Categories

Archive for the ‘John McCain’ Category

If Harry Reid had said that he had sources who told him that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years while he was at a fundraiser, he would’ve gotten sued into bankruptcy by Mitt Romney. Sen. Reid essentially admitted that he didn’t have proof to verify his accusation when he said that he shouldn’t have to prove it, that the accusation was against Gov. Romney, not him.

That’s BS. The accusation against Sen. Reid is that he’s a liar who’s epeatedly gotten caught lying. Victor Davis Hanson’s article provides substantial ammunition against Sen. Reid:

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Reid libeled candidate Mitt Romney with the unsubstantiated and later-refuted charge that Romney was a tax cheat. “The word’s out that he [Romney] hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” Reid said.

Later, when asked for proof, Reid offered a pathetic rejoinder: “I have had a number of people tell me that.” One wonders how many names were on Reid’s McCarthyite “tell” list — were there, as McCarthy used to bluster, 205 names, or perhaps just 57?

When asked again to document the slur, Reid echoed McCarthy perfectly: “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.”

That’s just part of the proof of Sen. Reid’s McCarthyite accusations.

Reid has also brought back McCarthy’s custom of vicious and sometimes profane insults. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid announced: “I can’t stand John McCain.” Of then-President George W. Bush, Reid said: “President Bush is a liar.” Reid claimed that fellow Mormon Mitt Romney had “sullied” his religion.

When Gen. David Petraeus brought proof to Congress that the surge in Iraq was beginning to work by late 2007, Reid declared, “No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.” He elaborated on that charge by labeling Petraeus, at the time the senior ground commander of U.S. forces fighting in Iraq, a veritable liar. Reid alleged that Petraeus “has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual.”

What’s stunning is that his Democratic colleagues in the Senate haven’t criticized him for his despicable, McCarthyite, unethical behavior. Neither has anyone in the supposedly MSM.

Jeanne Shaheen hasn’t criticized Sen. Reid for his McCarthyite rantings. Mary Landrieu, Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Kay Hagans, Al Franken and Mark Pryor haven’t criticized him for his McCarthyite antics, either.

In fact, Al Franken has virtually repeated Sen. Reid’s rants against the Koch brothers, the Democrats’ latest villains. I wrote this post to highlight the Koch brothers’ crimes against America:

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Reid’s and Franken’s repeated rants against the Koch brothers are rants against people who want to get rid of corporate welfare. That isn’t something to vilify the Koch brothers for. That’s something that should be celebrated. Here’s something else that should be celebrated:

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the [EPA and OSHA]. EPA officials have commended us for our “commitment to a cleaner environment” and called us “a model for other companies.”

Mark Pryor is so disgusting that he thinks Tom Cotton, who served 2 tours of duty in Iraq, is a spoiled brat who thinks he’s entitled to a seat in the US Senate.

To summarize, Sen. Reid’s malicious lies against the Democrats’ latest villain say that he’s willing to say anything despicable to help his candidates. Sen. Franken’s mindless rants against people who want to eliminate corporate welfare and whose employees have literally won hundreds of “environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009″ say that he’s content with vilifying good corporate citizes for political gain. Sen. Pryor’s hate-filled, anti-military rantings tell us that he’s a contemptible excuse for a human being.

It’s one thing to hit political opponents hard with verifiable facts. That’s called playing political hardball. When Sen. Franken lies about American industrialists who’ve contributed greatly to their employees’ lives, that’s called despicable behavior. When a U.S. senator criticizes a military veteran of being pampered and having an entitlement mentality, that’s proof that he’s a despicable human being who doesn’t have the requisite character to be a senator.

There’s only one conclusion to be drawn from this proof. The Democratic Party is an immoral political party. They haven’t hesitated in lying about the Koch brothers, Mitt Romney or Tom Cotton. Their senators have stayed silent while Sen. Reid maligned Gov. Romney, thereby giving their silent consent to Sen. Reid’s despicable actions.

The Democrats’ culture of corruption stinks to high heavens. It’s time to eliminate that stench from Washington, DC. It’s time to start fresh with people who’ll listen to the American people.

That’s the only way to restore trust in the institutions of government.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A loyal reader of LFR sent me the text of an article in the Legal Ledger about what happened after Sen. Julianne Ortman proposed raising taxes in 2011. Here’s the key part of the article:

The letter comes after a few days’ worth of news reports and speculation about some willingness to raise taxes within the GOP Senate caucus, whether it be by broadening sales taxes, eliminating tax breaks, or other means. Taxes Chair Julianne Ortman was at the center of the speculation after she made comments calling tax expenditures government spending. Ortman has told us in the past that she fully intends to review and eliminate some tax breaks, although she disavowed any express wish to raise total revenues. She also mused favorably about how some states have been able to broaden sales taxes and lower rates.

In turn, it seems GOP communications staff kept Ortman under wraps most all day Thursday. After her Taxes hearing Thursday morning, the head of communications for the caucus, Michael Brodkorb, was seen waiting in the wings with another communications staffer to lead Ortman away. In response to a question directed at Ortman, Brodkorb simply replied: “No comment today.”

At the time, the House and Senate GOP caucuses were saying that they were committed to balancing the budget without raising taxes, which they accomplished after Gov. Dayton shut down the state government for 2 weeks.

First, Sen. Ortman’s proposal was terrible policy because it didn’t do anything to fix out-of-control DFL spending increases. Giving the DFL additional revenue is like putting out a fire with a little extra gas on the fire. Secondly, when Sen. Ortman went rogue, she did so without telling her colleagues. That’s the fastest way of stabbing her colleagues in the back.

It was her way of saying that her priorities were more important than her colleagues’ priorities, that her priorities mattered and that their policies didn’t. When Sen. Ortman went rogue, House and Senate GOP leadership were in the process of negotiating with Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and then-Minority Leader Thissen. Her proposal cut the legs out from under the GOP leadership.

The lesson to be learned from this is that Sen. Ortman a) isn’t a team player, b) isn’t “a conservative champion” and c) can’t be relied on to do the right thing in holding down taxes.

Minnesotans don’t need someone who will fit right in with the DC Surrender Caucus right alongside John McCain and Lindsey Graham. We need someone principled who will fight for smart policies that grow the economy, create jobs and make Minnesotans’ lives better.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday night, the trio of David Schultz, Kathryn Pearson & Stacey Hunter-Hecht were guest panelists on Almanac. Predictably, Dr. Schultz bemoaned the fact that Republican moderates were nowhere to be found in the House on immigration.

This isn’t a big thing because Dr. Schultz hasn’t had a new idea in years, possibly decades. Further, Dr. Schultz has been a shill for the DFL for nearly all that time.

The problem with the Senate amnesty bill isn’t that there aren’t enough GOP moderates in the House. The problem with the Senate amnesty bill is that conservatives know it isn’t a solution to the problem it’s meant to fix. I wrote here about the gaping hole in the ‘Border Trickle’ in the Senate Amnesty Bill:

On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

In other words, House conservatives see this as a sham provision. It doesn’t secure the border. It doesn’t fix the problem. Its only purpose was to provide political cover for weak-kneed Senate Republicans.

House Republicans shouldn’t budge from their demand for a real solution to immigration. That means a border fence. That means 5 straight years of enforcing current immigration laws. That means no catch and release. That means implementing E-Verify.

Dr. Schultz’s lamentations about the lack of House GOP moderates is silliness parading as thoughtful policymaking. The Senate Amnesty Bill has a gaping hole in it. Milton Friedman, the late, great economist, was fond of asking where the halfway point between right and wrong was.

When the gap between House conservatives and the Senate Amnesty Bill are this immense, Dr. Friedman’s question should be modified to ask what the halfway point is between a solution and a disaster.

The Senate Amnesty Bill is a disaster. The CBO says that it doesn’t stop illegal immigration, meaning that the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill voted for a bill that will cause us to revisit the issue 5-7 years from now.

If I were advising House Republicans on this issue, I’d advise them to highlight the failure of the Senate bill to fix the problem. I’d send Speaker Boehner and Rep. Trey Gowdy out daily to any TV news program to talk about the need for a real solution. I’d have them pick a fight with Chuck Schumer, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I’d have them ask why they support a bill that doesn’t fix the problem.

It’s really that simple.

Why would anyone trust Janet Napolitano on building the fence? Apparently, there’s a bunch of idiots masquerading as GOP senators who think she can be trusted to build the fence. Chief among these idiots are Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Bob Corker and John Hoeven.

What’s appalling is that Lindsey Graham was foolish enough to say that the bill’s security measures are better than he could’ve imagined. While that might be true, that’s only testimony to the fact that Sen. Graham sets a low bar to be impressed with. Check out Matthew Boyle’s article to see what’s allowed:

On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

This should be a poison pill for Republicans. Sen. Graham, however, thinks it’s reasonable because requiring a border fence is a deal breaker with Democrats. I think that’s spin. I’d bet they’d cave if Republicans forced them to defend against securing the border first.

Let’s suppose I’m wrong, though. Let’s suppose that it’s a deal breaker with Democrats. That’s fine. If they want the US-Mexican border to be as secure as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, let them defend that position. I’d love hearing Sen. Schumer and Sen. Reid explain why a fence isn’t needed to secure the border.

Personally, I’d love to see Sen. Graham get defeated in a primary, preferably by Rep. Trey Gowdy. It’s one thing to have a big tent party. It’s quite another to have politicians who cave and give their opponents everything they wanted from the start.

This is nothing more than Simpson-Mazoli, Part II. It doesn’t stop illegal immigration. It helps import tons of low-skill, low-wage illegal immigrants into the United States at a time when unemployment is still high, wages are stagnant and the economy is still struggling.

As usually happens when Michele Bachmann speaks uncomfortable truths, the DC pantywaits can’t wait to criticize her. That was certainly the case when Michele joined with other conservatives in calling for an investigation into Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.

Thankfully, Andrew McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, has written this brilliant article highlighting the connections between Huma Abedin’s family and the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood:

Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.”

It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood. That ideology fuels the “Islamic extremism” that, only a year ago, had McCain so worried that he thought allowing the Brotherhood into the Egyptian-government mix “would be a mistake of historic proportions.”

Considering this administration’s drift from ally to Israel to meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s perfectly justified to ask what, if any, influence Ms. Abedin has had. It’s certainly worth noting this information:

MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League’s Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Khalifa was the co-founder of the Benevolence International Foundation and he helped to finance Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 plot that would have simultaneously detonated bombs aboard eleven U.S.-bound airliners, blowing them up in mid-flight over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea.

It’s impossible to think that the Muslim World League, which promotes Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and helped finance Operation Bojinka, is anything but a terrorist organization.

At minimum, there’s justification to look into Ms. Abedin’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks and Tom Rooney asked the IG to do:

McCain blasted Representative Bachmann and the others, falsely accusing them of doing to his friend Huma what he had actually done to ElBaradei, namely, implicating her as “part of a nefarious conspiracy.”

To the contrary, the House members have drawn no such conclusions. Instead, they have pointed out the State Department’s dramatic, Brotherhood-friendly policy shifts during Ms. Abedin’s tenure as a top adviser to the State Department’s boss.

Sen. McCain’s temper might’ve clouded his judgment. That wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. There’s much more to Ms. Abedin’s family:

And it is here that we get to Huma Abedin’s mother, the Pakistani-born academic Dr. Saleha Abedin.

Dr. Abedin, too, has been a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, “which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood,” according to Walid Shoebat, a former Brotherhood member who has renounced the organization.

One thing is inescapable: Michele Bachmann had more than ample justification for calling on the IGs to study these connections. While it’s true that she ruffled some feathers in saying what she said, it’s equally true that she said what the PC Establishment didn’t have the cajones to say.

Here’s a glimpse into what Dr. Abedin’s organization believes:

D / Sheikh Abdul Fattah

Confirmed that he personally rejected these amendments fully, especially the item on the rhythm of punishment including his daughter circumcised, either the father or the mother or the doctor; may not be criminalized or prohibition of origin is permissible in Islam.

International Islamic Committee for Women and Children

The criminalization of female genital mutilation (FGM), clashed and completely incompatible with Islamic law, which did not provide for the prohibition, as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the drafters of the Charter, where he says:

“Juristic evidence and consensus on the inevitability of medical male circumcision only, while scholars differed in the female genital mutilation did not collect the mustahabb but they differed between being a duty or honor or desirable)

Apparently, Huma Abedin’s mother approves of practices associated with neanderthal living during the Stone Age. These aren’t the beliefs of people living in the 21st Century.

Rep. Bachmann’s statements have a substantive basis. The group’s request that the five departments’ IGs look into their request is more than reasonable. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain’s diatribe seems like one of his infamous temper tantrums, not the statement of an elder statesman.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anyone thinking that John McCain’s dig at Newt was clever or funny doesn’t set the bar high for clever or funny.

John McCain just couldn’t resist.

“I think we ought to send Newt Gingrich to the moon and Mitt Romney to the White House,” the 2008 GOP presidential nominee is quoted as saying by ABC News and CBS News.

McCain’s remarks came today at a town hall meeting in Lakeland, Fla., ahead of Tuesday’s primary in the Sunshine State. Romney now has a nine-point lead over Gingrich.

John McCain used to be a man of integrity. By backing the backstabbing Mitt Romney, his integrity is questionable at best. Put another way, Sen. McCain’s integrity is situation-based. It isn’t a constant anymore.

Sen. McCain’s heroism during the Vietnam War is inspirational. His conduct as a politician falls substantially short of inspirational.

Let’s remember that McCain authored the bill that attempted to shred the First Amendment. Formally known as McCain-Feingold, it’s nickname was ‘The Incumbents Protection Act’ because it strangled free speech during campaigns.

It’s important that we realize that Sen. McCain said some nasty things about Mitt during the 2008 campaign. People will say ‘But that’s what all politicians do before endorsing them’. That’s true. Unfortunately, that isn’t what people living in the real world do.

Let’s remember, too that Sen. McCain talked about the inevitability of internet voting in the context of the HAVA debate. With ACORN’s prevalence, doesn’t internet voting seem highly questionable? What thinking person would justify such awful public policy because “it’s inevitable”?

More imporantly, let’s question Sen. McCain’s judgment on Mitt. Mitt’s run a scorched earth campaign in his win-at-all-costs bid for the nomination. Just like his own campaign, Mitt’s support amongst the GOP base is marginal at best.

The only thing inevitable about Mitt is his embarassing defeat this November. If he thinks he can win this election without enthusiastic support from the GOP base, he’s an idiot.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

During my trip around the Rightosphere this morning, 2 things are abundantly clear: 1) Mitt and the RNC don’t see what’s about to hit them from President Obama and 2) Mitt and the RNC don’t see the seething anger building up against them from the activist base. Two posts highlight that second point brilliantly. Let’s start with Erick Erickson’s post first:

The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.

While I don’t agree that Newt doesn’t have a chance, I certainly agree that Mitt’s people are delusional.

Dan Riehl’s post has a harder bite to it:

For Romney to attack every conservative from the Right, when he is so obviously and so far to the Left of them, demonstrates a complete lack of character and integrity. But slash and burn is all he has, as he has no core conservative principles and can’t articulate them in an authentic manner. As much as I hate Obama’s politics, as an individual, I have more respect for him today, than I do Mitt Romney. And I am far from alone. If the GOP doesn’t realize what that will cost in soft support, or no support at all in the Fall, they are delusional.

With the advent of new media, too many people are seeing, talking and connecting today. The GOP in Washington is not the party of Reagan, it is a party on its way to the political wilderness for a decade or more without serious reform. The clearest sign of that is the support a Ron Paul pulls. It is 2 – 4 times what it should be and is a telling sign of just how many people have written, or are in the process of writing off the GOP establishment.

I agree with everything Dan said. The leadership at RNC HQ sucks. In fact, I’ll add to Dan’s thoughts with this:

1. When it comes to social media and the internet, Mitt’s team, like the RNC, moves at the speed of government. You could see Mitt’s surprise last night when, during the break, CNN checked on whose ad was running the disparaging remarks about Speaker Gingrich. In fact, if you watch the tape, you’ll see Mitt deflate immediately after that.
2. It’s been 28 years since Reagan won re-election and the RNC still hasn’t figured it out that you can’t win elections if the base isn’t enthusiastically behind the nominee. It just won’t happen. Each election cycle, the Establishment tells us that squishies like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney have a shot at winning.
Initially, I thought ‘you’d think that they would’ve figured out that that isn’t true, especially after last year’s midterm romp.’ Then it dawned on me: These Establishmentarians figured you can win with conservatives but that isn’t what they want. They’d rather have ‘compassionate conservatives’ than true conservatives.
3. When has Mitt fought for anything? Has Mitt fought for anything? I haven’t seen proof of it yet. In Massachusetts, Mitt certainly didn’t fight to keep Planned Parenthood off the MassHealth payment policy advisory board.
4. We know that Newt’s a fighter because he’s fought his own president on tax increases. He fought for 16 years to create a GOP House majority. He insisted that we balance the budget ASAP.
5. This is the most important of all. Mitt’s scorched earth campaign will kill him next fall when the TEA Party activists work to elect conservative congressmen, senators and state legislators but don’t lift a finger to get Mitt elected. That’s what happens when the nominee torches each of his opponents.
6. If you think that the TEA Party got riled up in August, 2009 through the midterms, you ain’t seen nothing yet. After Mitt loses, there’ll be a major housecleaning at the RNC. The worthless strategists that collect nice salaries but don’t have 2 brain cells rubbing together will be dispatched.

Squishie enablers like NRO’s editorial board, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Hugh Hewitt, Jennifer Rubin, S.E. Cupp and Ann Coulter will be political roadkill. Good riddance.

Don’t say the activists didn’t try warning you.

UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.

PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t a secret that I’m a Newt guy. It isn’t a secret that I’ve criticized Mitt. After reading this article, I have to respond. Here’s what Mitt said that started things:

Drawing a strategic contrast with the man now besting him in the polls, Mitt Romney took steps to define himself as the consummate Washington outsider with an unblemished record as a family man.

“I don’t have a political career,” Romney told the Republican Jewish Coalition on Wednesday, calling himself a private-sector creature and the opposite of a Washington insider.

Technically speaking, Mitt isn’t a career politician. That’s because he’s lost too many times to be a career politician. In 1994, Mitt lost because he couldn’t get far enough to the left of Ted Kennedy.

In 2002, he won election as Massachusetts governor. When he announced that he wasn’t running for re-election, he started running for president. He’s still running for president. When Mitt lost in 2008, it was because he couldn’t get to the right of Sen. McCain.

When he lost the 2008 race, it was clear that a) GOP activists didn’t warm to him and b) GOP activists weren’t likely to warm to him anytime soon. People simply don’t trust him, partially because he’s still defending the individual mandate and Romneycare during debates while insisting that Obamacare is wrong for the nation.

Calling himself a man of the private sector is a major stretch.

The issue isn’t black and white for Romney, who served as the governor of Massachusetts, ran for president in 2008 and has been campaigning for the 2012 nomination almost from the day President Obama was inaugurated.

But embracing an anti-Washington, individualist persona affords Romney an opportunity to differentiate himself from Gingrich, who served in Congress from 1979 to 1999 and, as a former House Speaker, is widely considered a GOP establishment figure.

Embracing “an anti-Washington, individualist persona” doesn’t afford Mitt the opportunity “to differentiate himself from Gingrich”. Portraying himself as a pure-as-the-driven-snow-DC-outsider will cause him to be the object of ridicule with GOP activists. At this point, Mitt’s target audience must be GOP activists in Iowa and New Hampshire.

These aren’t wet-behind-the-ears novices. They’re people who pay attention to politics. GOP activists know that Mitt’s been running for office a long time. They know that it’s been a decade since he’s worked in the private sector.

Prior to Mitt running for governor, he was hired to run the Olympic Games in February, 1999. He hasn’t been in the private sector since. After running the Winter Games, he ran for governor in Massachusetts and getting elected. After Mitt announced that he wasn’t seeking a second term in 2006, he essentially started running for president. Now it’s late 2011 and Mitt’s still running for president.

In short, he hasn’t worked in the private sector in almost 13 years.

It has become increasingly urgent for Romney to take advantage of lingering animosity toward Gingrich and present himself as the fresh-faced alternative for voters who see Gingrich as part of the problem with a gridlocked Washington.

Mitt the CEO is on full display again. He isn’t a Washington outsider but that’s what he thinks people are looking for so he’s repackaging himself yet again to win favor with voters. Mitt apparently hasn’t figured out that his multiple repackagings are why people don’t trust him.

That, more than anything else, is why he didn’t connect with GOP activists in 2008 and why he’s failing this time, too.

If Mitt doesn’t win this time, it’ll be because people have decided that they can’t trust him or predict who he’ll be a year from now.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, I said that conservatives, just like all other groups, have to police their ranks from time to time. This morning, after reading Rep. Ryan Winkler’s disgusting tweet, it’s obvious that the DFL isn’t putting a high priority on policing their ranks. I just finished writing about the DFL-orchestrated boycott of Target here. Here’s what Rep. Winkler tweeted that’s got me upset:

RepRyanWinkler @esmemurphy Target has been good corp. citizen, but MN political spending is new. Your show just showed risk of giving to candidates.

There’s no indication from Rep. Winkler, a DFL elected legislator, that he thinks there’s anything wrong with boycotting companies that contribute to right-of-center organizations. Apparently, Rep. Winkler isn’t worried that threatening a company for their participation in the political system might have a chilling effect on political participation.

I’m not asking Rep. Winkler to apologize because it’s impossible for Rep. Winkler to unring that bell. The damage has already been done.

Rather, what I’m asking is for Minnesotans of high integrity to reject the DFL’s ambassadors whenever they don’t condemn, either through their statements or their silence, the Left’s thuggish tactics.

Rep. Winkler didn’t utter a peep, or post a tweet, when John Cowles, the former publisher of the Strib, contributed to Dayton Family, Inc, aka ABM, a far left organization. The unmistakable message is this: Contribute to radical leftist groups and you’re quietly accepted by the DFL; contribute to right-of-center causes and you’ll be highlighted for boycotting.

Is that the type of Minnesota you want to live in? Should we tolerate subtle threats to our constitutionally-protected liberties? My reply to both questions is an emphatic and resounding no.

It’s time to rid Minnesota politics of the Ryan Winklers of the world and others who think it’s ok to threaten corporations for their political beliefs. It’s the political equivalent of paying protection money.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Check out this article and see what jumps off the page at you. Here’s what jumped off the page at me:

President Barack Obama scolded Virgina Republican Rep. Eric Cantor for the stack of paper he brought with him to the health summit, calling it the type of political stunt that gets in the way of lawmakers having a serious conversation.

Here’s something from an exchange between President Obama and Sen. McCain:

“People are angry… we promised them change in Washington,” Senator McCain said at the meeting on Obama’s stalled top domestic priority at the Blair House presidential guest house in Washington.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Look, let me just make this point John, because we are not campaigning anymore,” Obama said, having had time to compose his rebuttal jab.

“We can spend the remainder of our time with our respective talking points going back and forwards, we are supposed to be talking about insurance.”

This was stunning TV. President Obama has having a snit all day thus far. Petulant is an adjective that fits President Obama to a Tee. He’s had his lunch handed to him several times, with Dave Camp, Eric Cantor and Lamar Alexander leading the charge.

This isn’t going according to the Democrats’ script. In fact, I’ll predict this: If this afternoon’s session goes like this morning’s session, this will demolish the Democrats’ ‘Party of No’ storyline forever. They’re getting their backsides kick. The reason I know that is because Max Baucus and Chuck Schumer spent their time talking about how little the differences were between the Democrats’ legislation and the Republicans’ ideas. That simply isn’t credible. If that were true, we would’ve agreed on a compromise bill long ago.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,