Archive for the ‘Debates’ Category
When I wrote the first part of this series, I accused the DFL of attempting to stifle debate. I noted that Rep. Erin Murphy, the House Majority Leader, was lying in justifying the DFL’s tactics:
“The floor debate is where Minnesotans have the least amount of access,” Murphy said. “When amendments are being drafted on the floor and then debated on the floor, it’s hard for representatives to be able to talk to constituents and get answers to questions as to what it means.”
Since I published the first post of this series, I’ve spoken with a number of GOP legislators, all of whom verified that the DFL’s rules change would stifle debate. One legislator confirmed that he’s received input from his constituents during floor debates. That’s why he considers his laptop essential equipment for floor debates.
Since Monday morning, though, I’ve found out more about the DFL’s proposed rule change. What they’re proposing is that, after the GOP has filed their motions 24 hours in advance, the DFL can file “an amendment to amend the amendment.” The DFL would then use that tactic to gut the GOP’s amendments most popular amendments so vulnerable DFL legislators wouldn’t have to cast difficult votes in the hope of hanging onto their seats in 2014.
In addition to gutting the GOP’s amendments to protect their legislators, the DFL’s rules changes would essentially gut the GOP’s ability to represent their constituents. The thing that’ll bite the DFL in the backside on this, though, is that the DFL won’t be able to explain how their gutting the GOP’s amendments strengthened the legislation. The DFL won’t be able to hide the fact that the DFL is pushing an unpopular agenda.
Yes, it’s unpopular. If the DFL’s agenda had widespread support, they’d welcome robust debate. The stronger the legislation, the better they’d look.
This isn’t the first time that the DFL majority has attempted to stifle debate. The truth is that they’re gutless wimps who don’t have the confidence to debate their legislation on the merits. That’s their right…for now.
It isn’t surprising that the DFL wants to limit debate in the Minnesota House of Representatives. When they’re in charge, that’s what they’ve traditionally done. This time, Erin Murphy is the DFL legislator that’s proposing to limiting debate under the guise of transparency:
Democrats in the Minnesota House are proposing to change how the House operates during floor debates.
The plan would require proposed amendments to be filed 24 hours before the debate on a bill starts. It’s a dramatic departure from current rules that allow members to draft and propose changes to legislation as members are debating it.
House Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, said she’s making the change to give lawmakers and the public more time to consider proposed changes to legislation.
What’s worst is that Rep. Murphy is lying to justify her proposal:
“The floor debate is where Minnesotans have the least amount of access,” Murphy said. “When amendments are being drafted on the floor and then debated on the floor, it’s hard for representatives to be able to talk to constituents and get answers to questions as to what it means.”
In a pre-Twitter, pre-social media, pre-texting world, Rep. Murphy might’ve had a point. She isn’t right anymore. Citizens have multiple points of access to legislators during floor debates, with Twitter being the most popular. Texting likely comes in a close second.
Most likely, she’s just doing the best she can to BS herself through a terrible predicament. Rep. Murphy can’t admit that it’s never been easier for constituents to contact their representatives during a floor debate. Rep. Murphy can’t admit that livestreaming the floor debate makes it possible to watch the debate, either. Rep. Murphy can’t admit that constituents can read bills thanks to the House of Representatives’ website.
If she admitted that, Rep. Murphy and the DFL would have to admit that their real goal is to limit debate to limit their exposure to common sense amendments that would improve their legislation. The worst part about a truly open amendment process for the DFL -is that it would force DFL legislators to cast votes against amendments that their constituents would want them voting for.
That, in turn, would put already vulnerable DFL legislators in greater jeopardy of losing in 2014. Unfortunately for the DFL, the DFL can’t protect their representatives from their agenda of higher taxes, more wasteful spending and greater intrusions into people’s lives.
John Boehner is failing. He’s playing President Obama’s game on President Obama’s court. He’s prosecuting the wrong case. Rather than discussing the terms of the fiscal cliff debate, Speaker Boehner should be talking about why Republicans’ pro-growth tax policies are America’s only hope for a variety of Obama-created ills.
First, Speaker Boehner should highlight the fact that President Clinton’s high tax rates didn’t trigger the great economy. He should remind the nation that it was Newt’s capital gains tax cuts that sent the economy into high gear. Prior to those tax cuts, the economy was doing ok. After cutting the capital gains tax, growth exploded.
Another thing that Speaker Boehner must do is remind people that Republicans’ insisting on balancing the federal budget helped strengthen the dollar, which led to a dramatic shrinking of America’s trade deficit. That especially affected gas prices.
Third, Speaker Boehner should shout from the rooftops that revenues during the Bush tax cuts were significantly bigger than revenues are today. If Speaker Boehner asked President Obama why he’s insisting on anti-growth policies that tamp the economy down rather than implementing new pro-growth policies that strengthen the economy, President Obama might well blow a gasket.
This is the debate we should start. This is the debate President Obama can’t win. This is the conversation that would expose President Obama’s motivation for imposing higher tax rates.
Rather than the pattern of proposal-counterproposal, then a counter offer to the counterproposal, with each side publicly stating that the other side needs to put forth a serious proposal, Speaker Boehner should ditch that pattern, especially the taunting language.
Instead, Speaker Boehner, followed by every Republican in Congress talking with their local newspapers and TV outlets about how cutting spending is what’s fair to taxpayers and how reforming the tax code, highlighted by fewer deductions and lower tax rates, would strengthen the economy.
Highlight the fact that this was the real reason why the economy was strong during the Clinton administration. Highlight the fact that the economy didn’t take off until Newt changed the trajectory of the debate.
President Obama is too arrogant to be frightened by that debate, which means Speaker Boehner should be able to turn this situation into a discussion on getting America’s economy going for the first time during President Obama’s administration.
With expensive utility bills, shrinking paychecks, high gas and grocery prices and unacceptably high unemployment rates, the indictment against President Obama’s mishandling of the economy should be lengthy and powerful.
Finally, he should unleash Paul Ryan. Speaker Boehner should insist on a televised fiscal cliff summit, with Ryan leading the prosecution of the case against President Obama’s reckless spending. Dave Camp should prosecute the case for why the GOP tax reform plan will strengthen the economy.
GOP senators and governors should take part in this summit, too. One tactic President Obama has overplayed is saying that ‘we can talk about that’ on a variety of policies, then dropping that position the minute he’s out of the room. Republicans should tell him that implementing a pro-growth economic plan is non-negotiable.
Finally, make the case that raising the top marginal tax rates won’t affect the Warren Buffetts of the world because their income comes from investments, not wages. Make the case that raising the top marginal tax rates will hurt small businesses, not the evil Wall Street fatcats President Obama always talks about.
President Obama’s policies are failing. Speaker Boehner’s ineptitude in highlighting those failures has the fiscal cliff conversation heading in the wrong direction. It’s time to change the direction of that conversation.
Tags: Fiscal Cliff, John Boehner, Debate, Fiscal Cliff Summit, Paul Ryan, Dave Camp, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Tax Reform, Spending Reform, GOP, President Obama, Unemployment, Deficits, Gas Prices, Electric Bills, Groceries, Inflation, Median Household Income, Democrats
I just published this post about progressive fascism in Minnesota, which is a good start on what’s wrong with public debate in Minnesota but that doesn’t go far enough in talking about what’s the heart of the problem.
What’s wrong is illustrated with this disgusting depiction of progressive fascism:
It was an experience I will remember a long time. Especially seeing the backs of the state troopers–as they lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the crowd from touching us. And the screaming, “Shame! Shame!” at us. Doesn’t really go with earlier in the evening when they were singing Amazing Grace, and shouting “No Hate”. Of course, they seemed to think it was perfectly loving to scream “Bigot” 10 inches from my face and spit on one of the other reps. (By the way, he has MS, walks with a cane and is a little slower. No hate, right?
This video highlights what’s at the heart of the problem:
What caught my attention is Prof. Rauch’s statement that “Minorities aren’t delicate flowers” that need protection. Later, his statement that an attitude of “Bring it on” is what changes people’s minds. Pluralism, not purism, he said, is the way to change people’s minds. He’s exactly right.
What’s interesting is that Prof. Rauch isn’t a hardline conservative. He’s a gay rights activist and proud liberal. He isn’t interested in shutting down debate. He’s advocating for passionate, respectful debate.
The gay rights activists that spat on Rep. Hamilton weren’t interested in passionate, respectful debate. Their shouting down people they disagree with is the opposite of debate. That might win elections but it doesn’t win mandates. It simply says that one side did a better job of turning out voters than the other side.
This review of Greg Lukianoff’s book hits at the heart of what’s wrong with progressive fascism:
Lukianoff tells me of a recent survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities: ‘Out of 24,000 students who were asked the question, “Is it safe to hold unpopular positions on campus?”, only 35 per cent of students strongly agreed. But, when broken down, the stat indicates something even worse. Forty per cent of freshmen strongly agreed, but only 30 per cent of seniors.’ In other words, students unlearn freedom of speech during their studies.
It’s troubling to think that dissent is discouraged on college campuses. What’s worse is that students aren’t the only people who are told that they shouldn’t express dissent:
‘Even worse, only 16 per cent of university faculty strongly agreed with this statement. It’s not even a particularly strong statement, and if we’ve reached a point where only 16 per cent of faculty strongly agree with it, then we’re doing something wrong.’
When the vast majority of faculty say that holding unpopular positions” is dangerous for them, then something’s seriously wrong with university administrators.
It’s time for debate-loving people of all political persuasions to join together in fighting the latest version of fascism.
This LTE contains a disturbing scene:
I attended both Voter ID public hearings in the city of Rochester during this election year. I went there hoping to learn more about the proposed amendment, along with hearing more from the opposing point of view.
I didn’t realize I was in for such a rude awakening. Most of the hearing consisted of people shouting and talking over the representatives from both sides on the issue.
I completely respect the idea of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. Unfortunately, people seem to believe it applies only when the speaker’s point of view agrees with their own.
When speaking with Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer after the hearing in Rochester, she stated this was the worst reception she had ever received. One lady verbally attacked her right in front of me, along with a young man grabbing her arm on the way out of the forum.
I decided, with a group of like-minded individuals, to escort her out of the building.
This is the face of DFL activism. Though this incident involved the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, this isn’t the only time DFL activism has gone way past the line. I wrote about another incident where the DFL activists’ behavior was disgusting. This is a firsthand report from a legislator:
What became unnerving was that last night as we moved closer to the vote they got louder and faster. There was one woman who screeched every time the main doors opened. Made me long for a pair of socks. It was an experience I will remember a long time. Especially seeing the backs of the state troopers–as they lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the crowd from touching us. And the screaming, “Shame! Shame!” at us. Doesn’t really go with earlier in the evening when they were singing Amazing Grace, and shouting “No Hate”. Of course, they seemed to think it was perfectly loving to scream “Bigot” 10 inches from my face and spit on one of the other reps. (By the way, he has MS, walks with a cane and is a little slower. No hate, right?
This past session, the DFL spoke in public about the need for compromise. They spoke of it as the political Holy Grail. The DFL’s hypocrisy was exposed because they took a my-way-or-the-highway approach when they were the majority party in the legislature. From 2007-2010, there weren’t calls for civility and compromise. Those words were quickly forgotten.
Thanks to ABM’s lies and the Twin Cities’ media’s unwillingness to call them on their disgusting pattern of lying, progressive fascism has displaced Minnesota Nice. Here’s hoping that Republicans take principled stands against the DFL’s bad policies.
More importantly, here’s hoping the GOP articulately explains why they’re opposing the DFL’s counterproductive policies. Only through clear articulation of our principles will we win debates. We won’t win elections if we don’t win the debates.
The good news is that positive solutions will quickly discredit progressive fascism’s chalking points.
This is just a heads-up that I’ll be liveblogging tonight’s final presidential debate. I’ll also be periodically posting thoughts on Twitter.
7:10 PM CT — Before tonight’s debate, it’s probably wise to comment on what President Obama & Gov. Romney need to talk about. While the subject is the same for both, each man’s goals are distinctly different. President Obama needs a great night. He needs to stop Mitt Romney’s momentum. If he doesn’t stop Mitt Romney’s momentum, the topics of tonight’s debate are irrelevant.
Mitt Romney simply needs to show he’s capable of handling the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief.
7:30 — Gen. Wesley Clark was just on O’Reilly. First, he tried filibustering. Next, he tried rewriting history about the Democrats not attempting to take partisan advantage over 9/11. Finally, he didn’t answer O’Reilly when O’Reilly asked him about why the American people can’t get a straight answer from this administration on Benghazi. Question: Will President Obama follow the same strategy tonight? If that’s what President Obama attempts to do, this election will quickly slide away from him.
8:02 — President Obama & Gov. Romney are introduced.
8:03 — First question is on Libya. Gov. Romney up first.
8:04 — Congratulates Obama on killing bin Laden, then talks about comprehensive strategy on terrorism.
8:07 — Obama: al-Qa’ida’s core has been decimated. Then he says Romney’s foreign policy “has been all over the place.”
8:12 — Romney: Mr. President, attacking me isn’t an agenda. Then he says he “certainly won’t say that I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”
8:16 — Did I hear right? Did Obama say that Libya stands with us?
8:23 — Obama: I think it’s important that America stands with democracy.
8:25 — Romney: I wish we would’ve done more to promote principles of freedom.
8:30 — Romney: It was an enormous mistake when President Obama didn’t stand with the Green Revolution.
8:31 — Obama: We have unprecedented relationship with Israel as a result of Obama’s leadership. Now he’s talking about cutting spending. Seriously? Now he’s playing the blame Bush card.
8:33 — Romney: we need to focus on trade. Good topic for Romney, bad for Obama.
8:36 — Obama: Going on & on & on about education & raising taxes.
8:37 — Romney: I’ve put in place education policies that work. Great shot.
8:42 — Obama: This isn’t a game of Battleship.
8:45 — Obama: If Israel is attacked, we will stand with Israel. Why not prevent attacks?
8:50 — Romney: Ships that carry Iranian oil can’t come into our ports.
8:55 — Romney: talks about apology tour. Then talks about how President Obama skipped stopping in Israel when on his apology tour.
9:00 — Romney: Russia said that they’re “no longer going to abide by Nunn-Lugar.” Great shot on President Obama.
9:01 — Obama’s back to Romney being erratic.
9:13 — Obama talking about always standing on the side of democracy. Tell that to the families of the Iranian protesters who died while rioting.
9:23 — Romney to Obama when Obama interrupts: Saying that I want to decimate Detroit is the height of silliness.
9:25 — Obama now equating tax simplification with tax breaks for the rich. That’s scary.
Prior to this presidential campaign, I’d always thought of Juan Williams as an honorable man despite being a hopeless liberal. I’ve never thought of him as a towering liberal intellect.
Williams’ op-ed reinforces that image:
So if Romney chooses to go back to the topic of Libya he is taking a big risk. It again could prove to be a blind alley where he gets mugged a second time. Meanwhile both sides fear any factual slip or glaring lack of knowledge in this last debate before the election. That fear is large in the Romney camp as they prepare a candidate with no foreign policy experience.
If anyone’s at risk on the subject of Libya, it’s President Obama. He’s the one who’s lied about the timeline of events. It’s his administration that’s went from one explanation to another to another.
If Mitt wants to paint President Obama into a corner, he’d highlight how the Obama State Department monitored the 5-hour-long gunfight in Benghazi as it happened. He’d highlight the cables from Ambassador Christopher Stevens requesting more security forces for Benghazi. He’d highlight the fact that, if Vice President Biden can be believed, the State Department didn’t communicate with the White House on the rise of al-Qa’ida terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
What Juan Williams apparently doesn’t get is that this administration’s policies got a diplomatic team killed.
Romney scored a major win in that first, Denver debate. His poll numbers continue to climb. But after Obama’s win in the second debate will that surge come to a halt?
The answer will likely be based on President Obama’s success in the third debate.
Two specific sets of voters, women and young people, will be at the heart of judging the winner.
In the first debate Romney was able to reach out to women voters and his rise in the polls is tied to his success in racing into a basic tie for the women’s vote, at least according to some polls.
In the foreign policy debate the president will want to appeal to women as a level-headed leader while portraying Romney as a man who wants more wars.
Talk about disgusting. Williams wants President Obama to “appeal to women as a level-headed leader” after this administration ignored the growing threat posed by al-Qa’ida affiliates in Libya, Mali, North Africa and western Iraq?
That might’ve worked if he’d put a higher priority on dismantling terrorist networks than he paid to picking off high-ranking al-Qa’ida terrorists one-at-a-time.
Americans are starved for true leadership. That isn’t something they’ve seen from this administration.
Mitt Romney can clinch a victory in November by showing the leadership traits and attention to detail that haven’t been seen during this administration.
Last night, Mitt Romney and President Obama engaged in one of the most spirited debates in presidential history. According to CNN’s snap poll, President Obama won the debate, though it’s a Pyrrhic victory.
From the outset, it was apparent that President Obama was fighting against Gov. Romney’s momentum. The first question was from a college student named Jeremy, who wanted to know if he’d have a job when he graduated. The first thing President Obama told Jeremy was that his “future is bright.” After that, President Obama talked about the need for a good education, creating manufacturing jobs, getting energy costs under control and cutting the deficit.
Gov. Romney responded by highlighting the fact that “23 million people are struggling to find a job” before saying that the “president’s policies have been exercised over the last four years and they haven’t put Americans back to work.” That was a recurring theme with Gov. Romney throughout the night.
Though he missed some opportunities, Gov. Romney hung President Obama’s economy around President Obama’s neck like a millstone.
Perhaps the oddest-sounding news was that CNN’s snap poll showed 37% of viewers saying President Obama won the debate, 30% saying Gov. Romney winning the debate and 33% saying there wasn’t a winner. That’s odd-sounding because another CNN snap poll gave Gov. Romney a 31-point lead in handling the economy.
The debate quickly devolved, with President Obama making the outlandish claim that “Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector, that’s been his philosophy as governor, that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.”
The next question was about energy policy. President Obama talked about production levels. Gov. Romney highlighted the fact that oil production is up because of the Bakken oil field:
And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.
So where’d the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.
People don’t believe President Obama wants a robust domestic fossil fuel energy plan because they’ve seen gas prices go from $1.84 a gallon to $3.81 a gallon.
Gov. Romney accused President Obama of cutting permitting for both offshore and onshore oil drilling. Though President Obama disputed that, FNC’s Chris Wallace verified Gov. Romney’s statements, saying that the Bush administration issued 995 offshore oil permits from 2006-2008 vs. “374 new well permits in the first 3 years of the Obama administration.”
President Obama said “With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology, to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter.” President Obama simply isn’t credible on coal production.
President Obama’s EPA has put in place regulations that have caused almost 100 coal-fired power plants to either shut down or announce that they’re shutting down. People remember that President Obama is the candidate that said his cap and trade plan would cause “electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket.”
Gov. Romney clearly struck a nerve when he said that he’d just been to “a coal facility, where some 1,200 people lost their jobs.” President Obama responded, saying “He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney’s now promoting.
So, it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.”
That’s what petty, peevish men sounds like when they’re getting their lunch handed to them.
Perhaps Gov. Romney’s strongest moment came when President Obama said the math didn’t add up on Gov. Romney’s tax plan. That’s when Gov. Romney said “When we’re talking about math that doesn’t add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion? That’s math that doesn’t add up. We have — we have a president talking about someone’s plan in a way that’s completely foreign to what my real plan is.”
Yes, snap polling shows President Obama winning but it’ll be the Romney campaign who will cut ads of President Obama’s biggest whoppers.
7:45 — I’m watching the livestream from Heritage’s website while liveblogging tonight’s debate. When I can, I’ll post tweets to the #Debate2012 hashtag.
7:57 — Three minutes until debate start. NRO is reporting that Team Obama is already trying to win the post-debate spin.
8:01 — Jeremy asks about finding employment after graduating.
8:02 — Mitt Romney starts by explaining his position on education. Talks about getting the economy going, “not like the last 4 years.”
8:07 — President Obama “Jeremy, your future is bright.” Seriously? Then talks about “betting on America” while highlighting Mitt’s position on Detroit.
8:10 — Mitt says that he talked about taking Detroit through bankruptcy. President Obama actually took Detroit through bankruptcy.
8:13 — Obama asked about energy policy. Says that energy production is increasing under his administration. Talks about winning the future. Thus far, Factcheck will be working OT on Obama’s answers.
Tonight’s debate wasn’t the substantive debate that conservatives were hoping for. When Vice President Biden rolled his eyes the first time, I wondered if that was a signal for what was ahead. It was.
Let’s be clear about this. Vice President Biden was the aggressor tonight. That’s almost automatically a sign of who won the debate. Tonight was the exception to that rule.
It isn’t that I think Paul Ryan won tonight’s debate, though he showed he’s more than capable of being a heartbeat away from the presidency. It’s that Joe Biden was consistently dismissive of Ryan.
There’s no question that the MSNBC crowd is ecstatic tonight. If I got a sawbuck for each of their internal and external fistpumps, I’d have enough to pay for a lavish month-long vacation in the Carribbean. There’s equally no question that Vice President Biden’s antics turned off independents and women. This video of Greta van Susteren interviewing Brit Hume says everything:
Vice President Biden didn’t just turn off Brit Hume and Greta van Susteren. He turned off Chris Wallace, too:
That’s only part of Vice President Biden’s problem. When asked about additional security forces for the Benghazi Consulate, Vice President Biden said that the administration didn’t know about requests for additional security. That’s a bald-faced lie according Wednesday’s testimony:
“We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there,” Biden said.
First, this administration’s insistence that they didn’t know about the requests is frightening. Either the administration is lying about not knowing or they weren’t interested in the security conditions at a consulate in a growing terrorist hotspot.
If Vice President Biden wants us to believe that this administration didn’t pay attention to the escalating terrorist threats near the consulate, then he’s asking us to believe that they don’t pay attention to growing terrorist threats around the world.
The good news for Democrats about tonight’s debate is that it fired up the progressive base. The bad news is it turned off the other 70+ percent of the voters.