Prior to the 2006 midterms, Karl Rove highlighted the plan to maintain control of Congress. The Architect said that 2006 would be about presenting the electorate a choice between the Democrats and congressional Republicans. As they say, the rest is history.

That’s what makes me curious why David Plouffe would want to turn this year’s midterms into a choice election:

Ask David Plouffe how Democrats can recover from their electoral setbacks over the past few months and he has a simple answer: Republicans.

“Politics is a comparative exercise,” Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, told the Fix in his first extended interview since he took on a broadened political role for the White House in advance of the midterm elections. “This isn’t just a referendum on Democrats or our party. It’s a choice.”

That choice was made explicit far too late in last month’s special Senate election in Massachusetts between then-state Sen. Scott Brown (R) and state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), Plouffe noted. “Everyone would agree that the definition of Brown should have happened a lot sooner and a lot more clearly,” he said.

In my opinion, that’s a foolish strategy, especially in light of this polling:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

But the latest national survey finds that the two major political parties are much closer this month on the top issue of the economy. Forty-six percent (46%) of voters trust the GOP more on economic issues, while 42% trust Democrats more. Another 12% are undecided. Last month, Republicans held an 11-point edge on the issue and had a 12-point lead in November.

On health care, Republicans are trusted more than Democrats by 49-37 percent, a 12 point margin. Republicans lead Democrats by a 50-34 percent on the issue of taxes, which will grow in importance as the expiration date of the Bush tax cuts draws near.

This statistic should scare Democrats the most: Likely voters trust Republicans by a 45-35 percent margin ON SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

What is clear, however, is that Plouffe has been assigned to apply his meticulous, detail-oriented approach to competitive races across the country, ensuring that the White House and the DNC do everything they can to sniff out problems and offer solutions, and not be surprised by another Scott Brown.

The DNC better raise alot of money quickly because Mr. Plouffe will need lots of staff this year. There’s gonna be alot of races needing Mr. Plouffe’s attention this summer.

Plouffe, aware of the challenges for Democrats, said that if people know both the “positive” Democratic story and the “comparative” message against Republicans, the predictions of political Armageddon will be far short of the reality this fall.

“The wisest thing to do is prepare for a very tough election,” Plouffe advised members of his party. “But in this kind of turbulent electoral environment, I don’t think any of us should presume an electoral outcome.”

Here’s what Dick Morris said on Hannity Monday night:

This weekend, I’m doing the final revisions on my new book “2010: Take Back America, a Battle Plan” and I finished writing the section on the House races last month. And now they sent me the galleys for me to correct. And I listed 35 possible tight races. I went through it again, looking at the modern polling and we’re up to 60 tight races. Like Kirk in Illinois was 6 points behind and now he’s 6 points ahead. It’s unbelievable the changes.

It’s important that we remember that GOP candidate recruitment is still a work in progress. As more polling shows that the Democrats are in trouble, the easier candidate recruitment gets for Kevin McCarthy and John Cornyn. If things keep improving for Republicans but at a slower pace, Plouffe will have 75 competitive races to deal with on a daily basis.

Recently, Michael Barone, the man who’s forgotten more demographic information in every House district in America than I can imagine accumulating, said this in the aftermath of Scott Brown’s improbable victory in Massachusetts:

Anyway, there’s a pattern here: Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.

Let’s extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103.

Right now, Democrats have north of 250 House members. Assuming that Barone’s pontifications are accurate, that means there are approximately 150 Democrat seats that are in play. While I’m skeptical of that high of a total, I’mcertain that there are far more seats in play than the Democrats are letting on. I’m partially basing my opinion on this information:

Some troubling news for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN? Maybe. A poll conducted for the National Republican Senatorial Committee shows that the two-term senator may be vulnerable to a challenge, presumably from former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.), largely because of voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic health-care legislation and the flight of independents from the Democratic Party.

The survey, which was conducted by GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, showed that six in 10 Indiana voters oppose the health-care plan and 32 percent support it. And the opposition to the legislation is passionate, 48 percent said they strongly opposed the measure passed by the Senate.

Independents, who voted heavily for Obama and helped him shock the political world by carrying the Hoosier State in 2008, have swung in the opposite direction in the Conway poll; 40 percent said they would vote for an unnamed Republican candidate for office and 19 percent chose an unnamed Democrat.

Sen. Bayh has always touted himself as a centrist. That isn’t possible anymore because after voting for President Obama’s failed stimulus bill and for Pelosicare. Saying that you’re a fiscal hawk after voting for a pork-filled stimulus bill that was about paying off the Democrats’ political allies and voting for a huge new entitlement program isn’t the way to maintain credibility as the taxpayers’ watchdog.

In normal years, Sen. Bayh’s seat wouldn’t be on the radar. Now, his seat is definitely in play. That’s the bad news. The worst news is that his isn’t the only seat where an established Democrat is in trouble. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray are in trouble, too, to varying degress.

Whatever happens this fall, Mr. Plouffe will work his behind off trying to stave off a disaster.

Technorati: Elections, David Plouffe, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Democrats, Polling, Health Care, Economy, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

DISCLAIMER: I am a member of Tom Emmer’s Steering Committee.

During Monday’s livechat, Marty Seifert was asked this question:

I have heard some talk about your views on cap and trade, that you would not vote for that…but how come you voted for an energy bill while serving in the state legislature?

Here’s Mr. Seifert’s response:

Marty Seifert: The energy bill you are referring to was not a cap and trade bill. 39 of 49 House Republicans voted for the bill, including Rep. Emmer’s supporters Laura Brod and Matt Dean. I am not for cap and trade any more than those two solid Republicans are. Governor Pawlenty negotiated this bill which started out much worse than the final product. My energy plan is to lift the nuclear moratorium and expand affordable energy choices. I am absolutely opposed to any cap and trade scheme.

I wanted to gather some information on M-RETS before forming an opinion so I did some research into M-RETS, (which stands for Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System). Here’s one of the first tidbits of information I found out about M-RETS:

The Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (M-RETS) tracks renewable energy generation in participating States and Provinces and assists in verifying compliance with individual state/provincial or voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and objectives. M-RETS is an important tool to keep track of all relevant information about renewable energy produced and delivered in the region.

Currently, several States and Provinces participate in M-RETS: Illinois, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have policies in place requiring or strongly encouraging utility development of renewable resources. Additional States and Provinces in the region are expected to join M-RETS after launch. M-RETS uses verifiable production data for all participating generators and creates a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) in the form of a tradable digital certificate for each MWh.

In other words, the legislation authorizes the tracking of how much reneewable energy is being generated and the creation of something called a renewable energy credit. This sounded suspiciously similar to the carbon credits that will be traded if Cap and Trade is ever enacted so I contacted an expert in the energy field. This expert said that this type of infrastructure could turn out to be a preliminary step towards establishing a Cap and Trade program.

To be fair, this expert said that establishing a Cap and Trade program isn’t a guarantee. During this exchange, it was confirmed that this legislation isn’t about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just about increasing renewable energy production.

The next logical step, I was told, was enacting legislation mandating a certain level of renewable energy production. While that might sound good, the reality is that renewable energy is significantly more expensive than energy created by coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

According to this website, there are some benchmarks that they want to achieve. Here’s a couple of interesting tidbits of information that should be considered:

The standard for Xcel Energy requires that eligible renewable electricity account for 30% of total retail electricity sales (including sales to retail customers of a distribution utility to which Xcel Energy provides wholesale service) in Minnesota by 2020. Of the 30% renewables required of Xcel Energy in 2020, “at least” 25% must be generated by wind-energy or solar energy systems, with solar limited to no more than 1% of the requirement. The solar provision was added by S.B. 550 in May 2009. In effect, this means that the wind standard is at least 24%, solar may contribute up to 1%, and the “remaining” 5% may be generated using other eligible technologies.

In other words, if legislation passes that changes the goals to mandates, Minnesotans’ utility bills will significantly increase. It’s important to remember that this isn’t about controlling greenhouse gas emissions, though the activists that push Cap and Trade are the activists that pushed this legislation through.

Finally, Seifert’s mention that Matt Dean and Laura Brod voted for this legislation is irrelevant. First, this is about the voting decision Marty Seifert made as opposed to the voting decision Tom Emmer made. In this instance, Tom Emmer voted against more expensive energy bills for Minnesota’s taxpayers. Second, according to the House Journal’s recording of the final vote, Matt Dean voted against the final passage of the bill along with Bruce Anderson, Mark Buesgens, Chris DeLaForest, Mary Liz Holberg, Paul Kohls, Mark Olson, Ron Shimanski and Kurt Zellers.

The information in this paragraph can’t be ignored:

Utilities are required to file annual compliance reports with the PUC detailing their retail sales, REC retirements, and REC trading activities. If the PUC finds a utility is noncompliant, the commission may order the utility to construct facilities, purchase eligible renewable electricity, purchase RECs or engage in other activities to achieve compliance. If a utility fails to comply, the PUC may impose a financial penalty on the utility in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of achieving compliance. The penalty may not exceed the lesser of the cost of constructing facilities or purchasing credits and proceeds must be deposited into a special account reserved for energy and conservation improvements. The PUC is authorized to modify or delay the implementation of the standards if the commission determines it is in the public interest to do so.

I’d love hearing Mr. Seifert explain how this mandate is substantially different from a cap and trade system. Specifically, I’d like to know whether this isn’t just another way to wean us from fossil fuels.

Technorati: Energy, Cap And Trade, Renewable Energy, M-RETS, Renewable Energy Credits, Marty Seifert, Activists, Environmentalists, Tom Emmer, MNGOP

Last week, the Obama administration went to great lengths that they were still getting information from Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab despite the FBI’s Mirandizing him. Frankly, that’s missing the point. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Miranda rights:

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).

First, it’s worth noting that, prior to this administration, Miranda only applied to criminals. Second, it’s worth noting that, since terrorists never have to be released, there isn’t a need to Mirandize a terrorist. That’s only important if the federal government thought it was important to prosecute terrorists in federal criminal court. Third, it’s important to note that the Obama administration is using a double standard.

When Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his bomb over Detroit on Christmas Day, Abdulmutallab thought that that airplane was his battlefield just like the mountains of Tora Bora were was for bin Laden. The American people wouldn’t accept this, or any other, administration Mirandizing bin Laden. Clearly, the American people have rejected as failed policy the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.

Marc Thiessen is right in pointing out that, even after a terrorist has been captured and he’s been stripped of his weapons, he’s still a threat to our national security because he still has knowledge of (a) future terrorist plots, (b) existing terrorist networks and (c) where terrorist training camps are hidden.

Until they’ve drained every bit of information about these things from a terrorist, neither the CIA nor the FBI should think about anything other than interrogating the terrorist. Even after that, in the interest of national security, no administration should consider Mirandizing a terrorist because we always want to keep open the option of interrogating him.

Let’s further stipulate that the Obama administration’s use of drones to kill terrorists is bad policy. Furthermore, President Obama says that it’s important that terrorists captured on battlefields above the United States should receive due process rights with a full set of constitutional rights. Why should terrorists captured on the battlefields of Yemen, Afghanistan or Pakistan be summarily executed? Why should someone monitoring UAV flights be given the authority to play judge, jury and executioner?

I’d further suggest that killing high value terrorists without interrogating them is stupid. By killing high value terrorists like a KSM or abu Zubaydah, you lose an opportunity to gain insights into terrorist networks, their financing and training, and potentially into upcoming terrorist attacks.

Isn’t that information significantly more important than bragging that we’re killing terrorists with high tech toys? In fact, shouldn’t this administration be asked why they aren’t putting a high priority on gathering intel? I wrote about President Obama’s alleged commitment to gathering as much intel as possible in this post:

In our ever-changing world, America’s first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively.

I questioned then President Obama’s commitment to that principle because this statement was made after Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and after the American people criticized his administration for its mishandling of that intel opportunity.

This administration’s tactics and strategies in gathering intel on the jihadists has been lackluster at best and foolish to downright dangerous at worst. This administration should put a higher priority on gathering intel than it’s putting on giving terrorists constitutional protections. Until that changes, we won’t be as safe as is possible.

Technorati: Intel, Interrogations, Miranda Rights, Due Process, Constitution, Terrorists, High Value Terorrists, CIA, FBI, Crimes, Acts Of War, President Obama

Cross-posted at California Conservative

According to this AP article, Gov. Palwenty’s administration has until Tuesday to explain why it chose to unallot:

State lawyers representing Pawlenty have a deadline for filing a brief to the high court over his so-called unallotments. Pawlenty is appealing a lower court ruling that said he went too far in balancing the budget on his own.

I quoted Minnesota’s unallotment in this post. Here’s the language of the statute:

If the commissioner [of finance] determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed, the commissioner shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue.

I said then that the legislature was told that, had the DFL’s budget become law, the budget surplus would’ve been a whopping $3,625 at the end of the biennium. In other words, the commissioner of finance’s best estimate couldn’t guarantee that the DFL’s budget would’ve balanced. In other words, there isn’t proof that the DFL legislature met its constitutional responsibility.

Based on the unallotment provision’s language, Gov. Pawlenty was obligated to unallot.

I’ve talked with numerous State Capitol insiders. Without exception, they think that, though the DFL publicly says that Judge Kathleen Gearin’s ruling was a great victory, privately, they’re scared to death that Minnesota’s Supreme Court will uphold Judge Gearin’s ruling. The people I’ve talked with say that the only thing coming out of this trial is additional scrutiny on the DFL’s budget.

Speaker Kelliher certainly doesn’t want this scrutinized because she couldn’t hold her caucus together, with Reps. Poppe and Pelowski abandoning her on overriding Gov. Pawlenty’s veto of the Tax Omnibus Bill.

Vulnerable DFL incumbents certainly don’t want the additional scrutiny. First, their vote for a major income tax increase won’t sit well with small businesses. Second, The fact that the tax increase didn’t even come close to closing the deficit won’t sit well with many voters. Third, this just gives their opponents ammunition to label DFL incumbents as disorganized and pawns of the DFL leadership. That isn’t where they want to be, especially heading into an election cycle with them running into a stiff wind.

This is a test of Minnesota’s Supreme Court, too. The unallotment provision’s language is unambiguous. If the Finance Commissioner determines that Minnesota’s biennial budget spends more than they’ll take in, the statute says he will, “the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission,” reduce state’s rainy day fund first, then, if necessary, start unalloting until the budget balances.

There was no money in Minnesota’s rainy day fund after the 2008 budget agreement.

If Minnesota’s Supreme Court rules according to the letter of the law, then Judge Gearin’s ruling will be overturned. That’s because, in past rulings, the Supreme Court has held that unallotment is constitutional because the legislature was ruled to have given the executive branch the authority to unallot.

Here’s the bottom line: Whether Minnesota’s Supreme Court rules in Judge Gearin’s favor or not, Gov. Pawlenty will unallot. Judge Gearin admitted in her TRO that current conditions would allow Gov. Pawlenty to unallot.

Finally, this puts a gun to the DFL leadership’s head. Either they pass legislation that meets with Gov. Pawlenty’s approval or he vetoes the bill, then unallots. If the DFL proposes anything remotely similar to the budget that they proposed last year, they’ll suffer more defections than they experienced last year. If that happened, Speaker Kelliher’s gubernatorial hopes would be essentially be extinguished.

Technorati: Deficits, Unallotment, Rainy Day Fund, Kathleen Gearin, Supreme Court, Speaker Kelliher, Gene Pelowski, Jeanne Poppe, DFL, Tim Pawlenty, Constitution, MNGOP, Election 2010

Anyone that thinks Minnesota’s economic model makes sense needs to get in touch with reality ASAP. What’s worse is that the DFL’s tax proposals, especially their targeted tax credits, would make Minnesota’s economy worse, not better. Small business tax credits are nothing more than picking winners and losers.

Let’s be candid about Minnesotans. We’re natural-born innovators. It’s part of our genetics. When the DFL proposes tax credits for green jobs, etc., what they’re really doing is they’re telling Minnesota’s innovators that they’ll benefit if Minnesota’s innovators do things that the DFL wants you to do.

The other side to the DFL’s tax credits is that Minnesota’s innovators will get hit by the same high taxes that we currently have. In other words, if Minnesota’s innovators have an idea that doesn’t fit into one of the DFL’s tax credits, they’ll actually get punished by Minnesota’s high individual income tax rates.

That isn’t the way to prove that Minnesota is business friendly.

To illustrate just how out of touch the DFL is on economic issues, I’ll simply point to Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher’s quote from her debate with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak on Almanac. Here’s what Speaker Kelliher said:

This is about the future. This is about jobs and I’m proud to have passed with bipartisan support the largest job-creating bill the state has seen, the comprehensive transportation bill.

I’ve said before and I’ll repeat it again that the DFL is the party that tries to fund a twentieth century government and that the GOP is the party that wants to create a twenty-first century economy. When construction is the heart of anyone’s economic plan, that isn’t about the future. That’s about doing the same thing year after year after year.

David Strom was right when he told KSTP’s Tom Hauser that tax credits was a new way for government to pick winners and losers. I’ve said before that government’s record at identifying the next Microsoft, the next Fedex or the next Dell has been terrible. Still, the DFL insists that it knows best. Follow this link to read the DFL’s plan. Naturally, the DFL’s plan includes the state paying for remodelling the MOA. That’s Twentieth Century thinking, especially compared with North Dakota.

The 3 biggest employers in Minnesota are the state government, the U of M and the federal government. Meanwhile, 13 of North Dakota’s 15 biggest employers are in health care-related industries:

NDSU employs 4,500 people, followed by Altru Clinics and Altru Health Systems, with 3,500 employees each, Children’s Hospital Mericare and Medcenter One Hearing Ctr. with 3,000 employees each, followed by the University of North Dakota with 2,600 employees, then Medcenter Health Systems and Medcenter One each employing 2,200 people. You get the picture.

Unfortunately, the DFL leadership doesn’t get it. It’s apparently stuck in the mindset that shovel-ready construction jobs remodelling megamalls is the pathway to creating high-paying jobs that will be around a generation or more.

The DFL’s plan last year was to rely on tons of stimulus dollars to save their bacon. Now that President Obama’s stimulus plan has failed, the DFL is looking for a new plan to trick Minnesota voters. They can’t afford to be painted as the party that couldn’t create jobs just like they can’t afford to be proven that they’re the part of annual tax increase attempts.

Unfortunately for the DFL, that image fits them as perfectly as the glass slipper fit on Cinderella’s foot.

This is just the DFL’s latest desperate attempt to not look the party of big government.

Technorati: Taxes, Tax Credits, Transportation Bill, R.T. Rybak, Speaker Kelliher, Tax Increases, Green Jobs, Construction, MOA, DFL, David Strom, Free Markets, Innovation, Conservatism, Economics