "how much oil it is that we are importing from foreign nations," I suspect that list is tiny.
Sarah Palin once was a rising star in the GOP. These days, she's just another pundit who doesn't do her research.
UPDATE: Glenn Beck notices the difference in the original Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin, the sellout. (The sellout are my words, not Mr. Beck's.)
Posted Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:39 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Sep-15 04:21 PM
Gary, while knowing that crystal balls can be very cloudy, there has been only one GOP debate, so when do you see Trump's poll lead moving into a competition position with others instead of frontruner; and who do you see as one who will rise in appeal? Fiorina? Rubio?
Do you see a Trump popularity slip via the next debate, or independent of it?
Last, while Palin has earned your scrutiny, do you find it interestig that Bachmann has been quiet about the presidential field thus far, and do you see her at some point before year's end, speaking out?
Last, a response of "It's really too early," would be fine, since many likely feel exactly that.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Sep-15 06:29 PM
Eric, I'm getting more pessimistic about Trump dropping in the polls. I thought that electing a black bigot like Obama was just a case of temporary insanity. His policies have sucked & his character has been non-existent. Trump's character has been non-existent, too. If he's our nominee, I'll vote for a third party candidate rather than vote for that despicable narcissistic misogynist.
If character matters to GOP voters, the frontrunner would either be Fiorina, Walker or Carson. Rubio would be on the list, too, but he wouldn't be the frontrunner.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 11-Sep-15 08:20 AM
Gary:
Two things based on the interview it looks Sarah was trying to give an answer in 2008 that explained why it was okay not to have a specific answer to a question to show that she was ready to be Vice President.
And two maybe Sarah sees Trump fights the way she fights or wants to fight. But has she actually endorsed Donald. It is one thing during an interview to try to say something nice about somebody in the party versus peddling an endorsement.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Sep-15 03:00 PM
has she actually endorsed Donald?She's actually said that she wants to be Donald Trump's Energy Secretary. I think that qualifies as endorsing him. She's now an unprincipled, untrustworthy politician. What principles does Trump stand for? We know he's into himself in a big way. We know that he's a disgusting pervert who can't take even the tiniest of criticisms. We know that he criticizes others when he's caught not knowing the answer to basic questions.
Other than that, he's a fine fellow.
Comment 3 by eric z at 13-Sep-15 09:36 AM
Thanks, Gary, for responding. It was a bit off topic, but in a way on topic too, to ask. Rolling Stone has an online Sept. 9 feature on Trump; one of the things it notes is Trump does not know when to stop. I may post indirectly about that item, to see who else may have discovered it. Not to praise Caesar, nor to bury him. Interestingly written. As to why Palin attaches gravitas to Trump, she's not all that bright. And he does say some of the right things in a voice easily heard.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 13-Sep-15 10:12 PM
It's funny that no one paid attention to Palin when she was running in 2008 (except for the gotcha media when they should have been vetting Obama) and now that she's a nobody, people are writing about her and what she has to say as if what she is saying is important. And while I don't care for either Trump or Palin, I understand why she's trying to hitch her wagon to Trump because he's the current star. As we have seen from Ms. Palin's recent endorsements, those stars are only fleeting and hopefully Trumps is next to burn out.
And While Ms. Palin may not be "all that bright", she shines in comparison to the DNC chair, the VP, democrat presidential candidates and a whole host of other progressives.
The greatness that was Bob Hope
A former supervisor of mine occasionally sends out videos or pictures to a group of friends. I'm fortunate to be part of that group. The videos and pictures are frequently about principles that this great nation was founded on. Sometimes, they're about mocking trendy things that tear at the fabric of this great nation. This video doesn't fit neatly into either of those categories. It fits into a category all its own:
This video fits into the category of 'When America was great, America was good, too.' In the course of my lifetime, I've seen a handful of people that I consider great Americans. Ronald Reagan sits atop that group. He isn't alone. He's joined by Billy Graham, Bob Hope, Red Skelton and John Wayne.
These men shared a compelling set of traits that's in short supply these days. That set of traits are humility, modesty and a willingness to work together. It's important to note that these heroes didn't tolerate big egos or mean-spiritedness.
That's why America was good when it was a great and prospering nation.
Originally posted Saturday, September 12, 2015, revised 13-Sep 5:18 AM
No comments.
Vote no on Tech/Apollo referendum
Though I doubt it was meant as such, I'm betting that the St. Cloud Times Our View editorial is a wakeup call to taxpayers. That's certainly the intent of this post. The Times' Editorial Board laments the fact that "there are no yard signs, no visible campaigning, and really not much buzz about the plan." Then it highlights the "good news" that "the group has experienced leaders and its website, http://www.voteyes742.org/index.php, contains ample information about the history of Tech, the need to upgrade it and Apollo, and how to vote" before returning to lamenting that few people know about this website before the Times' editorial.
Perhaps that's their strategy.
The Times is right. The "group has experienced leaders" who've led the fight for other levy increases. Rest assured that everyone in the 'education community' a) knows about this referendum, b) can recite with great fluency the virtues of voting yes and c) can't wait to start voting. Those "experienced leaders" have already counted the education community's votes.
It's foolish to think that this "experienced leaders" is running an under-the-radar campaign because this is a terrific deal for St. Cloud. If this deal was that important and that well thought out, these "experienced leaders" would've canvassed St. Cloud at least 3-4 times.
It isn't a stretch to think that the education community doesn't want a high turnout amongst regular taxpayers because they're afraid that regular taxpayers are fed up with all of the tax increases that they've been hit with the last 2-3 year. Perhaps the education community is afraid that regular taxpayers are upset that they haven't seen a meaningful pay raise in 5 years or more. Meanwhile, under Gov. Dayton and the DFL, government spending has skyrocketed.
The state budget has seen major increases while families have struggled. Gov. Dayton and the DFL isn't on the ballot this November. Still, it's a great time to send them a signal that taxpayers are fed up with the DFL's spending increases and Gov. Dayton's tax increases.
Posted Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:34 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Steckling at 13-Sep-15 11:12 AM
Gary - I am one of those fed up taxpayers. St.Cloud is not the Federal Reserve that can provide us with a stack of fresh fiat money to pay for a new school. Whitney Center for senior citizens is in the red. The Paramont theater is in the red. The airport is dead and in the red.
The new aquatics center maybe in the red before it's even built! Taxpayer base is leaving the city. 75% of houses have no children going to 742 yet they would be asked to support the rest who attend. The foundation of our city is, at present, not the healthiest; let's not weaken it more.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Sep-15 03:52 PM
Dave, I know you well enough to know that you're doing all you can to defeat this levy referendum. Still, let's keep pushing the 'vote no' through until Election Day.
Comment 2 by Mark at 26-Sep-15 06:58 PM
Where do we get "Vote No" signs at?
Vote no on Tech/Apollo rip-off
Earlier this morning, I wrote this post urging people to vote no on the school board's attempt to railroad a major tax increase down our throats. Since I wrote that note, loyal readers of LFR asked me some additional questions that the school district should answer before they get another penny from taxpayers.
For instance, the school district combined the 2 projects (refurbishing Apollo, building a new Tech HS). The way it's worded, you can't vote down the Tech proposal and vote for the Apollo refurbishing. That's a sly way of forcing people who want to refurbish Apollo to vote for the Tech project, too. That's a sly way of forcing people who want to build a new Tech HS into voting for the Apollo refurbishing.
It's pretty obvious why it's set up this way. That isn't the same as saying the school district should get away with forcing taxpayers to vote for both projects if they only support one of the projects. This is a scam propagated by the school board. This isn't a mistake. It's a feature! It's intentional.
Another question raised by my readers is why the school district is holding the election at a time when literally nothing else is being voted on. As I said in my earlier post, it's clear that the turnout from the "education community" will be 95% or higher. Those votes have already been factored in. Further, the school board is counting on low turnout from taxpayers. The vote is rigged. The people profiting from these projects passing will turn out in droves. The people who don't know that there's an election happening won't show up, thereby ensuring the referendum passing.
The people running the school board want what they want when they want it. If that means playing dirty, then that's the path they'll take. In situations like that, there's only one way to foil the school board's plan. That's to vote no, then insist that the taxpayers vote on 2 separate questions. Then insist that the election be held on Election Day 2016.
It isn't surprising that the school board hasn't held a townhall meeting to explain how big the 'new Tech' will be or how big the anticipated enrollment will be in the new school. They haven't said what has to be refurbished at Apollo, either. Considering the fact that St. Cloud's population of taxpayers is, at best, staying steady, just how many times do these politicians think they can go to the taxpayers' ATM?
And yes, I meant to say politicians when referring to the school board. They're as partisan as the legislature.
Posted Sunday, September 13, 2015 4:02 PM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 14-Sep-15 06:39 AM
EXPOSED.....FINALLY somebody answered all my questions!!!. This make the game plan obvious and explains the "quietness" of the campaign. TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 15-Sep-15 06:49 PM
The bundled of these distinct questions is sufficient cause in my book to vote no. Rebuilding vs remodeling Tech has no significant bearing on Apollo.
And notice the little "technology" slush fund tucked in, which is almost always a deceptive tax increase. It is seldom a good idea to take expenditures out of the General Fund. The now abundant dedicated funds can be spent less carefully, and the now freed General Fund money can more easily find its way to budgetary mischief.
VOTE NO ST. CLOUD!
