Archive for the ‘Pelosi’ Category
Nancy Pelosi’s statement about the House Republicans’ plan to vote to defund Planned Parenthood is typical Democratic spin. Ms. Pelosi’s statement that “House Republicans are planning yet another taxpayer-funded Select Committee to burn more of the millions of taxpayer dollars they’ve already spent playing politics – this time with the goal of taking lifesaving preventative care away from millions of American women” is particularly offensive.
It’s offensive because the alternative to investigating Planned Parenthood’s activities is to turn a blind eye towards Planned Parenthood’s activities. That’s the Democrats’ pattern. If anyone wants to scrutinize one of their ‘sacred cow’ institutions, the Democrats’ reflexive reaction is to accuse the people who want to examine that institution’s activities as being haters.
Kirsten Powers’ USA Today article on the Gosnell murder trial provides a powerful picture of what happens when people stop paying attention. In April, 2013, Ms. Powers wrote that “Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page.”
After whining about Republicans establishing “another taxpayer-funded Select Committee” to investigate Planned Parenthood’s activities, Ms. Pelosi wrote that “there must be a thorough investigation of the blatant wrongdoing of the group that clandestinely filmed and selectively edited these videos, likely in violation of numerous state and federal laws.”
Ms. Pelosi lives in an alternative universe where it’s unfair to investigate organizations that get taxpayer funding but it’s imperative to investigate people who uncovered that taxpayer-funded organization’s questionable activities.
Al Franken issued a statement in advance of Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech that read like it was written by the administration:
In a statement earlier Monday, (Sen. Al) Franken (D-MN) described the speech as a “partisan spectacle.”
“This has unfortunately become a partisan spectacle, both because of the impending Israeli election and because it was done without consulting the administration,” Franken said. “I’d be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don’t believe should be happening. I’m confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.”
Franken is just one hyperpartisan Democrat who professes undying loyalty to Israel, then essentially calls Prime Minister Netanyahu a partisan. Doesn’t it sound like Franken’s support of Israel is conditional? In any case, the “partisan debacle” Sen. Franken worried about didn’t happen.
Alexis Simendinger’s fantastic article highlights how Prime Minister Netanyahu’s substantive speech changed the parameters through which politicians view the issue. Here’s one thing Ms. Simendinger highlighted from the “partisan debacle”:
Netanyahu denounced the contours of the deal being negotiated in Switzerland as playing into Iran’s hands. He warned the outcome could accelerate a path toward nuclear war in the Middle East because he believes the parameters would strengthen Iran’s capabilities within a decade to create a nuclear weapon with such speed, the world could not intervene.
“Why would anyone make this deal?” Netanyahu asked. “This is a question that everyone asks in our region.” He let the clear rebuke of the president hang in the air. “Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?” he continued. “Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal.”
There’s no question that Sen. Franken recited the Democrats’ script perfectly. Similarly, there’s no question that Prime Minister Netanyahu changed the terms of the debate going forward.
The only “partisan debacle” from yesterday’s speech came from the Democrats. John Yarmuth’s diatribe and Nancy Pelosi’s turning her back on Prime Minister Netanyahu set the Democrats’ highly political tone for the event.
Sen. Franken didn’t attend yesterday’s speech because he’s a partisan hack. He didn’t know that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech would be a “partisan spectacle.” That’s what he initially said but that’s only because that’s what the administration told him. The speech turned into a dissertation on the things Iran’s leaders have engaged in, including sponsoring terrorist organizations like Hezbollah to attacking US soldiers in Iraq with Iranian-manufactured IEDs.
Had Sen. Franken attended the speech, he might’ve learned something. It’s a shame he took the administration’s word that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech would be a partisan speech.
After watching this video, it’s clear that Jeb Bush doesn’t have a clue about conservatism:
This post shows that Paige Lavender, a reporter/commentator for Huffington Post, is utterly clueless. Before we get into Jeb Bush’s statements, here’s what Ms. Lavender said:
PAIGE LAVENDER: We’ve seen in the last 2 election cycles that the Republican primary tends to favor the more conservative candidate.
In 2008, there weren’t any conservatives in the race. Of the liberals, John McCain was the most liberal. He got the nomination. In 2012, the GOP candidates were marginally more conservative. Mitt Romney wasn’t as liberal as McCain but he wasn’t a conservative, either. He was simply the least liberal of the liberals running.
The good news is that Republicans will have a handful of conservatives to pick from in 2016, starting with Scott Walker, then adding John Kasich and possibly Mike Pence. GOP activists won’t have to hold their noses when supporting one of these candidates. Conservatives will be able to enthusiastically support one of these three candidates.
The last 20 seconds of this video will hurt Gov. Bush:
Here’s what Gov. Bush said:
GOV. BUSH: I kinda know how a Republican can win, whether it’s me or somebody else and it has to be much more uplifting, much more positive, much more willing to, you know, to be practical now in the Washington world, to be willing to lose the primary to win the general without violating your principles.
Jeb Bush, like Mike Huckabee before him, doesn’t have a clue about conservatism. True conservatism has a healthy libertarian streak to it, mixed with a healthy skepticism of Washington, DC-run programs. We prefer smallish programs administered at the local level because that’s the best way to ensure accountability. Gov. Bush enthusiastically supports Common Core, which is federalizing education curriculum and standardizing tests nationwide. It’s even telling school boards which text books fit with Common Core’s curriculum.
Conservatism is about giving people lots of positive options, whether we’re talking about families’ health care decisions or telling parents that they can send their children to schools that aren’t failing students.
For the last 6-8 years, Republicans had to play defense because Democrats controlled the agenda. The next Republican president will work with GOP majorities in the House and Senate. That means they’ll be setting the agenda. Their first assignment must be to fix the messes created by President Obama, Sen. Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That means finally getting the fed to shut off the QE2 spigot. That’ll require the GOP to starting over with health care reform. This time, it’s imperative to get it right. Getting America’s economy requires siding with construction unions while ignoring environmental activists on pipeline projects.
There’s no shortage of things that need fixing. When a Republican governor is elected to become the 45th president of the United States, he’ll have lots of things to fix or to get started on. Hopefully, the 45th president won’t be Jeb Bush.
After reading this LTE, there’s no question that fascism is alive and well in the United States. Here’s what the LTE proposes:
Combined, about $43,781,720 was spent on campaigning just for the governor, Senate and U.S. House elections in Minnesota. Think what that money could have been used for in the state.
I realize it’s not a lot of money in the total scheme of things, but it sure could have been used for something better than all the advertising. There should be no money allowed except from individuals living in the state or legislative district. No money should come from PACs, corporations or unions; only from people who can vote! PACs, corporations and unions don’t vote.
There also should be no negative advertising. Period! Only advertising should be about the candidate’s position on issues and what the candidate will try to do if elected. Period!
Who made this person the arbiter of what’s protected by the First Amendment and what isn’t? This is what happens when schools don’t teach their students the Constitution. It’s what happens when parents don’t teach their children the Constitution, too. It’s what happens when buffoons don’t think things through, too.
Why shouldn’t PACs, corporations and unions have the right to participate in the political process? There’s nothing in the text of the First Amendment that says it only protects individuals’ right to free speech.
What’s particularly bothersome about this LTE is that he didn’t bother mentioning the fact that the DFL and Nancy Pelosi’s ads were particularly dishonest. The other thing that’s troubling is the fact that the DFL’s ads and Nancy Pelosi’s ads outright lied. Repeatedly. Though this isn’t a Pelosi ad, it’s of a similar nature:
That ad was run by NARAL Pro-Choice USA. It accused Cory Gardner, Colorado’s new senator-elect, of banning birth control. NARAL ran this slanderous ad despite their knowing that Sen.-Elect Gardner proposed making contraception available without a prescription.
The best way to clean up politics isn’t by limiting citizens’ participation in the political process but by defeating the politicians whose ads are essentially smear campaigns. Politicians won’t stop running smear campaigns until they don’t work anymore. This isn’t that complicated.
Another key step in eliminating negative campaigning is by tying outside groups’ spending to the candidates they’re attempting to help. While it’s illegal to for politicians to coordinate with these outside expenditure organizations, it isn’t illegal to issue a heartfelt statement specifically criticizing these smear campaign ads. For instance, a man of integrity caught in soon-to-be former Sen. Udall’s position could’ve issued this statement about NARAL’s smear campaign ad:
My campaign condemns in the harshest possible terms NARAL’s ad suggesting my opponent wants to ban birth control. While my opponent and I disagree on a wide range of issues, and while I stand ready to highlight those points of disagreement during our debates and out campaign, I can’t sit idly by while this smear campaign is carried out on my behalf. I hereby demand that NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado take this ad down immediately.
In the Eighth District, there was little difference between Rick Nolan’s advertisements and Pelosi’s advertisements. In fact, the DCCC’s advertisements against Torrey Westrom and Rick Nolan’s advertisements against Stewart Mills were cookie-cutter copycats of Pelosi’s advertisements against Stewart Mills.
I’ll have more to say on Rick Nolan’s spinelessness later this morning.
When Ed Henry questioned WH Press Secretary Josh Earnest about Jonathan Gruber’s statements, Earnest’s reply was stunningly dishonest:
ED HENRY: While you’ve been here, the President has been here, there’s videotape from Jonathan Gruber, who was one of the architects when the law came out. Among the things he said was that the bill was originally written in a “very tortured way,” in his words, to kind of mislead people about the taxes in the law and other parts of the law. He went on to say, “A lack of transparency was a huge political advantage for the President…” in terms of selling it to the American people.
I thought it was just the opposite. Didn’t the President promise unprecedented transparency? Why would one of the architects of the law suggest that you were misleading people?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I’m not sure, frankly, Ed. The fact of the matter is the process associated with writing and passing and implementing the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent. We all sat through many town hall meetings and discussions where this piece of legislation was vigorously debated by people on both sides. There was even a meeting that the President convened at Blair House with Republicans to discuss this policy proposal. It was, as you know, broadcast by C-SPAN.
There was a steadfast commitment by this administration to make sure that people had good insight into the benefits of the law. The fact is we spent a lot of time talking about one of those benefits. And that is the fact that individuals could receive tax credits from the federal government to make their health care costs more affordable. The fact is, I think it’s actually Republicans who haven’t been particularly transparent or even honest about the true impact of those.
That’s a breathtakingly dishonest statement, especially in light of John Fund’s article for the WSJ at the time:
For Their Next Trick . . .
By John Fund
Updated Dec. 23, 2009 12:48 p.m. ET
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi rewrote the ACA from what it looked like after multiple committee hearings, they did so exclusively in their offices and without a Republican in sight. If that’s Mr. Earnest’s definition of being “extraordinarily transparent”, then he needs a dictionary. Here’s the definition of transparent:
Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material.
Here’s the definition of extraordinary:
Highly exceptional; remarkable.
One of the 2 chief architects said that a lack of transparency was essential to passing the bill. That directly and emphatically contradicts Josh Earnest’s statements that the process was remarkably visible for all to see. But that isn’t enough. Then there’s this doubling down:
I do think that the question that you raised is about the commitment to transparency that was embodied in the process of writing and passing the Affordable Care Act. And again, I think the President is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law.
The Obama administration hasn’t had a press secretary. They’ve had willing liars delivering the daily White House briefings. Words don’t mean things to Mr. Earnest. He knows key buzzwords and he knows he should repeat them as often as possible, especially when they aren’t true.
Catherine Richert’s article suggests a significant anti-DCCC backlash forming against Rick Nolan:
In the end, life-long Democrat Andy Larson’s decision to vote for Republican Stewart Mills over DFL incumbent Rick Nolan came down to the ads he’s seeing every day on television. “I’m very disappointed in my fellow party members in the types of advertisements just attacking Mr. Mills for his wealth,” Larson said. “It’s completely unwarranted. It’s really turned me off.”
Larson isn’t the only Democrat disgusted with the DCCC’s ads:
Paul Lemenager, a video producer in Duluth, feels the same way about the ads, which are coming from outside groups, not Nolan’s campaign. But he also says Mills’ business experience is attractive.
“The fact that his family owns a business and understands what it takes to develop a business and jobs and to put a business into the black,” Lemenager said. “Nolan has taken on the tone of a career politician. We have so much of that in Washington. We really need someone who understands what it takes to pull out of the slump economically.”
The Obama economy is the weakest economic recovery since the end of World War II. President Obama’s policies have contributed directly to this current stagnation. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between President Obama’s economic plan and Rick Nolan’s voting record. Whatever President Obama wants, Rick Nolan votes for.
The thing that hasn’t gotten talked about, though, is that Stewart Mills isn’t a trust fund baby who’s never worked a day in his life. That’s just the propaganda that the DCCC and Nancy Pelosi’s superPAC have spread since the start of the campaign. Unlike our governor, Stewart Mills has had professional, private sector responsibilities for which he’s been rewarded financially. He’s made things work. He’s grown the Mills Fleet Farm chain. Lots of people are employed through that retail chain.
If it isn’t Stewart’s way to talk about his successes, then I’ll tout them. Stewart Mills is obviously doing things right. Mills Fleet Farm is growing, partially because they self-insure their employees. That means they don’t have to deal with the ACA’s regulations and taxes. Their stores are growing more profitable because they’re the ultimate blue collar retail chain. People in the Eighth District like the Mills chain because it’s got the types of things people use frequently.
It’s hard to characterize Stewart Mills as an out-of-touch rich kid when the retail chain he runs specializes in selling things that middle class families want.
Frankly, I’ve thought that the DCCC’s ads and the ads from Pelosi’s superPAC were way over the top. They aren’t substantive ads, which is what many voters are looking for. These voters aren’t looking for the Democrats’ negativity. They’re looking for solutions and common sense.
If voters elect Stewart Mills, that’s exactly what they’ll get. That’s why the DCCC’s ads are backfiring.
Friday night, Collin Peterson collided with Torrey Westrom in a debate. Here’s the video for the entire debate:
Saying that it was contentious is understatement. It was also inspirational and infuriating. This clip fits into the infuriating category:
Here’s what Collin Peterson said in defending his decision not to vote for Obamacare:
PETERSON: I didn’t vote for this bill. The reason I didn’t vote for it — the reason I didn’t vote for it is because I actually read the bill, which a lot of people didn’t.
That’s the first time Peterson said he’d read the bill prior to passing it. That runs contrary to what then-Speaker Pelosi said:
Here are her infamous words:
But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.
The key point in all this is that, if it’s true, Collin Peterson knew what was in the bill but didn’t criticize the ACA. It’s one thing to stay silent on a bill you mildly disagree with. It’s almost justifiable if you think it might work. There was nothing in the ACA that suggested it would work.
For instance, if Peterson actually read the bill, he would’ve known that people couldn’t keep the plans they liked. Sitting silent while that abomination hits the American people is despicable. Edmund Burke got it right with this famous quote:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Collin Peterson did nothing. As a result, people in the Seventh District are getting bad news. Torrey Westrom is definitely speaking up about it:
“All you need to do is travel the district and talk to the small business owners that are getting renewal notices from their employees,” Westrom responded. “They’re seeing 40, 50, 60, 80% increases. I just talked to a person in my home county two weeks ago at the coffee shop, and they said they’re seeing a 100 percent increase because of Obamacare. That is a critical, a big concern, and why I am pushing that we need to repeal Obamacare, different from the congressman.”
Torrey Westrom’s closing statement was inspirational. Here’s that closing statement:
Saying that he returned to bailing hay on the family farm just a year after permanently losing his sight is inspirational. I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that I appreciated Westrom’s statement that “even I can see that Washington is broken.”
Torrey’s sense of humor, combined with Torrey’s can-do attitude speak to one thing: that Torrey will be a positive, powerful force in Washington, DC.
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.