Archive for the ‘Election 2012’ Category
Joe Lisbon’s LTE is typical progressive chanting points stuff. Lisbon apparently put little thought into his LTE because it’s reciting the same stuff for the gazillionth time. Here’s the opening of his LTE:
Republican opposition to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, has become an embarrassment for the GOP, and conservatives seeking political advantage need to fire up their donor base for fundraising.
Thsi is of the same tone as saying this is a political witch hunt, that there’s been a gazillion investigations into Benghazi, that there’s nothing new to learn. If they kept it pithy, they’d say it’s time to move onto something the American people cared about.
First, the “Republican base” is fired up and then some. It’s been fired up for over a year. Poll after poll shows how the GOP is on the right side of the enthusiasm gap. That’s why professional political predictors like Charlie Cook, Michael Barone and Larry Sabato think Republicans will have another strong election cycle.
Right after the 2012 elections, Nancy Pelosi started talking about retaking the majority in the House. From time to time, you’d hear those mumblings resurface. Then came the IRS scandal, the DOJ spying on reporters scandal and the VA Hospital scandal. That’s in addition to the Benghazi scandal.
If you’re going to write an LTE, you shouldn’t put this BS in it:
The GOP says there is a coverup of internal discussions of whether to call the attack “terror” or “terrorism” because the White House did not want to admit al-Qaida was behind the attack. Except, of course, nobody has shown al-Qaida was behind it, nor have they claimed credit.
There’a huge problem with that statement. Within the first 24 hours of the start of the attack, the Libyan president said that Ansar al-Shariah, an affialiate of al-Qa’ida, had taken credit for the precision terrorist attack.
Forgive me but the Libyan president is definitely a somebody.
Gen. Robert Lovell testified that it was clear it was a terrorist attack:
Lovell said that as intelligence was streaming into command, it became “quickly evident” to AFRICOM that terrorists, namely Ansar al-Sharia, were behind the attack.
“What we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action,” he said. “This was no demonstration gone terribly awry.”
In other words, the spin coming from Jay Carney and Susan Rice was BS from the earliest moments of the attack.
This Republican kangaroo court’s purpose is just to make misleading or false political headlines about Clinton and Obama. I doubt there is a Fox News Channel viewer who even recalls that Benghazi occurred in the wake of Cairo. There were eight demonstrations on the same day at other U.S. embassies, 40 worldwide in major cities — which, at one point, were thought to be about an Internet video.
As someone who watches Fox News, I know that the military should’ve been put on high alert on 9/10 Egyptian time because the Blind Sheikh’s son announced that he was going to attempt to take the Cairo embassy staff hostage, then barter those hostages to get his father, the planner of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, released.
Not only do Fox News viewers know about the other demonstrations but they know that there never were any protests outside the Benghazi compound. We know that because of Gen. Lovell’s testimony and Greg Hicks’ dramatic testimony. This statement is disgusting but predictable:
No one inside the Fox bubble cares about the millions spent on the 54 repeal votes on Obamacare, or the millions spent on closing down the government, or that Mitt Romney on the day of the attack was grandstanding about Benghazi for political advantage before he had the facts of what happened.
Mitt Romney’s statement, the one which he’s accused of grandstanding about, was a reaction to the administration’s statement:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
Jay Carney repeatedly took to the podium, saying that intelligence was still coming in. Later, Carney said that the administration’s story changed as that intel came in. Apparently, Mr. Lisbon doesn’t think the administration was grandstanding when it issued a statement about the video within an hour of the start of the Cairo protests.
We know that President Obama thought this wasn’t a big deal because he never went to the White House Situation Room that night. We don’t know whether he received hourly updates as the terrorist attack continued. That isn’t to say he didn’t. It’s just that we don’t have proof of President Obama receiving updates.
Lisbon is a political hack who does what he’s told. This closing paragraph is proof of that:
At this point, anyone who is flogging this as a scandal has BDDS, Benghazi Delusional Derangement Syndrome. The only way to keep these shenanigans from happening is to vote Republicans out of office.
Shame on Mr. Lisbon for reading the Democrats’ chanting points rather than thinking for himself.
Kirsten Powers column is devastating to Democrats attempting to paint the Republicans’ investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack:
“Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. …Why aren’t we talking about something else?” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week.
Here’s why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs. He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Democrats have criticized the Benghazi investigation because it’s been a disaster from start to finish. There isn’t a part of this story that casts President Obama or Hillary Clinton in a positive light.
First, the State Department looks terrible because they ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi. This wasn’t a systemic failure, as the Accountability Review Board’s report said. This disaster happened because Hillary Clinton’s leadership was missing throughout this disaster.
Next, the Obama administration’s national security team looks terrible because they didn’t pre-position the military so they could’ve responded to terrorist attacks, which they knew were imminent.
Third, the Obama administration’s political team looks terrible because Ben Rhodes’ email highlights the fact that their first priority was hiding the disaster. Their first priority wasn’t to admit that theirajor mistake got 4 American patriots needlessly murdered.
Fourth, the “most-transparent-administration-in-history” kept lying for weeks after the initial pre-planned terrorist attack.
Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration’s response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won’t end well.
That’s the understatement of the year.
Last week, Fox News’ Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were “guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there.” So much for operating on the best intelligence.
D-u-u-u-d-e, that’s too much BS. That flimsy story shouldn’t be believed.
White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask.
Dishonest people deserve to be investigated when their actions get people killed.
Technorati: House Select Committee, Investigations, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, Tommy Vietor, Susan Rice, Accountability, National Security, Benghazi Terrorist Attack, Accountability Review Board, Democrats, Election 2012, Election 2016
In this short 95-second video, Brit Hume utterly demolishes Jane Harman’s attempt to explain away the Benghazi talking points from Ben Rhodes:
Here’s the transcript of Hume’s exchange with Harman:
HARMAN: I would call that an intelligence failure. And, by the way, this was an intelligence failure. But it wasn’t a conspiracy. And there aren’t aliens in Area 51 and Vince Foster wasn’t murdered. And it’s time to move on and focus on the real problems in Libya and other problems that affect the —
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You’re right, there wasn’t a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack. The question — that’s not the question. The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its U.N. ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used?
I’m not talking about the CIA talking points. I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day which were monumentally misleading and were — and have since been shown to be false and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.
HARMAN: All right. And my answer to that is no, there wasn’t a conspiracy. They didn’t turn out to be accurate.
HUME: Well, how did it happen? Well, how did it happen?
HARMAN: I think that people made at the time their best guess at the facts.
HUME: Wait a minute. But where did the idea that the video had anything to do with Benghazi come from?
HARMAN: Where did it come from?
HARMAN: I think it came from people who weren’t sure about it.
HUME: Well, can you identify anybody? Can you identify any CIA information? Can you identify any source?
WALLACE: Ben Rhodes talked about the video or the movie five times in this memo. Only five times.
HARMAN: I — my view is, having been around at the time, that this not deliberately misleading. It turned out to be wrong but it was not deliberately misleading.
Harman looks foolish in this exchange because she’s spinning the administration’s chanting points. Responding to Hume’s question of how the anti-Islam video became part of Ambassador Rice’s, Harman said “I think that people made at the time their best guess at the facts.”
That’s stunning. Harman essentially admitted that the administration was making this stuff up. Harman essentially admitted that they weren’t relying on hardcopy intel from Libya from US intelligence assets stationed in Libya.
There’s more to this than just not telling the truth that Sunday morning after the terrorist attack that killed 4 American patriots. It’s that the story was used repeatedly by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney in a variety of settings.
Harman’s saying that this was just a case of people making “at the time their best guess at the facts” isn’t sufficient. The reality is that this administration, if they can be believed, repeatedly relied on people making “at the time their best guess at the facts.”
Saying that’s an implausable explanation is understatement.
With Benghazi, there isn’t a clever twist like in the movies. What happened in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Benghazi is that the administration lied through its teeth so it didn’t look utterly incompetent heading into the final stretch of the campaign.
Finally, Brig. Gen. Lovell testified this week that he watched events unfold in real time and that there wasn’t a protest about an anti-Islamic video. Compare that with the fact that hours after the attack, Hillary issued a statement blaming the anti-Islamic video starting a protest that suddenly turned violent.
If I’m forced to choose which person to trust, I’ll trust the chief intelligence officer for Africom over the politically-motivated Secretary of State 100% of the time.
Bret Baier’s interview with Tommy Vietor, the former spokesman for the NSA, is feisty but it’s more informative than feisty. Here’s a brief clip of the interview:
This sentence jumps off the page:
VIETOR: He told Tom Donnilon and his joint chiefs and his SecDef to begin moving all military assets into the region.
This is significant because of what was happening throughout northern Africa, which Andy McCarthy highlights beautifully in this article:
As we have covered here before (see, e.g., here), the release and return to Egypt of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman (whom I prosecuted in the Nineties), has been a cause célèbre in Egypt for many years. On September 10, 2012, the day before rioting at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, an Egyptian weekly, El Fagr, reported that several jihadist organizations, including the Blind Sheik’s group (Gamaat al-Islamia, or the Islamic Group) and al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group (Egyptian Islamic Jihad), were threatening to burn the American embassy in Cairo to the ground. The promised action against the embassy was an effort to extort the release of Abdel Rahman and other jihadists jailed by the United States.
Apparently, the administration didn’t take the Blind Sheikh’s son’s threat seriously. That’s apparent because, according to Mr. Vietor, more than 24 hours later, President Obama still hadn’t moved military assets into the region.
That’s incredible for multiple reasons. First, it’s the anniversary of 9/11. That alone is reason to preposition troops and put them on high alert. Second, the Blind Sheikh’s sone threatened to raid the Cairo embassy and take hostages in an attempt to free his terrorist father. Third, the riots at the Cairo Embassy happened as predicted, with the hostage-taking the only thing that didn’t happen. Fourth, the distance between Cairo and Benghazi is only 400 miles by air. A flight that distance takes less than an hour in the Navy’s and Air Force’s fastest jets.
This begs a totally new set of questions that haven’t been asked yet.
First, why didn’t President Obama and Secretary Clinton take threats seriously enough to preposition troops in the eastern Mediterranean Sea? Second, why didn’t President Obama order military assets be moved into the Mediterranean when the Cairo attacks happened as predicted? They started 4 hours before the initial attack on Benghazi. Third, why didn’t President Obama head to the Situation Room the minute the first reports of the Cairo riots happened? According to Mr. Vietor, President Obama never went to the Situation Room.
President Obama and his administration spent an entire convention bragging about what a great national security president he was. Vice President Biden said that “bin Laden is dead and Detroit is alive.” Then-Sen. Kerry said “Ask Osama bin Laden if he’s better off now than he was 4 years ago.”
The reality is that President Obama, Secretary of Defense Panetta and Secretary Clinton didn’t position military assets in the Mediterranean. Thanks to their inaction and inattentiveness, 4 American patriots were murdered by an emboldened group of terrorists. Those terrorists still haven’t been brought to justice.
It’s time we got a real commander-in-chief who worries more about Las Vegas fundraisers than he worried about 4 American patriots who were murdered.
Technorati: Tommy Vietor, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Situation Room, Cairo Protests, Benghazi Terrorist Attack, Christopher Stevens, Blind Sheikh, 9/11, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Bret Baier, Fundraiser, Election 2012
This morning on At Issue With Tom Hauser, Mr. Hauser raised the question about the DFL getting fined $100,000 for coordinating campaign activities between the candidates and DFL campaign committees. Hauser pointed out that “the DFL paid the fine without admitting wrongdoing.” (That’s fine. They don’t have to admit it. Everyone knows what they did was illegal.)
For his part, Andy Brehm nailed it by saying that this is Campaign 101, that everyone who’s ever been involved in a campaign knows that it’s illegal for candidates to coordinate their efforts with outside expenditure organizations, PACs or with a party’s campaign committee.
When it was Ember Reichgott-Junge’s turn, she said that “campaign finance laws are too complicated” before launching into the rules governing independent expenditure organizations, superPACs and other special interest efforts.
Saying it was a wimpy, insulting answer is understatement. While there’s many rules and regulations about reporting requirements, transparency requirements and other considerations, that’s irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that’s relevant to this discussion is that DFL campaign committees knowingly violated campaign finance law by coordinating advertising with a dozen DFL state senatorial campaigns.
What’s also insulting about Reichgott-Junge’s statement is that it played into the ruling that the DFL campaign committees didn’t admit to wrongdoing. Like I wrote earlier, they didn’t need to. What they did has been illegal since Watergate. Reichgott-Junge knows this. She’s run for election. She can draw on her own experience.
She knows that the DFL was willing to do anything, legal or illegal, to have a DFL governor and DFL majorities in the House and Senate. They’re perfectly happy paying this fine. That’s a tiny price for ramming the entire DFL special interest wish list down Minnesota’s throats.
Does anyone think Tom Bakk lost sleep over this? Is it more likely that he laughed when he heard the ruling?
From the start, the Obama administration insisted that the Benghazi talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice relied on were written almost exclusively by the CIA. According to this article, that story was pure fiction. What’s more is that the White House and the State Department knew it was fiction:
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”
In other words, Victoria Nuland knew that the initial talking points from the “IC” included references to al-Qa’ida and the “five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.” Ms. Nuland knew that those references were damaging to the State Department and this administration. That’s why she insisted that that information be deleted from the talking points.
Ms. Nuland was right. Members of Congress likely would’ve used the information to expose President Obama and Hillary Clinton for being inattentive about terrorism in general and Benghazi in specific.
It’s difficult to say that President Obama and Hillary Clinton paid attention to terrorism when they’re defending their decision to cut security forces in the aftermath of the previous terrorist attacks in Benghazi. It’s especially difficult to defend their decisions in light of the multiple frantic requests for more security troops.
These paragraphs are particularly disturbing:
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
“The State Department’s concerns need to be addressed” is just a fancy way of saying the talking points must be rewritten to eliminate the information that makes this administration look bad.
Finally, this speaks for itself:
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
It isn’t accurate to say that the talking points weren’t “the best analysis of the IC” as Jay Carney and Hillary Clinton insisted. The talking points were the product of a massive State Department rewrite.
This Tribune op-ed highlights the tax increases being imposed on Minnesotans. Here’s a glimpse:
The tax plans and budget proposals that’ll be debated and hammered together in St. Paul in the coming weeks do include healthy tax hikes on wealthy Minnesotans. But they also include taxes and fees every one of us will pay, no matter what our income level. In fact, some of the new and rising “revenue sources,” as lawmakers like to call tax hikes and fee increases, would be paid, disproportionately, by lower-income Minnesotans.
Most notably on the table are tax increases on beer, wine and booze, in a state that hasn’t had a tax increase on liquor in 26 years. But now we face the prospect of paying 7 cents more in taxes per drink and as much as $4 more in taxes for a case of beer.
The state’s cigarette tax also is almost certain to go up, to $2.83, a $1.60 increase, under a House proposal.
And if you thought Minnesota’s first-ever tax on clothing died when the governor dropped it after his initial budget proposal, well, not so fast. It’s still alive in the Senate, along with a long list of other previously untaxed services, including on car repairs, over-the-counter drugs like aspirin, tattoos and even dating services.
Sports fans can be on alert, too. The Senate has a new 13 percent wholesale tax on sports jerseys and other memorabilia to help cover the state’s portion of funding for a new Minnesota Vikings football stadium. The total sales tax on sports memorabilia, including sales tax, could push 20 percent in Minnesota.
If you think this was a Strib op-ed, I have to say that it isn’t. It’s in the Duluth News Tribune. If you thought that the Strib editorial board would write something like this, you really need to get back in touch with reality.
Two weekends ago, Matt Entenza tried spinning the DFL’s tax increases, which I wrote about here. Here’s how Entenza tried spinning the DFL’s tax increases:
Part of what Democrats are responding to is an election where people said ‘We’re tired of higher class sizes. We’re tired of roads that are falling apart and a Human Services Department that doesn’t work as well as it should.
Policy lightweights like Entenza know that raising taxes on cigarettes, income and liquor won’t fix a single pothole. They’re fixed by revenues from the gas tax. Period.
The heart of the DFL’s tax increases are summarized in this theory:
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
Last fall, the DFL ran on the Forgotten Man theory of taxation. This year, however, the Senate DFL, the ones that can’t count straight, have decided that the middle class aren’t paying their fair share. In addition to raising the plethora of regressive taxes listed earlier, the Senate, in Sen. Bakk’s finite wisdom, has decided to raise income taxes on the middle class.
What’s interesting is the sports memorabilia tax. It should be renamed the Boy-did-I-screw-up-the-Vikings-Stadium-funding-bill tax increase. Thanks to the Dayton administration’s willingness to buy into the gambling industries’ wildly optimistic projections on e-tabs, the state is forced to rethink their funding of the Vikings stadium.
Had the Dayton administration been honest about the e-tabs projections, the stadium likely wouldn’t have gotten support. Then again, if the DFL had honestly campaigned on raising taxes on everyone, they wouldn’t have gavels this year.
Thanks to the Duluth News Tribune’s editiorial, Minnesotans are finding out that the DFL won’t hesitate in lying about taxing the middle class and the working poor.
Tags: Tax The Rich, Mark Dayton, Tax Increases, Cigarette Tax, Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Sports Memorabilia Tax, Tom Bakk, Middle Class Tax Increase, DFL, William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man, Economics, Philanthropy
While they campaigned last year, DFL legislators and candidates talked endlessly about their highest priority being creating jobs. This session, they’ve talked endlessly about creating jobs…while debating whether to pass legislation that made same sex marriage legal in Minnesota. Now there’s talk that giving gay couples the right to marry would add tens of millions of dollars to Minnesota’s economy:
Legalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota would add $42 million to the state’s economy and $3 million in tax revenue in the first three years, according to an analysis from UCLA law school.
The Williams Institute at UCLA conducts research on “sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy,” according to its website. Last month, the institute estimated same-sex marriage in Illinois would generate more than $100 million in additional spending and $8.5 million in tax revenue in that state.
In Minnesota, analysts figured, about 5,000 gay couples would choose to marry in the three years following legalization of same-sex marriage. A bill to make gay marriage legal is expected to be come to a vote later this session in both the state House and Senate.
Roughly $28 million would be spent on those weddings, the analysts figured, plus about $14 million in tourism-related spending by out-of-town guests. That activity would yield roughly $3 million in tax revenue for state and local governments, the report said.
Saying that this ‘study’ is suspect is understatement. The UCLA law school is famous for their radicalism. That’s why people don’t take their studies seriously.
This UCLA ‘study’ is more of a lifeline to legislators in need of political cover than it is a serious, peer-reviewed report that passes the laugh test.
Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be surprising if the DFL attempted to use the UCLA study to justify their pursuing their radical, special interest-driven agenda. They need their special interests engaged to win elections. If they have to say foolish things to keep their special interest contributors contributing, then that’s what they’ll do.
A vote on this ‘DFL jobs bill’ is expected before the end of this session. It’s great to see that the DFL is keeping its promise to put creating jobs at the top of its agenda.
I never thought I’d see the day when a political party would attempt to collect sales taxes from kids shovelling snow, mowing lawns or babysitting. That day just arrived:
Here’s the key exchange between Rep. Kurt Zellers and Minnesota Department of Revenue Commissioner Frans:
REP. ZELLERS: But if I pay him every month $20 or $100, is that going to be or is he going to have to start collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Minnesota?
COMMISSIONER FRANS: …He probably would. If it was a monthly charge, then there likely would be a sales tax charge.
REP. ZELLERS: So then someone mowing my lawn, someone shovelling snow for me during the winter time or a babysitter?
COMMISSIONER FRANS: Those services would generally all be covered by the sales tax.
Wasn’t it just 6 months ago that Gov. Dayton and the DFL were insisting that kids mowing lawns and shovelling snow weren’t paying their fair share? Didn’t they insist that babysitters weren’t paying their fair share?
Wait a second. That’s right. The DFL didn’t. The DFL insisted that “the rich” weren’t “paying their fair share.” The DFL insisted that they were the champions of “working families.”
There’s nothing centrist about forcing kids to collect sales tax, then send it into the Minnesota Department of Revenue, because they mow their neighbor’s lawn or shovel their sidewalks or babysit their kids. Only the DFL would think that’s appropriate.
That isn’t disgusting. That’s beyond disgusting. That’s something only the DFL would think of.
It isn’t that there isn’t a fair amount of truth in this SC Times article. It’s that it didn’t talk about a truly disturbing pattern, namely ABM’s lies in their anti-GOP smear campaigns.
Jerry McCarter tried portraying himself as having tried to run a clean campaign on the issues. I wrote here why that’s BS. First, let’s look at what he said in the Times article:
“Part of what I was trying to do was show people you can do this without negative ads; you can do this without all the special-interest money,” he said. “I guess I showed them that you can’t.”
Now let’s look at something McCarter ran on:
McCarter, who’s running against Sen. John Pederson, R-St. Cloud, says the shutdown was part of what spurred him to run for Senate. “Like a lot of people, I found [it] unnecessary, politically motivated, and I think it damaged the state’s image long-term,” he said.
I’ve written repeatedly that Gov. Dayton shut the government down. It’s a matter of record that several GOP legislators submitted lights-on funding bills to prevent a state government shutdown. The one attracting most attention would’ve funded state government at its 2011-2012 levels through July 11. During that time, the goal was to negotiate a final settlement on the budget.
At 10:00 pm of June 30, 2011, Mark Dayton stepped to a microphone and announced that negotiations had failed and that state government was shutting down. Rather than calling a special session to pass a lights-on bill, Gov. Dayton put 23,000 state government employees on furlough.
For all of his I’m-running-a-clean-campaign rhetoric, the truth is that Mr. McCarter built much of his campaign on a verifiable lie.
That isn’t the only lie ABM peddled during the campaign. With their willing accomplices in the Twin Cities media, they put together this lie-filled ad:
One announcer said that “It was another day of deep budget cuts at the Capital.” Pat Kessler said “Cuts are so deep, it threatens public safety.” Dayton said “There are real consequences to every dollar cut.” It’s time to highlight the truth with the DFL’s own words:
SEN. COHEN: We’re going to be passing a budget that it billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars and at a level that we’ve never done before in the history of the state. The 12-13 budget will be $34.33 billions of dollars in general fund dollars taxed to the citizens of Minnesota. The 10-11 budget two years ago was $30.171 billion, I believe.
So the difference is over $4 billion, I believe. The largest state general fund budget ever, ever, ever, in the history of the state of Minnesota.
What this means is that Gov. Dayton’s words, Pat Kessler’s words and other biased media’s words didn’t have a hint of truth to them. It’s worth noting that ABM didn’t hesitate in using them in their statewide smear campaign against GOP candidates.
It’s time for Mr. Sommerhauser and other reporters to blister Alida Messinger, Gov. Dayton and the Twin Cities media for telling the whoppers that they told. If he won’t, citizen journalists like Mitch Berg and myself will expose the DFL for the corrupt political party it is.