Archive for the ‘Dean’ Category

Salena Zito’s latest column deals with the Democrats’ problems connecting with voters. In the article, she quotes “Bruce Haynes, founding partner of Purple Strategies, and a GOP strategist.” Haynes is right in stating that the Democrats’ “challenge is they have lost their connection with the American voter. In short, they have a macro problem.” Haynes is essentially saying that improving their messaging might help around the margins but it won’t fix their biggest problem.

Apparently, “Steve McMahon, a Democratic strategist also at Purple Strategies”, didn’t get that memo. In the article, he’s quoted as saying “there was no screaming, no partisan attacks; the tone was neither shrill nor harsh, just simple messages that began with ‘Are you tired of …’ or ‘Think about this …'”

Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy produced positive results electorally. What it didn’t do, though, was produce positive results for the American people policywise. That’s the important metric by which things are getting measured.

The Democrats’ newest difficulty is that Dean’s 50-state strategy eventually led to the Democratic majorities that created the ACA. The Democrats’ worst nightmare possibility is that Trump’s agenda is as successful as Bill Clinton’s in terms of economic growth and job creation. The Democrats will have to answer why they should be given access to power after they’ve passed Obamacare and let the EPA run wild while mining jobs disappeared.

The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’re the radical party. If their agenda doesn’t change from income inequality, raising the minimum wage and insisting that climate change is the biggest threat to American society, they’ll wander this self-inflicted desert for a decade or more.

Electing Keith Ellison as chairman of the DNC would help cement the Democrats’ image of being the radical party. This interview cements Ellison’s image as being a back-bench bomb-thrower:

Dennis Miller got it right about Ellison:

The Democrats’ biggest problems are that they’re hyperpartisan and their policies haven’t worked. Put differently, they aren’t that likable and their policies either hurt families (think Obamacare) or people ignore their far-left agenda (think $15 minimum wage or transgender bathrooms).

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday night, the DFL announced to the world what they think is the world’s greatest threat. Actually, it wasn’t the DFL state party. It was the SD38 DFL that made this analysis. It’s stunning that they cited this article. Here’s what the DFL thinks is the single biggest threat to the world:

The single greatest threat to the United States is not joblessness, foreclosures, another recession or skyrocketing debt or health care costs. Nor is it terrorism, China or declining influence abroad. No, the single greatest threat to our country is today’s Republican Party.

That’s because the GOP is relentlessly pursuing a policy of the American public be damned, so that next year Republicans can regain the national political dominance they held from 2001 to 2006. Their sole, selfish aim is to complete the transformation of the U.S. to a government of, by and for the rich and the far-right.

This isn’t aberrant behavior on the DFL’s part. It’s part of their national DNA. This is an exchange between the late Tim Russert and Howard Dean:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about some of the things you have said about the Republicans. Here’s Howard Dean in January: “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for…”

Howard Dean in February: “This is a struggle between good and evil and we’re the good?”

Do you really hate Republicans? Do you consider them evil?

It’s apparent that a significant portion of the DFL is hateful.

Thanks to the SD-38 DFL’s tweet, we know that terrorism isn’t the biggest threat to America. It isn’t the national debt that President Obama imperiled us with. It isn’t a record-breaking stretch of unemployment. It isn’t even China owning tons of our debt.

The DFL thinks that the biggest threat to the U.S. is the GOP:

Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by using any means available…Control as much as possible what the population gets to see and hear; create chaos for your opponent’s government, economically and politically; blame it for the mess; and establish in the minds of the voters that their only way out is to submit, that the pain will stop once your side is back in power…

Republicans and the Right…are well positioned to roll the U.S. economy off the cliff and blame the catastrophe on Obama. Indeed, that may be their best hope for winning Election 2012.

In addition to being hateful, the DFL doesn’t hesitate in lying. They know that President Obama’s stimulus plan failed miserably. They know this administration’s attempt to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline project hurts the construction industry and keeps the unemployment rate needlessly high.

House Republicans have passed 22 bills that would help create hundreds of thousands of jobs. They’re piling up on the Senate’s doorstep. That’d be the Democrat-controlled Senate.

They’re piling these bills up so they can lie to the American people by saying that Republicans want to demolish the American economy. That’s BS. I wrote in this post that the annual unemployment rate for 2006 was a paltry 4.6%. That’s the final year that Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House. That year’s annual deficit was $160,000,000,000, approximately 8 times less than the this administration’s average annual deficit.

The next time that the SD-38 DFL tweets that Republicans are the greatest danger to the world, they’d better get their facts straight. If they’re spreading this type of rubbish and I see it, I’ll rip them like I’m ripping them tonight.

The DFL is proficient in reciting their talking points that Republicans are evil. What they’re worthless at is defending them against a skilled debater who’s got the facts on his side.

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

After reading this article, the first thing I thought was that this is the definition of redistricting gone insane. It’s what you’d expect of a redistricting map drawn by someone from Organizing for America. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Forty-two Minnesota legislators, more than one in five incumbents, would lose their seats or be forced to move under a plan to redraw the state’s political boundaries that a bipartisan citizens’ commission will submit to the state’s five-judge redistricting panel today.

The plan drafted by a “Draw the Line Minnesota” commission would pair 84 of the 201 House and Senate members against other incumbents in the same districts next year.

Was Linden Wieswerda using hallucinogenic drugs when he drew these redistricting maps? If Wieswerda’s redistricting map became law, it would essentially be an end run around the will of Minnesota voters. It isn’t accidental that people fled lunatic progressive representation for more conservative representation.

They voted with their mortgages. They fled districts represented by Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum and Tim Walz. They flocked to districts represented by John Kline and Michele Bachmann. They left districts represented by Linda Berglin, Sandy Pappas, Scott Dibble, Richard Cohen, John Harrington and Ellen Anderson like they were selling toxic waste. They flocked to districts represented by rock-solid conservatives in the legislature.

Linden Wieswerda tossed that information aside. He essentially said ‘Population shifts be damned. I’m drawing the most competitive map possible.’ That’s lovely theory but it’s nefarious if thought through to any extent.

If there are dozens of close races statewide, that’s a perfect situation for the DFL. Since Republicans hold majorities in the House and Senate, it isn’t a stretch to think that most of the 84 legislators paired are Republican vs. Republican.

Simply by pairing Republicans with each other, that leaves alot of open seats for the DFL to target. Couple that with Alida’s millions for major independent ad buys and you’ve got the picture of an exceptionally corrupt DFL racket in the making.

It isn’t a stretch to think that 20 GOP seats would turn into open seats in the House. It isn’t a stretch to think that 10-15 GOP would turn into open seats in the Senate. With the DFL needing only a 4 seat gain in the Senate and a 6 seat gain in the House, this redistricting map puts them almost there without lifting a finger.

Let me make this abundantly clear. I don’t care about competitive districts if it favors Republicans. I don’t care about competitive districts if it favors the DFL. I care about being true to the population shifts.

If people left DFL-dominated districts for GOP-dominated districts in sufficient numbers, God bless the people. If people left GOP-dominated districts for DFL-dominated districts in sufficient numbers, then the people will have spoken. Let’s honor that.

The group’s No. 1 principle is to “preserve communities of interest.” They defined such communities as “a grouping of people in a geographic area that share common economic, cultural, demographic or other interests. Cities, counties and sovereign nations are also important communities of interest.”

Communities of interest is a scam. The term defies definition because it can mean anything to anyone. I’d bet the proverbial ranch that Linden Wieswerda, the progressive redistricting expert, used the most liberal definition possible of communities of interest in his attempt to create a map that unfairly benefits the DFL.

In last year’s census, 17 percent of Minnesotans identified themselves as nonwhite or Hispanic, but minorities hold just 3 percent of the seats in the Legislature. If they were fairly represented, Walz said, they would hold 30 seats instead of the six they now fill.

I’d be interested in seeing where those nonwhite people live. What percentage of the nonwhite community lives in urban St. Paul and Minneapolis? What percentage lives in Duluth, Rochester and St. Cloud? A sweeping statement like Walz’s doesn’t tell me much if I don’t have more details.

A few conservative bloggers have questioned whether the commission is unbiased because some organizations in the sponsoring coalition have liberal ties. But Kaiser, a Republican and Northwestern College communications professor, said that while conservatives are likely to object to the group’s map, “our principles are nonpartisan.”

That’s either an ill-informed opinion or it’s an intentional cheapshot.

I’m one of the conservative bloggers they’re talking about. Unfortunately, they’ve mischaracterized what I’ve said. I haven’t questioned the Citizens Commission. I’ve questioned the outsiders that’ve hijacked the Citizens Commission’s redistricting maps. There’s a significant difference.

I’m not questioning the sincerity of the Citizens Commission. I’m confident that they weren’t corrupt. I’m arguing that DTL-Minnesota’s leadership hijacked the redistricting process, even having Linden Wieswerda, a former Organizing for Obama activist, draw the actual map. The leadership then forbid the Citizens Commission from seeking public input on the redistricting map the Obama activist drew.

It’s important to note the distinction between DTL-Minnesota’s Citizens Commission and DTL-Minnesota’s leadership. The Citizens Commission members aren’t the problem. DTL-Minnesota’s leadership, however, is corrupt to the core. Just look at the organizations that are DTL-Minnesota’s “partners.”

Mike Dean, Common Cause MN and TakeAction Minnesota aren’t upstanding citizens. They’re corrupt political hatchetmen. When Mitch and I debated Dean on the Late Debate, Dean’s opening monologue was all about ‘we want to raise awareness’ and ‘getting people involved in the process is a good thing’.

This wasn’t about raising awareness or getting people involved. That’s the PR speech given to hide a corrupt organization’s ulterior motives.

Now DTL-Minnesota’s true colors are showing. That color is mostly the DFL’s dingy blue.

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

I don’t know what idiot is giving Democrats advice these days but if they’re paying him more than $1 a day, they’re getting ripped off. If strategists are telling Sen. Schumer they should use the words extreme or extremists, they’re giving Democrats bad advice.

Thanks to Sen. Schumer telling that to his Senate colleagues, and some reporters, we now know that the Democrats can’t wait to shut the federal government down.

We don’t have to just take Sen. Schumer’s word for it, either. Former RNC Chairman Howard Dean said that a government shutdown would be a great thing:

“From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown,” Sen. Howard Dean said Tuesday at a National Journal Insider Conference’s panel.

That’s because, Dean said, Republicans would be blamed for it.

“If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it,” Dean said. “I know who’s going to get blamed. We’ve been down this road before.”

In 1995, Bill Clinton wasn’t faced with exploding deficits, high unemployment or a national debt closing in on 100% of GDP. Two other things working against today’s Democrats is that they weren’t fighting against the TEA Party and they weren’t led by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.

Sen. Schumer, though, thinks that tying the TEA Party around Speaker Boehner’s neck will be the death knell for Republicans. That’s total nonsense.

As Congress tries to pass a spending plan before April 8, the date of a possible government shutdown, Democrats repeatedly blamed their inability to reach a compromise on House Speaker John Boehner by saying he is caving to the Tea Party members of his Republican Party.

Earlier Tuesday, New York’s Schumer said Tea Party representatives were “breathing down the back” of Boehner. After the discussion with Schumer, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-CT, said the “relatively small, extreme group of ideologues” was an anchor around the neck of the negotiations.

Prior to the 2010 election, DNC Chair Tim Kaine said that TEA Party participation would likely hurt Republicans. Based on the fact that Republicans gained 63 House seats, 7 Senate seats, 5 governorships and 680 state legislative seats. This was the deepest, strongest, top-to-bottom drubbing of the Democrats in a century. It was fueled primarily by the TEA Party movement.

TEA Party principles resonate with a diverse demographic group, too. To use Michele Bachmann’s words on Greta’s show tonight, when informed by Greta, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that she alone was to blame for the imminent government shutdown, Michele responded saying that TEA Party activists just want government “to not raise taxes, to not spend more than it takes in and to live within the boundaries of the Constitution.”

Even to a progressive like Sen. Schumer, that isn’t extreme. It’s just what he says when he’s near a microphone.

Michele and Paul Ryan both highlighted the fact that the reason why we’re even in this position is because Democrats didn’t pass a budget last year when they held a 50+ seat majority in the House, held a 59-41 seat majority in the Senate and held the White House. They didn’t pass a budget because they didn’t want to give Republicans the opportunity to run against another budget that showed their spending, and the resulting deficits, were out of control.

This was the first time since the early 70’s that the House and Senate didn’t pass a budget bill or the 13 appropriations bills. For that matter, the Democrats didn’t even consider budget bills or appropriation bills in committee.

Literally, they did nothing with regard to the budget. They didn’t touch the budget purely out of political considerations.

Now they’re telling their allies in the media that a government shutdown would be the Republicans’ fault. That’s total BS. It’s nothing of the sort. In fact, based on the overwhelming election results, I’d argue that Republicans are the only people listening to the will of the people.

When voters ran out 63 more Democrats than Republicans in the U.S. House, when the U.S. Senate goes from 59-41 Democrat margin to a 53-47 Democrat margin, something seismic is happening. When Minnesota Republicans go from a 46-21 minority in the State Senate to a 37-30 seat majority and from an 87-47 seat minority in the House to a 72-62 seat majority, something seismic is happening.

Sen. Schummer is betting that tying the Republican Party to the TEA Party is good for Democrats. I’ll bet that Sen. Schumer won’t like how that bet turns out.

Americans know that spending $3.69T instead of spending $3.73T isn’t a radical change. If anything, I’d bet that people would argue that trimming the budget by that little isn’t sharp enough.

If that’s the battlefield Democrats want to fight on, that’s certain to put a smile on alot of Republicans’ faces. Now that their plans have been exposed, I’m totally confident that Republicans will win if they continue listening to the will of the people.

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

Thanks to a deal keeping all Bush tax rates in place, the American people won’t have to pay higher taxes the next two years. Thanks to President Obama’s caving, Republicans will have a fantastic political issue to use against him while he runs for re-election. Here’s the details of the deal struck between President Obama and congressional Republicans:

Republicans control neither the House nor the Senate, and certainly not the White House. But they largely dictated the terms of President Barack Obama’s proposed tax-cut compromise, which disgruntled congressional Democrats want to discuss in closed meetings that are likely to be rowdy.

Republicans prevailed on their biggest demand: continuing Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, despite Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to let them expire for households earning more than $250,000 a year. Obama, while acknowledging Democratic unrest, agreed to extend the tax breaks for two years, whereas Republicans wanted a permanent extension.

House and Senate Democratic leaders were noncommittal on the proposal, saying they would discuss it in closed caucus meetings Tuesday. Vice President Joe Biden, a key player in seeking a compromise, scheduled a rare visit to the Senate Democrats’ weekly luncheon the same day.

Congressional Democrats can discuss this all they want but their answer is certain. They’ll vote for extending these cuts, at least enough of them to pass the bill. Doing anything less would cut President Obama off at the knees, something that many House Democrats might see as a worthwhile option.

When we look back, it wouldn’t surprise me if we see this day as the day when someone decided to step forward and challenge President Obama in the Democratic primaries. Certainly, the natives aren’t happy, with some progressives calling it capitulation:

But many Democrats felt the president gave up too much and gave in too fast. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was noncommittal. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he would filibuster, and a group of progressive Democrats in the House circulated a letter in opposition.

Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee called the deal a capitulation.

“Everything President Obama has done has signaled weakness and has sent a signal to Republicans that if they block tax cuts long enough, at the end of the day he will pass whatever comes across his desk. That is not how you negotiate,” Green said.

The reality is that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would’ve led to the next economic downturn, which would’ve meant President Obama being a one-term president. For all his talk about rather being a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president, President Obama proved that his strongest instinct is to preserve his political career.

Carving out common ground might be what independent voters want the president to do, but it’s not what his base wants. has created a television ad featuring Obama voters who ask, “What’s happened to that bold progressive man we elected president?” The ad is aimed at the politically crucial state of Iowa.

That “bold progressive man” was an illusion. He didn’t really exist. That was just his stage personna. Dick Morris was right during last night’s Hannity appearance when he said that “to characterize this as a deal is like that famous deal that Emporor Hirohito struck with Gen. MacArthur on the battleship Missouri. This is surrender. This is Obama absolutely caving.”

This won’t seal Obama’s defeat but it will outrage his base. What it does is it shrinks Obama’s margin for error. His base won’t let him compromise with Republicans again. If he surrenders again, it’s certain that he’ll face a primary challenger, which will split the Democratic Party wide open.

Until now, the Democratic Party has successfully hidden the fact that they’re essentially two seperate parties, with the side dominating the DLC side. Remember Howard Dean’s saying that he represented the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party“? Here’s his explanation of that cliche:

BOB EDWARDS, host: You say you represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Explain that.

Former Vermont Gov. HOWARD DEAN: That was really a phrase that was first developed by Paul Wellstone, and although Paul Wellstone’s probably a little more liberal than I, his characteristic, which I enormously admire, was that he’s willing to stand up for what he believes in. I think there are so many people in our party that aren’t. When I go around talking to Democratic audiences, one of the lines that gets an enormous round of applause is that there are almost as many Democrats that I talk to that are angry at the Democrat Party as they are angry at the Republican Party.

The reality is that the types see the DLC types as Republican lite.

President Obama played to the side during the 2008 campaign. Tonight, he essentially threw that wing under the bus. This will cause the side lots of heartburn and consternation, not to mention alot of re-examination and soul-searching.

DLC types will note that, whereas President Obama caved during negotiations, President Clinton never got rolled in negotiations, just adding fuel to the fire that President Obama is in over his head.

This is a major victory for Republicans, an embarrassing defeat and surrender for President Obama.

UPDATE: Based on this post, I’d say that the Democrats are in danger of picking a fight with President Obama:

A bloc of Senate Democrats could decide not to support a White House-brokered deal on tax cuts and unemployment benefits, thereby putting the plan in danger, according to the second-ranking Senate Democrat.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) suggested Monday evening that many caucus members could threaten to back away from the deal as leverage to ensure it gets what it wants from a potential compromise with Republicans.

UPDATE II: Based on Jake Tapper’s reporting, the fight is on between the White House and Capitol Hill:

Vice President Biden heads to Capitol Hill today to lobby Senate Democrats to support the tax cut compromise, as President Obama faces criticism from congressional Democrats that he should have fought more for the Bush tax cuts on the middle class, and against the cuts for wealthier Americans.

The White House has two arguments for what they acknowledge are “frustrated” Democrats:

1) We wanted a fight on these tax cuts, and Congressional Democrats never took up the charge and held a vote;

2) This is a good deal, and we weren’t willing to let taxes go up on middle class Americans, or to deprive the unemployed of insurance benefits, just to prove a political point.

“We wanted a fight, the House didn’t throw a punch,” a senior White House official tells ABC News, pointing out that for months before the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama was making the case against the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. “The House wouldn’t vote before the Senate, and the Senate was afraid they’d lose a vote on it.”

“It was like the Jets versus Sharks except there weren’t any Jets,” the official said. “Senator Schumer says he wants a fight? He couldn’t hold his caucus together.”

Based on this reporting, the guns are out and the circle is forming. This ain’t gonna be pretty.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. Check out my other posts, some about Minnesota politics, some about Chuck Schumer’s dishonest ploy about taxing the rich.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

I’m shocked and stunned to read that the Strib has endorsed Tarryl Clark over Michele Bachmann. This is a stunner for the ages. Who would’ve guessed this outcome? Listen to this pompous opening paragraph:

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has appeared at least eight times since January on Fox News’ Sean Hannity Show. How many mayors or county commissioners in Bachmann’s Sixth District swath of central Minnesota have had an equal number of conversations with her this year?

In the Strib’s mind, taking care of mayors and county commissioners ranks as a higher priority than staying in touch with citizens and job creators.

That’s because, in the Strib’s and Tarryl’s opinions, government is what makes things happen, not entrepreneurs, innovators and productive private sector workers.

In the real world, it’s the small businesses and the hard-working private sector employees that create wealth and prosperity. In the Strib’s and Tarryl Clark’s eyes, they’re just ATM’s to fund government. This November, they’ll find out that We The People think differently.

Then there’s this blather:

Clark, an attorney and mother of two, is a respected legislator from St. Cloud who was first elected in 2005. Endorsed by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Clark has been a strong advocate for small-business owners and pushed for the development of angel investor tax credits in the state.

The Strib can’t expect thinking people to believe them. That’s the most insulting nonsense I’ve heard this century. Tarryl has voted repeatedly against small businesses. She’s voted for job-killing tax increases on Minnesota’s jobs creators. Her voting for the angel investment tax credit doesn’t come close to her repeatedly voting to raise taxes on job creators.

What distinguishes Clark from Bachmann is her willingness to put common sense before rigid ideology to serve the Sixth District, which stretches from St. Cloud through Anoka County to the metro’s eastern suburbs. Clark is well-versed in health care issues and committed to smoothing health reform for consumers and providers, not prolonging the uncertainties.

Here’s yet another insulting paragraph. The full extent of Tarryl’s understanding of health care is that she thinks we should implement a single-payer system ASAP. That’s as rigid of ideology as it gets. That’s the system that John Marty, Jim McDermott and Howard Dean prefer. That’s as ideological rigid a trio as exists.

Tarryl stood in the way of common sense reforms like Steve Gottwalt’s Healthy Minnesota Plan, which would’ve saved Minnesota’s taxpayers tens of millions of dollars per biennium. What would the Strib give Tarryl for that on the pragmatic scale? I’d give it a maximum of 2 on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the most rigid ideologically.

When it came to another key issue facing her district this year, the proposed tax on the medical device industry in the health reform bill, the self-proclaimed pro-business, anti-tax champion didn’t take the lead.

What’s the logic behind making a terrible bill slightly less awful? That’s the type of thinking that helped Collin Peterson accept a couple trivial set asides on the Cap and Trade bill in exchange for his vote on an awful piece of legislation. That’s doing the right thing? I don’t think so.

Bachmann is in touch with Hannity and Glenn Beck but out of touch with her district.

What arrogance. We The People of the Sixth District vehemently disagree with the idiots on the Strib’s editorial board. We The People of the Sixth District appreciate the fact that Michele consistently fights for fiscal sanity without raising taxes. We The People appreciate the fact that she’s fought the good fight for energy independance by supporting an all of the above energy policy, a stark contrast with Tarryl’s support for expensive green energy initiatives.

We The People appreciate the fact that she fought against the FinReg law that’s given the executive branch the authority to bypass Congress before writing a bailout check. We The People appreciate that Michele fought hard to defeat the disastrous Obamacare bill that raised insurance premiums by 11 percent this year and that raised a slew of different taxes to the tune of $670,000,000,000.

Tarryl Clark is nothing more than a union thug in high heels. There’s nothing moderate about her. Saying that she’ll fight for the people of the Sixth District is saying that she’ll ignore the collection of special interests who’ve supported her political career.

On the first Tuesday in November, the voters of the Sixth District will reject the Strib’s endorsement just like we’ll reject Tarryl Clark’s attempt to be Nancy Pelosi’s rubberstamp.

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

It’s no secret that fringe lefties want to defeat Michele Bachmann in the worst way. That’s the biggest factor in Tarryl Clark’s fundraising success. They also know that Tarryl doesn’t stand a snowball’s prayer in hell if she’s seen as a radical left. Based on this post, I’d say that Tarryl’s centrist image is history. Here’s why:

Democracy for America, the political organization founded by Howard Dean, says money it raised recently for democratic State Senator Tarryl Clark against republican incumbent Rep. Michele Bachmann set a record: it was the most the group had pulled in for a democratic U.S. House challenger in a 24-hour period.

As DNC Chairman, Howard Dean welcomed self-described socialist Bernie Sanders into the Democrats’ coalition. That isn’t surprising given the economic policies supported by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. Certainly, that fits Tarryl’s policies, too.

The group EMILY’s List, which aims to elect pro-Choice Democratic women to every level of office, is also trying to raise money for Clark. Bachmann is one of several candidates who are endorsed by former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and whom EMILY’s List wants to defeat.

EMILY’s List is another far left organization. They’re committed to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand. Here’s what Discover the Network said about them:

EMILY’s List has withdrawn its support from women who vote against event the most extreme abortion positions. For instance, Mary Landrieu, the recently re-elected Democratic Senator from Louisiana, lost EL’s backing when she voted in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortion.

So Tarryl Clark has accepted the fundraising help of an organization whose abortion views are outside the mainstream of even pro-choice politicians. That’s interesting.

It’s also the type of thing that will kill Tarryl this November. Then again, I predicted that ages ago:

On abortion rights issues, Tarryl would represent EMILY’S List’s priorities, not Central Minnesota’s priorities. A respectable case could at least be made that Tarryl would represent Central Minnesota when the various unions endorsed her. It wouldn’t be a strong argument but reasonable people could make a reasonable argument.

That isn’t the case with EMILY’S List. EMILY’S List’s agenda would attract marginal support in this district at best. This endorsement alone is all the justification church-going Catholic women will need to vote against Tarryl. The intensity over this issue is that strong in this district.

That’s why EMILY’S List’s endorsement might just be Tarryl’s kiss of death.

This might be the beginning of the end for Tarryl’s political career. With this much help from radicals like SEIU, Howard Dean and EMILY’s List, it’s essentially impossible to argue that Tarryl’s a centrist. Factor in the fact that she voted for the biggest tax increases in Minnesota history and it’s apparent that she isn’t a centrist.

By now, everyone’s likely heard of EMILY’s List’s recent ad about momma grizzlies. I can’t thank them enough for running such a foolish ad. At the 27 second mark, the woman says “You want to know what threatens me? My daughter not having the right to choose.” Another ‘grizzly’ said that if Republicans ran the country, “my little cubs wouldn’t have health care.”

I’ve heard Democrats say idiotic things before, this week in fact, but those quotes rate rather highly. What’s stunning is that Tarryl freely chooses to associate with these lunatics.

I’m sure that wouldn’t cause a blip in MN-4 or MN-5 but associating with these types of radicals in MN-6 will get you beat soundly. That’s why I said in that previous post that getting EMILY’s List’s endorsement “just might be Tarryl’s kiss of death.”

After watching EMILY’s List’s ad, I’m more confident of that prediction than the day I made it.

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

If this post is accurate, then Tim Walz is in a world of re-election hurt:

Where Congress Stands
Rep Timothy Walz D MN-1
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Yes

This isn’t a bright career move, especially considering Rep. Walz voted for Cap And Trade. It’s one thing to take an unpopular vote now and again. It’s another to vote for the two most toxic pieces of legislation of this generation. Voting for the public option, aka single-payer health care, won’t sit well in a district that includes the Mayo Clinic. I asked in this post whether the Mayo Clinic could’ve been built if there was a single-payer system in place when Mayo was built. I’m betting that it wouldn’t have gotten built.

I’m betting that alot of research dollars will dry up if health care legislation is passed with a public option.

Combine voting for health care legislation with the public option with voting to raise MN-1 farmers’ gas prices and you’ve got a toxic mix to dig out from. Good luck with that one, Rep. Walz.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Jeannette Blonigen-Clancy is a DFL activist from Central Minnesota who frequently submits LTEs to the St. Cloud Times. She has another LTE in this morning’s edition that’s particularly easy fisking. In her attempt to criticize Mrs. Scholar’s column, Ms. Blonigen-Clancy made some wild statements, some of which lacked substantiation. Here’s the first instance:

Why was there no outcry upon learning that the Bush administration wiretapped phones and computers to eavesdrop on the private lives of American citizens?

The NSA didn’t wiretap the phones of American citizens. PERIOD. The NSA is all about collecting foreign intelligence. When the NSA spotted communications going from a country like Pakistan or Afghanistan to someone in the United States, they turned that information over to a domestic intelligence agency. That agency then applied for a wire tap warrant.

Here’s another of Ms. Blonigen-Clancy’s revealing statements:

If they “transcend party politics and focus on government spending and loss of freedoms,” why did Banaian mention critically only Democratic politicians?

Mrs. Scholar interviewed Leo Pusateri and myself for her column because we were the primary organizers of September’s 9/12 TEA Party in St. Cloud. The only Democratic politicians who were mentioned in the article were Speaker Pelosi and Howard Dean. I know because I brought them into the interview. In other words, Mrs. Scholar mentioned them because she was quoting me.

I said that Speaker Pelosi’s priorities didn’t represent the priorities of many rank-and-file Democrats. I know that because I’ve had Democrats tell me that they didn’t agree with Speaker Pelosi’s views. The Democrats that I’ve talked with have specifically mentioned Cap and Trade and on health care reform.

I mentioned Howard Dean because he said that “We’re in a battle between good and evil and we’re the good.” Here’s precisely what I said in the interview:

“Neither Republicans nor Democrats have cornered the market on good ideas. We need to reject the politics of Howard Dean: ‘This is a battle between good and evil and we are the good.’”

I’ve long respected, though not necessarily agreed with, Democrats like John Breaux, Zell Miller, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson. If we had more of those type of Democrats in Congress, they wouldn’t have voted for the irresponsible legislation that this Congress has passed. We wouldn’t have been in the bad shape that we’re currently in.

This statement epitomizes what the libertarian TEA Party activists are opposed to:

It would make more sense for citizens to unite in opposition to $100 million bonuses, to pressure Congress to reregulate Wall Street, to pressure the present administration into waging peace in Afghanistan.

I’m all for private citizens and stockholders speaking out if they think a CEO is making too much money. That’s part of their rights under the First Amendment. What I’m opposed to, though, is government setting corporate pay scales, mostly because the Constitution doesn’t give them the authority to interfere in such matters.

As bad as that statement was, this one’s totally agravating:

Concern about government spending and loss of freedom is legitimate, but the TEA parties obviously were planned by right-wing political groups manipulating the public’s uneasiness in this critical time of American history.

As a principle organizer of the St. Cloud TEA Party, I’ll freely admit that CMCC, aka the Central Minnesota Conservative Coalition, sponsored the event. What I reject is that we’re attempting to manipulate the public during this time of great apprehension. We stand for a positive set of principles, starting with honesty, accountability and the notion that politicians work for us, not vice versa. We believe in the literal translation of the Constitution and we believe that government functions best when government respects the Tenth Amendment.

Rather than attempting to manipulate people, the TEA parties are attempting to prevent politicians from manipulating the people.

Ms. Blonigen-Clancy’s misuse of the word manipulate is especially galling considering its definition:

to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner

Rather than attempting to manipulate people, the TEA parties are attempting to prevent politicians from manipulating the people.

Ms. Blonigen-Clancy obviously is deeply suspicious of conservatives. Perhaps that’s because she isn’t willing to consider the possibility that conservatives and libertarians have worthwhile ideas. If that’s the case, then I feel sorry for her. I hope some day she starts thinking things through rather than drinking the liberal Kool-Aid.

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

This week, Howard Dean told a miniscule MSNBC audience that the GOP is shrinking. That’s because MSNBC only has tiny audiences. There’s only two conclusions you can draw if you take Rasmussen Reports’ weekly polling seriously: that either the polling isn’t reliable or Howard Dean is full of BS. Considering the fact that Scott Rasmussen has a sterling reputation as a pollster, I’m more apt to think that Howard Dean is full of BS.

This summer brought a significant shift in voter preferences in the Generic Congressional Ballot. As Republican Congressional candidates once again lead Democrats by a 43% to 38% margin this week, this is now the ninth straight ballot the GOP has held a modest advantage.

Over the past nine weeks, Republicans have held a two-to-five point advantage over Democrats every week. It is important to note, however, that the recent shift is not only because Republicans have been gaining support, but that Democrats have slipped in support. While support for Republican candidates ranged from 41% to 43%, support for Democrats ranged from 37% to 39%.

For the second straight week, the GOP’s margin in the Generic Ballot Question has been outside the poll’s margin of error. Of the last five weeks, the GOP’s advantage has been outside the margin of error, with the other six weeks being a single point from being outside the margin of error.

It simply isn’t credible to say that the GOP is shrinking when it’s opening up a sizable lead in the generic ballot question.

That leads me to this bigger point: Democrats are losing credibility because they’re telling whoppers at the townhalls. The Democrats’ activists aren’t helping with editorials like this:

In a recent letter, a writer wrote that if it wasn’t for Fox News, people would not know what is in the Health Reform Bill. Huh? Fox Noise gets their information from the right-wing of the Republican party, which has already said that they will not support health-care reform. They are not interested in helping the American people struggling with the high cost of insurance, only in trying to get back in power in 2010.

Simply put, FNC, especially on Greta’s show and Hannity’s show, are examining specific provisions of the various health care bills. Thanks in part to those shows, the American people think that they understand the health care bill better than their member of Congress:

Most voters think they understand the health care reform legislation proposed by President Obama better than Congress does, and about as well as the president himself.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of voters rate their understanding of the health care plan as good or excellent. Only 21% say their understanding of it is poor. By contrast, just 22% say Congress has a good or excellent understanding of the plan. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Congress’ knowledge of the proposal is poor.

All of which refutes Gov. Dean’s stunningly arrogant statement that the GOP is contracting. That’s before we start talking about how independents aren’t supporting Democrats like they did last year.

The harsh reality is that Democratic strategists must be drinking Maalox by the bottle when they read Rasmussen’s polling. The American people aren’t just taking this as business as usual politics. They’re looking at things and realizing that we’re living in historic times. That’s why the Democrats’ enthusiasm gap has disappeared and why Republicans now enjoy a significant lead in the enthusiasm gap.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative