Archive for the ‘Heartland’ Category

AOC and other Democrats hate the Electoral College because they either don’t understand history or they hate the system that the Founders gave us. I suspect that it’s a little of both. Determining presidential (notice that I didn’t say national) elections based on the popular vote would turn elections on their head. I’m writing this post to expose AOC’s foolish plan to eliminate the electoral college.

Our government in DC is called the federal government, not the national government. The federation that the federal government is built from is the federation of states. That’s why our nation is called the United States of America. Each state is sovereign. Without the states’ consent, there isn’t a federal government.

The purpose of the federal government is to represent the states. It wasn’t created to represent just the people. Had the Founding Fathers wanted that, they wouldn’t have formed the states. For instance, when the colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each colony as a sovereign nation.

Apparently, AOC hasn’t grasped the concept that the United States is built on the foundation of each state being sovereign. That’s why each state’s laws are unique to that state. No 2 states have identical statutes on how they pay for education or economic development or whatever the subject. Each state has different laws on what constitutes manslaughter or sexual assault.

AOC’s desire to get rid of the Electoral College is partially because she wants to win more elections but it’s also partially because she doesn’t understand the foundation that the Constitution was built on. When the Revolutionary War ended, the federal government didn’t exist. The colonies eventually created the federal government out of convenience and necessity. It was convenient in the sense that the President was authorized to negotiate treaties and trade agreements rather than each state being required to negotiate separate trade deals. It was built out of necessity in that the settlers needed someone to provide for the national defense.

The Founding Fathers wanted the states to be the “laboratories of democracy.” They wrote the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to keep as much power as close to the families as possible. Here’s the text of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AOC’s push for electing presidents by popular vote is understandable from a partisan standpoint. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst pointed this out:

In AOC’s mind, the Electoral College is — brace yourself — racist. Actually, it prevents some of the states who created the federal government from being represented by the federal government. That’s beyond foolish.

People pushing the national popular vote initiative aren’t interested in the US’s Heartland, aka Flyover Country. It’s time to push these idiots off the national stage. They aren’t rational human beings. Either that or they’re exceptionally despicable people.

The Electoral College isn’t outdated. It just isn’t wanted by progressive elitists who think of the men and women of America’s Heartland as unsophisticated rubes. That sounds frighteningly similar to Barack Obama when he said this:

Apparently, the AOC wing of the Democratic Party isn’t too happy with the somewhat slightly less crazy wing of the Democrat Party, aka the Senate Democrats. There’s definitely some infighting between House and Senate Democrats, with House Democrats saying that Sen. Schumer wasn’t “able to hold his people” together. Senate aides said “They’re blaming everyone but themselves.”

The House Democrats are stupid if they think their bill had any chance of passing in the Senate:

The report recounted how Democrats had hoped to pass a more liberal bill that would have “eliminated funding for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement back pay as well as for Defense Department border operations” and “further tightened the administration’s ability to shift money around” in order to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for more concessions.

In what universe is not paying law enforcement for work that they’ve already done a plausible idea? Even if it’s a negotiating attempt, it isn’t something that’d get taken seriously. Sen. McConnell would’ve swatted that proposal aside in a New York Minute.

“The Senate Democrats did us a huge disservice. The benefit to having one chamber controlled by Democrats is you have people who can fight and win. But that requires the people in the minority chamber to also fight, even if they lose,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the Congressional Progressive Caucus chair whose demands reportedly “slowed progress” and rattled more conservative Democrats.

It’s time for progressives to realize that their agenda isn’t that popular. While their agenda might play well in New England and on the Left Coast, the progressives’ agenda doesn’t play well in Great Lakes states or the Rust Belt.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Democrats aren’t united like they were in 2018. Since taking the House majority, significant divisions have appeared. The AOC wing of the Democratic Party is definitely clashing with the Problem Solvers Caucus wing of the Democratic Party. This isn’t as much about ideology as it is about getting re-elected.

The Democrats in the Problem Solvers Caucus have pretty much done nothing except caved to Pelosi’s wishes on everything she’s told them to cave on.

When it comes to diagnosing why Hillary Clinton lost, Chip Englander, “a Chicago-based GOP consultant”, got it exactly right when he said the Clintons’ “intent to try to rewrite the history books is super obvious. The history books are not written by losers. She lost the election because she broke the law and didn’t bother to campaign in swing states. She’s got nobody to blame but herself.”

By comparison, Robbie Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, couldn’t get it more wrong than when he said “if you ask me what is the single greatest headwind we faced in the race … it was the two letters by James Comey.” I won’t deny that those letters produced some strong headwinds. They didn’t happen by themselves, though. If Mrs. Clinton hadn’t tried hiding her State Department emails from FOIA requests by using her own server, there wouldn’t have been a Comey investigation.

The ‘Comey headwinds’, therefore, were Mrs. Clinton’s fault.

In August, 2015, Quinnipiac University asked respondents “the first word that pops into their heads when they think of Hillary Clinton. This word-cloud is telling:

Mrs. Clinton’s spinmeisters simply re-inforce the images that a) it’s never her fault, b) she lives by different rules than the little people and c) Mrs. Clinton doesn’t accept criticism, especially as a presidential candidate.

Mrs. Clinton’s post-mortem:

I could get long-winded but I won’t. What we know about Mrs. Clinton is that she’s dishonest and uninteresting. It’s time for her to leave the national stage — forever.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Glenn Reynolds’ USA Today article highlights some points of peril that elitists haven’t paid attention to.

In the opening paragraph to his article, Reynolds writes “So the post-Brexit number-crunching is over and it turns out that the decisive support for Britain’s leaving the EU came not from right-wing nationalists but from working-class Labour voters. This offers some lessons for British and European politicians — and for us in America, too.”

This is potentially significant if you’re Hillary Clinton. The American equivalent to Labour voters are what used to be called Reagan Democrats. Eventually, they stopped being Democrats because the Democratic Party stopped being the party of the little guy. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the first unabashed friends of ‘Too Big To Fail’ banks. Later, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama caught on and started cashing in with Wall Street.

Meanwhile, it’s impossible to highlight this part of Dr. Reynolds’ article too much:

The result, Mandler writes, is that “For the rest of the country has felt more and more excluded, not only from participation in the creativity and prosperity of London, but more crucially from power. . . . A majority of people around the United Kingdom are feeling like non-people, un-citizens, their lives jerked about like marionettes by wire-pullers far away. In those circumstances, very bad things indeed can be expected.”

Given a chance, these people seized an opportunity to give the wires a yank of their own. A lot of people felt powerless, and the political system not only didn’t address that, but seemed to glory in it.

These Brits’ votes were their way of saying this:

It was their opportunity to tell their country’s elites that they weren’t going to get talked down to anymore. Think of it as the British people’s visceral reaction to the elitists’ control over their lives.

America, of course, faces the same kind of division, as Dana Loesch writes in her new book, Flyover Nation: You Can’t Run A Country You’ve Never Been To. Every once in a while, she notes, a publisher or a newspaper from a coastal city will send a reporter, like an intrepid African explorer of the 19th century, to report on the odd beliefs and doings of the inhabitants of the interior. But even the politicians who represent Flyover Country tend to spend most of their time, and, crucially, their post-elective careers, in Washington, DC.

Simply put, DC and New York have viewed Heartlanders like aliens from outer space. They’re insulated from reality. While he was a presidential candidate, Gov. Walker had it right when he called Washington, DC “68 square miles surrounded by reality.”

Whether Heartlanders experience their own version of Brexit remains to be seen. Is it possible? Without question. Will it happen? I’m hoping.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

I appreciate Salena Zito’s latest column because, once again, it’s about what’s important to Beltway pundits and what’s important to real people living in America’s heartland. This week, Ms. Zito’s column focuses on the fight between getting distracted by gimmickry or focusing on fundamentals:

Though he never was called up to serve in Vietnam, Garfein, out of Fort Lewis, Wash., led an armored reconnaissance unit and a field artillery battery. “I’ve always felt a connection to the men who fought in the Civil War.”

His conversation turned to leadership, honoring the past, the government scandals of the last five years and the country’s future: “I was taught at a young age to value your community and to serve it. We need more emphasis on that from those who want to lead our country. “And we need to hold those in power in check; stop chasing the unicorns and start chasing and revealing the truth and demanding competency.”

A week later, more than two dozen reporters chased the next presidential cycle’s first unicorn, Hillary Clinton, around an Iowa community college on her first official campaign stop. The optics of that was as comical as a tiny car releasing scores of clowns into a circus ring. But it doesn’t amuse people like Garfein, who wish the media would chase down government corruption and incompetency with the same gusto.

The ‘reporters’ covering Hillary on the campaign trail are making asses of themselves. They breathlessly told us that Queen Hillary had ordered the burrito bowl from a Chipotle in Ohio. They informed us that she’d ordered the “guac”, though Jon Stewart noticed that they didn’t tell us how many napkins she took:

The media are, for all intents and purposes, Hillary’s puppets. For all the talk about how Hillary won’t get the same kid glove treatment from the media like then-candidate Obama did, it’s looking like the media isn’t exactly fired up to investigate Hillary. While she won’t get the slobbering coverage that President Obama got, she’ll get kid glove treatment.

This week, we saw the Hillary ‘correspondents’ do some embarrassing things. First, they acted like puppets chasing her vehicle around a community college building. This morning, veteran NPR political reporter Mara Liasson told media critic Howard Kurtz “For some reason that I’ve never understood, the public wants to know everything that the Clintons do.” That’s what Beltway reporters think about the people’s appetite for the Clintons? Seriously?

There’s no finer example of the difference between real reporters from America’s heartland and ‘reporters’ from inside the DC Beltway.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

I’ve written before that reading Salena Zito’s Sunday columns is one of my favorite things to do, mostly because she ventures into flyover country. Salena’s columns are more likely to quote people we’ve never heard of than people we’ve heard of altogether too often. Thank goodness for that. We need that realism. This morning’s column touches on something that Washington hasn’t seen coming:

PLEASANTVILLE, Pa. – The homemade sign along state Route 96 in Bedford County could easily be missed if a driver is distracted by the winding curves at the base of the Allegheny Mountains.

“Our country is dying. Please pray for all of us,” it says in blue letters on a white board. A bouquet of slightly wilted wildflowers is tied to it with a blue bow.

The sign doesn’t blame anyone in particular; no political brand or elected official is named, no familiar tagline from social media or cable news is part of the message. In fact, its poignant words (all lower-case, no wild-hare punctuation) and slightly hidden position in some ways reflect the underground populist movement that this column has warned about for months, moderate in tone, big in impact.

It’s undeniable that people of all political stripes want government to work. It’s also true that they want government to listen to them. DC has stopped doing that:

When Eric Cantor lost his primary race Tuesday, it wasn’t because he wasn’t conservative enough for his base.

It wasn’t because of the Republicans’ tea party element. It had nothing to do with immigration reform, or some Democrat conspiracy to flood the polls. And it was not driven by right-wing talk-radio hosts or operatives from Heritage Action, Club for Growth, Citizens United or ForAmerica (which claimed Cantor’s defeat was an “apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment”).

This was a complicated recipe, according to Republican strategist Bruce Haynes.

“There were more than four-and-twenty blackbirds baked into this pie,” Haynes said, adding that ultimately the loss had everything to do with Cantor: He lost touch with his constituency; he became too Washington, too associated with the D.C.-bubble brand; he forgot how to relate and to be that guy from his district.

Something like that is happening in Minnesota, where the DFL is just waking up to the fact that Iron Rangers are upset that they’re being ignored. They’re being ignored because environmental activists are essentially telling the DFL to ignore the Iron Range.

There’s no question but that these Rangers want a new influx of mining jobs and upper middle class incomes. There’s no question that professional environmental activists hate mining, especially precious metals mining. The DFL is taking the Iron Range vote for granted. That’s the first step in activating populism.

One thing that hurt Eric Cantor the most was that people thought he talked out of both sides of his mouth. He told his constituents that he opposed amnesty, then he supported the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill. Technically, Mark Dayton issn’t talking out of both sides of his mouth. He’s just doing whatever he can to not get either side upset.

Al Franken is even more ‘cautious.’ He isn’t saying anything on the subject. Sen. Franken didn’t mention mining during his 26-minute-long acceptance speech. Mining isn’t mentioned on his campaign website, either.

If there’s anything that Eric Cantor’s loss tells us, it’s that ignoring major constituency groups is potentially disastrous politically.

If the “homemade sign along state Route 96 in Bedford County” was found alongside Highway 53 near Eveleth or Virginia, it would read ‘Our way of life is dying an nobody’s listening. Please pray for us.’

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

Political junkies like me have known about Paul Ryan for 5-6 years. The man that will step into the spotlight tonight is the smartest man on policy in DC. That’s why he gets under President Obama’s skin so easily. President Obama’s narcissism won’t let him admit that he isn’t the smartest man in the room about anything.

Ryan steps into tonight’s spotlight as a seasoned veteran of the political wars. He’s most famous for demolishing the ACA during the Health Care Summit at Blair House:

Paul Ryan stepped into the spotlight that day without hesitation, with an outstanding grasp of the health care facts and with an understanding of the American people. When he was done with the GOP’s closing argument, President Obama sat humbled and silent.

That’s the man I expect to see step to the podium tonight.

Last night, Chris Christie talked about telling the American people the truth about adult subjects. Tonight, I expect to hear Paul Ryan talk about the challenges we face. I expect him to talk about why it’s vital that we reverse course ASAP. Finally, I expect him to give a midwestern perspective for what’s at stake if we don’t change course.

I don’t expect him to deliver ‘the plan’ in full, though I’d expect he’ll touch on that.

Finally, I expect him to a) critique the Democrats’ agenda, b) keep the Christie momentum going and c) tee things up for Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech Thursday night.

Paul Ryan is part of the new leadership of the GOP. He’s an expert. He’s fearless. He’s principled. Most importantly, he’s in touch with the American people because he’s from a small town in America’s heartland.

That’s why he’ll connect with the American people.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

If ever an indictment against was to be written about Washington insiders, you could certainly do alot worse than starting with this article in the National Journal.

The large Republican presidential field, along with the dramatic surges and collapses of several of its candidates, may ultimately be much ado about nothing. That, at least, is the conclusion of the Republican strategists surveyed in this week’s National Journal Political Insiders Poll, who almost unanimously identified Mitt Romney as the most likely candidate to win the nomination. In the five times the GOP Insiders have been asked that question in 2011, Romney has never surrendered the top spot.

It’s apparent these Washington insiders don’t count trustworthiness, leadership and consistency as important characteristics in presidential candidates. If they did, they would’ve disqualified Mitt months ago. It’s apparent that the insiders consider having a spine optional, too.

This part is quite frightening:

Democratic Insiders, meanwhile, largely believe Republicans are on the right track, with more than two-thirds of them naming Romney as the strongest candidate the GOP could nominate for the 2012 election.

It’s proof that Democratic insiders are as out of touch with America’s heartland as GOP insiders. Seventy-one percent of Democrat insiders said that Mitt Romney would be the toughest candidate to run against, followed by 19% saying Gov. Huntsman would be the toughest, with Gov. Perry and “Other” each collecting 5% of Democrat insiders’ votes.

This isn’t insanity. It’s outright stupidity. The 2010 GOP landslide wasn’t won because Republicans recruited a great crop of squishy moderates. The GOP landslide was possible because they recruited great conservative candidates.

By picking Huntsman and Romney, the 2 most liberal GOP presidential candidates this year, Democratic insiders are either saying that 2010 didn’t happen or that it was just an aberration.

Without a fired up base, the GOP candidate can’t win. Without a solid conservative at the top of the ticket, the GOP loses alot of independents. With Romney as the GOP nominee, the TEA Party won’t enthusiastically support the GOP candidate. It’s that simple.

If these GOP insiders don’t care about winning, they should just admit it so we can ignore their opinions. If the GOP insiders like a flip-flopping, spineless, leadership-challenged candidate, that’s their right.

Here’s a little advice for the insiders from both parties: spend the next 2-3 months away from DC, away from the campaigns. Get into your cars and drive to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, West Virginia and Wisconsin. That’s what Salena Zito is doing, which is why she’s staying so connected with political reality.

While you’re away from DC, actually listen to real people. Find out what’s important to them. Don’t reflexively accept the Beltway’s conventional wisdom as Gospel fact.

If the DC insiders from both parties did that, most of the crap that’s happening in DC would be ridiculed until Beltway CW became a laughingstock.

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

According to this NYTimes article, the Obama administration said in court filings that their right to tax is the justification that allows them to impose mandates to buy health insurance:

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

Whether the Supreme Court has ruled that “Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce” is irrelevant to the extent that the Supreme Court isn’t infallible. As human beings whose rulings are often driven by their policy preferences, previous rulings might well be wrong according to the text of the Constitution.

I’d argue that the mandates are unconstitutional because providing health care isn’t one of the Constitution’s enumerated powers given to the federal government. If the Constitution prohibits the federal government from providing health care, then it can’t argue, in essence, that they can tax people for not doing what the federal government isn’t authorized to mandate.

Here’s why the Obama administration’s arguments are tougher in the court of public opinion:

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

I didn’t think that the 2008 election confered on President Obama the authority to rewrite the dictionary. Here’s’s definition of tax:

a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

It’s a tax according to that definition. More importantly to this situation is that the underlying activity, i.e. the mandating the purchase of health insurance, isn’t sanctioned by the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can force people into buying health insurance, future congresses would be allowed to mandate the purchase of healthy foods or buying hybrid cars or green energy heating systems.

Sane justices would see those things as major infringements on a person’s individual liberties. I’m not confident saying that justices like Breyer, Sotomayor or Ginsburg would put a higher priority on individual liberties as they would put on ruling in favor of anything that made their policy preferences a reality.

Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.

“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”

The good news is that if SCOTUS rules that the mandate is a tax, a future congress and president could eliminate that tax in a simple budget bill. If one congress and administration can levy a tax, then it’s certainly possible for another congress and administration to cut or eliminate that tax.

If Republicans turn President Obama into a one-term wonder, which is certainly possible, and if they have control of the House and Senate, which I think they will, their first bill should repeal the health care taxes, if not repealing the entire thing.

Democrats challenging Republicans to run on repealing Obamacare will find out that America didn’t like much of it once they learned what was in the bill. They’ll find that the American people rather viscerally hate the legislation, complete with $670,000,000,000 in new taxes.

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

Cross-posted at California Conservative

I just finished watching Esme Murphy’s interview of Tarryl Clark. One thing that Tarryl said was so utterly absurd that I replayed it 3 times to make sure I heard Tarryl right. During one of her answers, Tarryl said that “she voted for higher taxes for 95 percent of Americans when she voted against the Recovery Act.”

Tarryl’s statement was a reply to a question about fiscal responsibility. What spending $862,000,000,000 on pork projects and keeping government inflated and paying off public unions has to do with fiscal responsibility is beyond me.

I’m guessing, but I’m anything but sure on this, that Tarryl is spinning this to mean that voting against the one-time rebate checks is the equivalent to a tax increase.

The logic, if that applies in this instance, is this: a vote against spending money on a $600 rebate is a vote for tax increases. In reality, it’s just a vote against increasing spending and a vote against skyrocketing deficits.

President Obama touts the $600 checks as a tax cut but it’s nothing of the sort. It isn’t attached to anything in the tax code. In truth, it’s just money spent.

I’d further argue that voting to not lower taxes isn’t a tax increase. A tax increase is when you vote to raise the marginal tax rate on small businesses, which is what Tarryl did when she cast the 67th and decisive vote to create a higher income tax bracket for small businesses. That tax legislation would’ve created a top marginal rate of 9.25 percent, significantly higher than the current top marginal tax rate of 7.86 percent.

Early in the interview, Tarryl said that “Washington still isn’t working for Minnesota and Congresswoman Bachmann certainly isn’t.” Yes, it’s true that Washington isn’t working for Minnesotans or anyone else. It’s dominated with Democrats who repeatedly refused to listen to the people in passing the stimulus bill without reading it and passing Obamacare against the wishes of the people and without reading the legislation.

Tarryl’s solution to Washington being broken? Send more Democrats to Washington to rubberstamp President Obama’s radical agenda that gets anemic support in the heartland but gets stratospheric support on K Street. That’s so intellectually inconsistent that it’s insulting.

Later, Tarryl says that Minnesotans want someone who will fight for them, not fight for their own agenda. Let’s stipulate that that’s true. When Michele called for a rally in DC to oppose Obamacare, polls showed that Obamacare had a net approval rating nearing -20, meaning 60 percent of the people opposed Obamacare while 40 percent approved of it.

I’d argue, based on those verifiable facts, that Michele was fighting for what Minnesotans wanted.

I’d argue that voting against the ARRA was voting the way Minnesotans wanted, too, because ARRA was nothing more than a payoff to big government unions. That certainly isn’t what Minnesotans supported.

That’s quite the opposite of Tarryl casting the 67th and tie-breaking vote to raise taxes on small businesses. That certainly isn’t fighting for the things that Minnesotans want. Just because it gets the Matt Entenza/Dane Smith stamp of approval doesn’t mean it gets Minnesota’s stamp of approval.

Later in the interview, Tarryl said that Michele voted to raise her own salary, something that didn’t happen. Meanwhile, Tarryl said that she reduced the cost of her staffing. I can’t verify whether that’s true or not but what I can verify is that Tarryl voted in 2007 to raise her per diem from $66/day to $96/day.

Factoring in the 43 days of out-of-session per diem she collected in 2008 plus the 280 days of regular session per diem at $96/day, that’s a total of $31,008 in per diem payments. Had Tarryl voted against raising per diem those $30/day, that total would’ve been $21,318, or $9,690 less than less than she collected.

Note that that’s just counting the per diem paid in between one session and another. That isn’t counting the out-of-session per diem paid to Tarryl in other years. Note that that money doesn’t factor in the rent subsidies legislators get or the gas money they get reimbursed for. That’s per diem only.

Let’s question why Tarryl thinks that a state legislator needs $96/day for incidental costs. There’s just a little catch with that, though. House members get paid a paltry $77/day in per diem. Why does the Senate deserve an additional $19/day for their per diem than the House gets?

Tarryl, do St. Paul restaurants charge senators $19/day more than House members?

That’s before factoring in Tarryl voting against Amy Koch’s amendment to restore per diem to its pre-2007 rate of $66/day. What’s Tarryl’s justification for not returning to the still substantial $66/day per diem when the state was running a $6,400,000,000 deficit?

I’d submit that Tarryl can’t justify that $96/day per diem any time, much less with Minnesota facing a $6,400,000,000 deficit. I’d further submit that Tarryl’s argument that she’s the fiscally responsible candidate in this race is pure spin, that it’s part of Tarryl’s PR campaign, that it isn’t based on reality.

I’ve always thought that too many of Tarryl’s statements were fabrications. During a 4:56 interview, Tarryl said at least 3 things that were effortlessly proven as spin or fabrications.

If Tarryl can’t be more credible than that, she’ll get pounded this election because voters aren’t in the mood for spin and PR. This election, voters are demanding the straight truth, something that’s apparently in short supply in the Clark campaign office.

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