Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category
Collin Peterson’s calling card throughout the years has been that he’s an influential member on the Agriculture Committee. He’s still running on that calling card, though it’s fair to question how potent it is this time. Torrey Westrom is reminding people Peterson isn’t the only candidate in the race who knows agriculture issues:
Agriculture is another major issue for Westrom, who currently serves on the state legislative agriculture committee. He said that serving on the agriculture committee in Washington, like his opponent currently does, “sure would be” a priority for him.
“I grew up on a dairy farm, I have an agricultural background,” Westrom said. “I have been a strong proponent for agriculture and farmers in the state Legislature, and I will continue to be a strong ardent voice for agriculture in Washington.”
Torrey Westrom knows agriculture issues. Here’s an important difference between Westrom and Peterson:
Peterson has said that he supports the pipeline, but Westrom urged that his support of the project is not enough.
“We have rail car shortages because of this Obama administration’s policy supported by the Democratic leadership,” Westrom said. “You support the pipeline and then you go support leadership that’s gonna oppose it? That doesn’t make sense.”
“That’s a decision I have to make as a new congressman,” Westrom said. “Will I support Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the U.S. Congress or not? I am here to tell you I will not unlike my opponent who has.”
In prior elections, Peterson neutralized the ‘Nancy Pelosi card.’ Apparently, that streak has met its match. Westrom isn’t just mentioning Pelosi’s name. He’s tying Pelosi to Peterson on the biggest issue in the district. Westrom has done a nice job of highlighting the House Democratic leadership’s environmental fanaticism.
That won’t sit well in the 7th District.
Finally, people apparently are responding to Torrey’s positive message:
“We have been running a positive campaign, a positive message, and voters have been responding very favorably to what they see and hear coming out of our campaign,” Westrom said. “We are going to continue pushing a positive message of change.”
The thing that I’ve heard is that people appreciate Torrey Westrom’s demeanor and discipline. He isn’t afraid to highlight differences like he did in this interview. Still, he’s been respectful while highlighting policy differences he has with his opponent. That’s an admirable trait, one which says he’ll fight for his policies and principles without vilifying people he’ll need to work with.
Minnesota’s 7th District needs that type of leadership and character. A vote for Westrom is a vote for principled leadership.
After last night’s bombshell polling data from Minnesota’s Eighth District, the next questions are quite logical. First, when will the DCCC and Nancy Pelosi’s PAC pull their money from the Mills-Nolan race? Second, when that money is pulled, where will it be spent?
The conventional wisdom is that the money pulled from Nolan’s race would be spent on Collin Peterson’s race. I don’t think that’s what they’ll decide. They’ve already pumped millions of dollars into the Westrom-Peterson race. It hasn’t hurt Westrom a bit. Next, they’ve thrown everything at Torrey, including the proverbial kitchen sink. Torrey Westrom keeps gaining. In fact, Torrey will campaign tomorrow with Mike McFadden:
McFadden knows that his message sells in the Seventh. He’s campaigned with Torrey before, too. It’s obvious that they feed off each other and complement each other nicely. Why would Pelosi’s superPAC or the DCCC shift money into that situation?
Finally and most importantly, a little money pays for tons of ads in the 7th. How much more money does Collin Peterson need to win that race? People know Peterson because he’s finishing his twelfth term. If the first and second ad buys didn’t put Peterson over the top, why would the DCCC think that the third and fourth ad buys will? Known commodities are known commodities. If they don’t sell right away, they won’t jump off the shelf later.
Pelosi’s superPAC and the DCCC have other seats that need propping up. Nolan’s seat is history. He’s an ancient candidate whose policies are from the 1970s. There’s nothing that indicates he’ll catch fire in the last 2 weeks.
Peterson has a better shot at winning but that’s because he’s frequently won with over 60% of the vote. He’s either popular and heading for victory or people have tired of him and he’s heading for defeat. There isn’t a middle ground with him.
Ken Martin, the DFL, Steve Simon, Gov. Dayton and Sen. Franken are watching these races. That’s because they know their races are based, at least partially, on doing well in these districts. If Nolan and Peterson lose, Gov. Dayton’s, Sen. Franken’s and the DFL’s path to victory gets complicated fast.
Technorati: Rick Nolan, Collin Peterson, Nancy Pelosi, House Majority PAC, DCCC, Al Franken, Mark Dayton, Steve Simon, Ken Martin, DFL, Stewart Mills, Torrey Westrom, Mike McFadden, Dan Severson, MNGOP, Election 2014
Stewart Mills nailed it in this article about the impact outside money has on races:
Every day of his 8th Congressional District campaign, he said, he hears evidence of a backlash of reaction from viewers to independent expenditure messages made by outsiders. “They know nothing about this district and they certainly know nothing about me,” Mills said earlier this month at the Crow Wing County Republican Victory Office in Baxter.
The DCCC’s ads sound like Nancy Pelosi’s superPAC ads, which sound almost identical to the ads Rick Nolan is running.
Just off the top of my head, I’ll come pretty close to the script. “Stewart Mills inherited his money. He opposed middle class tax cuts so that wealthy billionaires and multinational corporations could keep their tax breaks.” If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s only slightly different than the cookie cutter ad the DCCC is running against Torrey Westrom. The only difference between the two ads is that the DCCC’s ad against Torrey Westrom accuses Westrom of essentially masterminding the state government shutdown in 2011 while the DCCC’s ad against Stewart Mills is that he’s a rich and out of touch and that he that wants to go to Washington to protect his rich friends’ tax breaks.
He said his own message of a consumer based health insurance solution and a reining in of regulatory overreach is resonating with Republicans and independents alike. “I endeavor to run a very issues focused campaign,” Mills said. “Our message agrees with them.”
Despite the Democrats’ claim that people like the ACA, Mills is using the Affordable Care Act effectively to his advantage. Running against the EPA is another winner in the Eighth, too. Miners know that the federal government, especially the EPA and the US Forest Service, are preventing PolyMet from getting built. That’s a hot button issue if ever I heard of one for the Eighth District.
He wants a health care insurance solution that’s comprehensive. He said he favors the aspect of the Affordable Care Act in which people can’t be rejected for insurance because of pre-existing conditions. He rejects his opponent’s call for a single payer health care system.
“Consumerism works,” Mills said. “Socialism doesn’t.”
Because Mills has run Mills Fleet Farm’s health insurance program, he’s got instant credibility on the issue. Nolan didn’t try challenging him on health care during last week’s debate because he knows Mills is loaded with ammunition to blister Nolan on Nolan’s health care policies.
If the DCCC and Pelosi’s superPAC continue with the ads they’re currently running, there will be an anti-Nolan backlash. That wouldn’t be pretty for Nolan.
I applaud Stewart Mills for putting this ad together:
Here’s the ad’s transcript:
It seems that Rick Nolan has based his campaign on attacking me for having long hair and a family that started a successful business. Well, I don’t apologize for either one. But politicians like Rick should apologize for using our tax dollars to make themselves, and their friends, even richer, raising their pay, sending our tax dollars to Wall Street bankers and trade deals that reward outsourcers while killing Minnesota jobs. I’m Stewart Mills and I approve this message because I’m on your side, not their’s.
Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats insist that Nolan’s on the side of the people of Minnesota’s Eighth District because he isn’t rich. Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats insist that Stewart Mills can’t be on the side of the people of Minnesota’s Eighth District because he’s rich. What utter dishonesty.
- When Rick Nolan sided with Twin Cities environmentalists to oppose final passage of a bill that would streamline the federal permitting process, that wasn’t proof that Nolan was on the miners’ side.
- When Rick Nolan proposed building a mining institute, that wasn’t proof that Nolan was on the miners’ side. It was proof he wanted to spend money on something that wouldn’t help create mining jobs.
- When Rick Nolan and Nancy Pelosi fire off a steady stream of ads about Stewart Mills’ wealth, isn’t that proof that they don’t want others to be wealthy?
The American Dream is to help the next generation have it better than your generation. Stewart Mills’ family built a business that’s created jobs with great benefits while saving people tons of money through cheap prices in great locations.
Mills Fleet Farm is successful because the Mills family identified a need for rural Minnesota, then built a region-wide chain of stores that caters to rural and exurban shoppers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and North Dakota. I’ve always thought that Mills catered to people who work with their hands on their farms, their vehicles and their back yards.
If Stewart Mills is as out of touch with Minnesota’s Eighth District, why is Mills Fleet Farm the biggest retail chain in the district? If Mills were as out of touch as Nolan, Pelosi and the Democrats insist, Mills Fleet Farm wouldn’t be the expanding retail chain it is.
There’s another question Eighth District voters should ask. What do Rick Nolan and Nancy Pelosi have in common? ‘San Fran Nan’ wouldn’t know a thing about Minnesota’s Eighth District. She couldn’t identify with the Eighth District’s culture. She certainly hasn’t approved of the Eighth District’s pro-life and pro-Second Amendment views. She’s as pro-gun control as any member of Congress. She’s as pro-environmental regulation as any member of Congress, too.
Rick Nolan voted with Nancy Pelosi to allow the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from unilaterally rewriting the Clean Water Act without an act of Congress. That doesn’t sound like something the mining industry would approve of.
Rick Nolan voted with Nancy Pelosi in opposing making America energy independent. That’s foolish considering how cheaper energy prices would make the Eighth District industries more profitable and more likely to keep people employed.
Nolan and Pelosi voted to let money appropriated to the Defense Department to be used to implement “climate change assessments and development plans.” Jim Oberstar was defeated because he voted for Cap and Trade. Nolan’s voting record is more green than Oberstar’s.
There isn’t any doubt which candidate is more in touch with the Eighth District’s people. Stewart Mills, the man whose family owns the biggest retail chain serving rural Minnesota, is more in touch with Eighth District voters than Rick Nolan, the guy who voted a) against energy independence and b) for greater government interference with Eighth District businesses.
Technorati: Rick Nolan, Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Liberal, Environmental Activism, Environmental Regulations, Clean Water Act, EPA, Democrats, Stewart Mills, Mills Fleet Farm, Energy Independence, Mining, Logging, Republicans, Election 2014
It seems like forever ago that I wrote about Nancy Pelosi’s smear campaign against Stewart Mills. In fact, it was months ago that she started lying about what Stewart Mills said. The lies in Pelosi’s ad were so disgusting that the ad was taken off the air. That hasn’t stopped Ms. Pelosi from attempting to sleaze out another victory for Democrats:
Ms. Pelosi said that she’ll provide the context for Stewart Mills’ comments. No thanks, Ms. Pelosi. I don’t need another recitation of your edited version of what Stewart actually said. Think of Ms. Pelosi’s ad as the dishonestly edited version. Here’s what Ms. Pelosi’s ad said:
“…folks saying that ‘the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share…the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want…is personally offensive.”
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of what Pelosi’s ad said and what Stewart said:
HMP/AFSCME Advertisement: “…folks saying that ‘the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share.”
Full Context (11:22): “What happened in the last round of elections, where you had folks saying that ‘the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share, that there’s all these loopholes and they don’t pay any taxes and we have to make them pay more.”
HMP/AFSCME Advertisement: “…the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want…”
Full Context (14:48): “How come we are not generating the jobs in Northeastern Minnesota that we otherwise would? Well I can tell you why. Because the overwhelming group of people that run businesses, that have the ability to employ people are taxed at that personal rate. They are the villains, they’re the bad guys. They’re the ones that quote are not paying their fair share. They’re the ones quote that ‘the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want.”
HMP/AFSCME Advertisement: “…is personally offensive.”
Full Context (12:10): “To be singled out as a deadbeat is personally offensive.”
Ms. Pelosi, why did you feel the need to take a portion of a sentence from 11 minutes into a speech, then combine it with a statement from 15 minutes into that speech, then finish it off with an out-of-context partial statement from 12 minutes into the speech? Ms. Pelosi, why did you choose to create a fictional statement that Stewart never said?
Now you’re back, claiming to put everything into its proper context. Simply put, I don’t trust you. You’ve shown your true colors. You’re a liar who’s willing to say anything to help Democrats win elections. You don’t even pretend to battle on the field of ideas. You’ve chosen to just lie repeatedly if that’s what it takes to win.
I find that characteristic “personally offensive.”
Jeffrey Toobin’s article isn’t factually accurate:
As Congress originally conceived it, the A.C.A. called for each state to set up its own exchange with a Web site, which most of the blue states and a few of the red ones did. But two dozen of them did not, so the Obama Administration established a federal counterpart, centered on the Web site healthcare.gov.
First, three dozen states didn’t create state-run exchanges, not two. Next, HealthCare.gov was created in the same legislation that authorized states to build their exchanges. The Obama administration didn’t create HealthCare.gov after they saw states refuse to create state-run exchanges.
Then there’s this:
According to the D.C. Circuit majority, one line in the text of the A.C.A. makes the federal exchange invalid. The law says that subsidies are to be available through exchanges that are “established by a State,” without an explicit authorization of federal exchanges. Thus, according to the judges in the majority, five million or so people who have used the federal exchange to buy health insurance must now lose it.
That’s another inaccurate statement. It isn’t just that judges said people who bought insurance through HealthCare.gov weren’t eligible for subsidies. The US House, the US Senate and President Obama said it, too.
If the US House, the US Senate and President Obama wanted everyone to get these subsidies, they could’ve written it into the ACA’s language. What’s really at play here is that the US House, the US Senate and President Obama wanted everyone to be eligible for those subsidies but they also understood that they’d need a hammer to hold over red states to force them into creating state-run exchanges.
The US House, the US Senate and President Obama calculated that they could force red states into creating state-run exchanges by making it politically unpopular to not create state-run exchanges.
The problem with the Democrats’ bluff is that red states called the Democrats’ bluff. They essentially said that they weren’t worried about not creating a state-run exchange in their states.
Next, Toobin constructs a strawman argument:
Katzmann writes that “excluding legislative history is just as likely to expand a judge’s discretion as reduce it…. When a statute is ambiguous, barring legislative history leaves a judge only with words that could be interpreted in a variety of ways without contextual guidance as to what legislators may have thought. Lacking such guidance increases the probability that a judge will construe a law in a manner that the legislators did not intend.”
There’s nothing abiguous about the legislative language in this provision. It’s exceptionally clear. When a statute says that subsidies are only through exchanges “established by a state”, that means that subsidies aren’t available to people who bought their insurance through HealthCare.gov.
The more important point is that this should be a shot across the legislators’ bow to write clearly written statutes. If legislation can be “interpreted in a variety of ways”, then legislators aren’t doing their job. If the legislators who wrote the law can’t write it clearly, then that’s their problem. Period. The citizens who didn’t qualify for subsidies should take it out on the people who wrote the bill and the people who voted for the legislation.
Further, people who don’t qualify for these subsidies should take it out on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They’re the people who brought the bill up for a vote before anyone could read the bill. They’re the people who wrote the final bill in the privacy of their offices rather than marking it up in committees.
Here’s a whopper:
When the Affordable Care Act was being debated, every member of Congress–supporters of the A.C.A. as well as opponents–understood that the federal government would have the right to establish exchanges in states that chose not to create them. As Judge Harry Edwards observed in his dissenting opinion in the A.C.A. case, “The Act empowers HHS to establish exchanges on behalf of the States, because parallel provisions indicate that Congress thought that federal subsidies would be provided on HHS-created exchanges, and, more importantly, because Congress established a careful legislative scheme by which individual subsidies were essential to the basic viability of individual insurance markets.”
Judge Edwards is wrong. The clear language of the bill doesn’t imply that “federal subsidies would be provided on HHS-created exchanges.” It directly says the opposite.
What can be stated is that Congress wanted everyone who made less than 400% of the federal poverty level to be eligible for subsidies and that all 50 states establish state-run health insurance exchanges. Further, we can state that Congress wrote the bill the way they did to force states into creating their own health insurance exchanges.
Congress can’t have it both ways. Either they write the law to make everyone below a certain income level eligible without conditions or they write it so that only people that met specific criteria were eligible.
As the Halbig case demonstrates, textualism is as politically fraught as any other approach to judging. The Halbig case is not an attempt to police unclear drafting but rather the latest effort to destroy a law that is despised by many conservatives.
Without question, Halbig is an attempt to destroy Obamacare. The thing is whether the Supreme Court will have the courage to say that specific language means specific things or whether they’ll say that the executive branch can change a law after it’s been written by Congress, voted on by Congress and signed by the president.
What Toobin is essentially asking for is a mulligan. He’s asking for that because 36 states didn’t do what Congress had hoped they’d do. Mulligans are for golfers, not major legislation that was passed without scrutiny in the dead of night the night before Christmas Eve.
This video should worry Democrats:
The Democrats think they’ve caught Sen. Torrey Westrom in a ‘Mitt Romney moment’. In reality, they’ve shown 7th District voters that their activists aren’t the brightest people around. Here’s what I’m talking about:
Man: [During] the Eisenhower Administration, we built our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our schools, our fire halls, we built that during that era and the tax rate on the wealthiest people was 60 percent, and it was an honor for them, and society looked up to them, they were pillars in their community and respected, and we appreciated them. And now all I see is scapegoating on the poor, blaming people on food assistance when they can’t even get a part-time job… I’m saying that [rich people] pay less in income tax than poor people do.
Westrom: Even though 48 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes?
The first indication that this activist isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier is his implication that high income taxes in the 1950s paid for the interstate highway system. Income taxes didn’t have a thing to do with building and maintaining the interstate highway system:
About 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States have been paid through user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments. To a much lesser extent they have been paid for by tolls collected on toll highways and bridges. The Highway Trust Fund, established by the Highway Revenue Act in 1956, prescribed a three-cent-per-gallon fuel tax, soon increased to 4.5 cents per gallon. In 1993 the tax was increased to 18.4 cents per gallon, where it remains as of 2012.
The next indicator that this activist isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier is that he thinks “poor people” pay more income taxes than “the rich.” Sen. Westrom dispatched that argument by telling the activist that “48 percent of Americans” don’t pay income taxes.
This wasn’t a vilification of “poor people.” It was simply a statement of statistical fact. It’s interesting that the DFL activist thinks stating a statistical fact is an act of vilification. Sen. Westrom finally had enough of the activist’s rantings:
Man: The Bible says, ‘To whom much has been given, much shall be required.’ Now [the wealthy] built that infrastructure and they did that out of the goodness of their hearts in the ’50s and now it’s like pulling teeth to get an extra dime out of the wealthiest people in this society, and I’m tired of it.
Westrom: Let me tell you, versus your philosophy, my philosophy is, don’t overtax the citizens, let them keep their hard-earned wealth [and] take care of themselves as much as they can and we do for the communities that individually they can’t do for themselves. You would rather tax everybody’s income, take it away from them, redistribute it, government knows best…
Before getting into Sen. Westrom’s reply, let’s focus on the activist’s statement that “the wealthy built that infrastructure…out of the goodness of their hearts…” That’s the picture of delusion. The truth is that “the wealthy” built much of this nation’s infrastructure to create bigger profits for their companies.
As for Sen. Westrom’s statement, he’s right in his philosophy of letting the people keep their money. The thought that the federal government knows best is intellectually laughable. For instance, Minnesota had a great health insurance system that featured one of the lowest rates of uninsured in the nation. In 2011, 93% of Minnesotans were insured. In 2013, thanks directly to the Affordable Care Act, that rate of insured ‘jumped’ to 95%. It just cost Minnesotans the paltry amount of $160,000,000 and counting.
The MNsure website still isn’t working. In fact, it won’t be working correctly until after this fall’s open enrollment. Thank God for the federal government’s intervention. I don’t know what we would’ve done without their assistance, though I’d love to find out.
This video should dispel the notion of government being benevolent:
Simply put, Sen. Westrom is right in ridiculing this activist. In fact, it’s best for him to just put this behind him so he can highlight his positive agenda and Collin Peterson’s history of Nancy Pelosi pushing him around. (Think voting for Cap and Trade after promising his constituents he wouldn’t vote for it.)
Sen. Westrom won’t take the 7th District for granted like Collin Peterson has for the last 20 years. Sen. Westrom has a history of getting things done. That’s the type of congressman Minnesota’s 7th District needs.
This article highlights the intelligent fight Torrey Westrom will fight in Congress if he defeats Collin Peterson:
“The Keystone pipeline needs to be built, I am here to tell you, and it should have been built last year, not delayed another several months as we are seeing under this current Administration,” Westrom said. Without the pipeline, oil producers are using an increasing number of railcars to transport their supply, which is squeezing out farmers and propane suppliers.
“[Grain] elevators from the south end of the 7th District to the north tell me they are still going to have last year’s crop when this year’s crop comes in, and they can’t get enough extra cars to ship it out,” Westrom continued. “That’s unacceptable. We need to build energy and infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline. That’s something I will advocate for.”
When it comes to getting things done in DC, Collin Peterson is about as worthless as a potted plant. He didn’t stand up to President Obama and the environmental activists that run the EPA or the spineless diplomats in the State Department.
Thanks to Congressman Peterson’s spinelessness, grain elevators in Minnesota’s 7th District are hurting. Minnesota’s 7th District doesn’t need a DC insider with ‘influence’. Minnesota’s 7th District needs someone who gets things done.
Collin Peterson is rich with DC insider influence. Unfortunatly, he isn’t the type of congressman who gets important things done that help his district.
If voters in Minnesota’s 7th District dump Peterson, they’ll immediately see the difference in the number of important things that get done compared with Peterson’s potted plant routine.
The panel also asked the 7th District candidate what can be done to reduce government regulatory delays. “Indecision is very paralyzing for industry and for farmers,” Westrom said about the overregulation that effects Minnesota’s farmers. “Some sort of cap on decisions, so people can count on a yes or a no, or at least know what needs to be changed in a timely period, is something we should aim for.” Westrom emphasized that we should “not have unelected bureaucrats continue to delay processes.”
Peterson loves DC’s ineffective status quo. He doesn’t really have to do anything. All he has to do is talk about how much institutional influence he has. What Peterson can’t talk about is how his presence in DC is helping reduce regulations or improve life in Minnesota’s 7th District.
Throughout the forum, panelists expressed concern about government overreach, asking other candidates about the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule on navigable waters and delay on the Renewable Fuel Standard.
The EPA is a farmer’s worst nightmare. Daily, they micromanage what a farmer can and can’t do. Their new rule will get struck down by the Supreme Court because it goes far beyond the legislative language of the Clean Water Act, aka the CWA.
Not that Collin Peterson cares but the EPA can’t implement a rule that goes beyond the legislative language. That language currently says the EPA can regulate navigable waters. The EPA’s rule would allow them to regulate waters not considered navigable.
At one point, Collin Peterson was a tolerable congressman. Those days have passed. In 2009, Nancy Pelosi corrupted him. He hasn’t been a Blue Dog Democrat since. That says one thing: it’s time for a change.
Rick Nolan doesn’t have rich fat cat special interests supporting him:
Rick Nolan says one thing and does another. On Rick’s Facebook page, he’s claiming that he doesn’t have “millions of dollars or billionaire super PACs” backing him. Ironically, at the same time Rick is outraged that some stations pulled the ads attacking me off the air for being dishonest and highly edited.
Here’s the hypocrisy: Rick’s confederates, the PACs that attack me and support him, are some of the biggest and wealthiest of all time. Rick’s duplicity and record of standing with the big time D.C. money speaks for itself: voting against funding for our veterans, voting against building the Keystone XL pipeline, voting for a carbon tax and voting to continue Obamacare.
Having AFSCME PEOPLE, TakeAction Minnesota and House Majority PAC running ads and making phone calls for you is proof that deep pockets are siding with you. That’s who’s supporting Nolan. That’s why Nolan’s whining should be ignored. There’s more to highlight about Nolan, too.
When Jim Oberstar voted for Cap and Trade, miners immediately understood that he’d voted to kill mining:
“Small business owners are afraid to invest in their own business to create jobs,” he said. “Miners, when you start talking to them about this cap-and-trade bill and how it’s going to affect the mines, you’ve got their attention.”
Nolan has voted for a carbon tax, which is a different name for Cap & Trade. Nolan’s finally supporting PolyMet. That’s essentially irrelevant because he’d demolish the mining industry if the carbon tax became law. It’s just another example of how Nolan simply can’t resist his environmental activist roots.
Rick Nolan is an environmental activist. That’s who he’s always been. He’ll occasionally flip-flop to win an election but there’s no question that he’s an environmental activist.
That isn’t good for Nolan because Iron Range families know that environmental activists are the miners’ worst nightmare.
Despite Nolan’s whining, the truth is that he’s supported by deep pocketed special interests. That’s because he’s just another politician who can be bought. (Rumor has it that, in DC, he walks the halls of Congress with a ‘For Sale’ button on his lapel. Just kidding.)
After writing this post, I read TakeAction Minnesota’s statement to the end. If I hadn’t, I would’ve missed the Democrats’ explanation of the Pelosi/AFSCME PEOPLE defamatory ad:
The ad was edited to fit a standard TV time slot, not to change the content of Mills’ positions on issues.
That’s ridiculous. The Democrats’ ad wasn’t edited. It was spliced together from 3 separate paragraphs to create a sentence Stewart Mills never said. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of edit:
to prepare (text) for publication by checking and improving its accuracy, clarity, etc.
This wasn’t editing according to that definition. What the Democrats did didn’t improve Stewart’s statement’s accuracy or clarity. It created a sentence Stewart didn’t say. This is easily illustrated by the fact that the first 10 words of the fictional sentence came from a of the sentence 11 minutes into the video. The next 10 words from the fictional sentence came from a sentence almost 15 minutes into the video. The final 3 words of the fictional sentence came from a sentence 12 minutes into the video.
The first 10 words came from a paragraph talking about the 2012 election. The next 10 words came from a paragraph where Stewart talked about why jobs weren’t getting created on the Range. The final 3 words came from a sentence where Stewart said that he’s personally offended that this Democrat front group called him a deadbeat for not paying his taxes.
When Democrats splice together 3 partial sentences to create a fictional sentence, it’s verifiable proof that Democrats will throw everything at Stewart Mills between today and Election Day. That’s why the Mills campaign put out this e-letter:
Stewart was right when he said that his Democratic opponents “are shameless and they’ll do anything to win.” That’s who they are. They should be forewarned, though, by this sentence:
I won’t belabor the point except to say that now we know how our opponents operate and we are acutely aware of their sleazy tactics.
Stewart knows that the race is at a critical juncture. He won’t hesitate if taking decisive action is required. It’s apparent that he’s trying to get ahead of this problem by revving up his fundraising machine. That way, he’ll have the ammunition to put Ms. Pelosi, Rick Nolan and the Democrat front groups in their place.
It’s one thing to play hardball politics. This isn’t hardball politics. It’s dirty politics. Expect dumptruck loads more of this stuff during the next 3 months.