Archive for the ‘Agenda Media’ Category
John Bodette’s column would be funny if the Times’ inactions weren’t so serious. This is the paragraph that caught my attention:
During the past couple weeks, we have worked hard to protect the public’s right to see important data tied to hiring decisions regarding key figures in two of our communities.
Then Bodette highlights 2 instances where the Times’ reporters appear to have done their jobs. Here’s the first example:
The Sartell-St. Stephen school board was working on a final contract offer to present to the person board members decided was their best choice for the job of superintendent.
It is our position that the proposed contract should be public. Taxpayers and citizens deserve to see what is in the contract proposal so they can give their feedback to board members before a final vote is taken.
Here’s the other example:
Our second challenge revolved around the Cold Spring City Council’s efforts to decide whether to offer a contract to its selection for police chief. The council held two closed meetings on the subject. We protested the closure. We have concerns about some of the actions that appear to have been taken during those meetings. We will pursue efforts to see if the council’s actions were in compliance with the state’s Open Meeting Law.
It isn’t that the Times reporters shouldn’t demand transparency from school boards and city councils. It’s that the Times’ consistency in demanding transparency apparently stops when the subject turns to St. Cloud State. Last Sunday’s Times Our View Editorial talked about the Great Place to Work Institute’s survey:
The next step in addressing those challenges is for Potter’s administration to begin releasing results of an employee attitude survey it conducted through a private company known as the Great Place to Work Institute.
Potter said more than 150 pages of written comments were compiled along with other findings, all of which the administration plans to examine and address through listening sessions and employee meetings in the coming months.
While the university has yet to officially release findings, it’s a safe bet they resemble a recent Inter Faculty Organization survey that found more than half of St. Cloud State faculty have a negative perception of the university.
That’s sloppy journalism. Why think that the GPTW survey would have similar findings to the IFO survey done more than 2 years earlier? Why shouldn’t the Times’ journalists think that the results would be worse? After all, the editorial hinted that morale on campus was low:
Vowing to improve workplace morale is always a big challenge. That’s an understatement at St. Cloud State, where the past several years have seen drastic budget cuts and program closures happen alongside tens of millions of dollars in campus expansion projects.
Why isn’t the Times interested in the negative things happening on campus? Doesn’t the public have a right to know that, too? The Times ran one story on the transcript scandal. Even then, it didn’t bother sending its own reporter to cover the story.
St. Cloud State is a major employer in St. Cloud. Its budget is north of $210,000,000. Those facts can’t be denied. It’s easy to deny, though, the fact that the Times’ coverage of St. Cloud State has been spotty at best. LFR has gotten more exclusives about what wrong at SCSU than the Times has. In fact, it isn’t that close.
Finally, it’s time the Times stopped playing its games about how both sides are to blame for the morale problems at SCSU. They aren’t. Next week, I’ll show proof that SCSU’s morale is the result of the Potter administration’s mismanagement.
This SC Times editorial signals the end of editorial integrity at the Times. It’s a sad day for St. Cloud with a silver lining. The Times’ Our View editorial used their entire arsenal of gimmicks to prop up President Potter. Here’s one of the Times’ gimmicks:
“The level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration is not what it needs to be to be among the very best.”
With those words, St. Cloud State University President Earl H. Potter III told this Editorial Board on Feb. 21 his administration is about to embark on the most important step in a process aimed at not just strengthening that trust, but improving the workplace culture and character at the university.
Kudos to Potter for taking on this issue. Faculty and staff should make the most of it.
What’s most appalling is that the Times gives President Potter for “taking on this issue” without doing anything more than uttering the words. I call this the Times’ he-said-it-so-it-must-be-true gimmick. It’s apparent that the Times didn’t question President Potter about the on-campus morale.
If the Times had done its research, they’d know that “the level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration” is virtually non-existent. Forget about it not being where “it needs to be to be among the very best.”
Here’s an example of the Times’ “moral equivalance” gimmick:
Of course, the key to improving trust and university morale doesn’t just rest with the administration.
Faculty and staff leaders need to get engaged, too. They must start by demanding accountability of employees who seek anonymity in making potentially damaging claims but offer no proof of what they are saying.
Actually, the fence-mending must start with the administration. The Potter administration has treated the faculty like children who don’t know what they’re talking about. When the Potter administration was asked where they were with the transcript scandal, the administration replied that they didn’t think of it as a scandal, that they thought of it as “data analysis.”
There’s verifiable proof of transcripts unjustly getting altered without the professor’s knowledge. The administration has refused to even talk with the person who has the proof of wrongdoing. The Times ran the MPR article that included the professor’s quote initially. Unfortunately, they’re now insisting that employees are anonymously making accusations that hurt SCSU, then accusing these employees of offering “no proof of what they are saying.”
That’s an outright lie.
The only anonymous person to make stinging accusations against the administration is Silence Dogood. Silence’s articles, which I’m proud to publish here at LFR, are exceptionally well-documented. That’s why I haven’t hesitated in publishing them.
Here’s a promise I’ll make with the Times. I promise that I won’t publish any of Silence’s articles if they’re unsubstantiated. The good news for me is that it’s a promise I haven’t had to worry about because Silence’s articles have consistently been impeccably substantiated.
Here’s another of the Times’ outright lies:
Members of this Editorial Board have had direct experience with these people involving complaints about grading, program closures, etc. Yet in none of those cases have the complainants provided verifiable evidence to substantiate them.
In none of those cases? Phyllis VanBuren’s column, which I wrote about here, was filled with verifiable proof of transcript fraud. Dr. VanBuren’s column was 4 pages long, which is twice the size of other Times Writers Group articles.
What’s interesting is that Dr. VanBuren’s article provides tons of proof that the Times said didn’t exist. The Times needs to decide whethey want to stick with President Potter’s script or if they’d feel more comfortable admitting that the people who’ve spoken up at considerable personal risk are telling the truth.
Based on recent history, I’m betting that they’re sticking with President Potter’s script.
The Times calls on everyone to fix a problem that’s been ongoing for years. What the Times didn’t do is say that the problem was caused by President Potter. The reason why people have spoken anonymously is because President Potter’s style is to use intimidation and bullying to get his way.
This problem didn’t just magically appear. Something triggered it. Though the Times won’t admit it, these difficulties were caused by President Potter’s disgusting behavior.
It’s time for the Times to start doing its job. Accepting a public figure’s statements as undeniable truth without extensively questioning the statements isn’t what news-gathering organizations typically do. Unfortunately for the people of St. Cloud, not questioning public figures is how the Times rolls.
The silver lining is that, here at LFR, questioning public figures while verifying the data is how I roll.
This exchange between overmatched Ron Fournier and Charles Krauthammer is the stuff that President Obama’s nightmares are made of:
Here’s a partial transcript of the segment:
KRAUTHAMMER: But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
It’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.
Fournier didn’t have a rejoinder when Charles said “It isn’t incompetence. It’s the willful breaking of the constitutional order. Where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter the law 27 times after it has been passed?” Fournier did write something approaching intellectual honesty when he wrote this article. Unfortunately, he’s still bitterly clinging to the thought that the ACA might still work. Here’s is the opening of the article:
It’s getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act. The latest blow to Democratic candidates, liberal activists, and naïve columnists like me came Monday from the White House, which announced yet another delay in the Obamacare implementation.
For the second time in a year, certain businesses were given more time before being forced to offer health insurance to most of their full-time workers. Employers with 50 to 99 workers were given until 2016 to comply, two years longer than required by law. During a yearlong grace period, larger companies will be required to insure fewer employees than spelled out in the law.
Not coincidentally, the delays punt implementation beyond congressional elections in November, which raises the first problem with defending Obamacare: The White House has politicized its signature policy.
The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation. It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point—”If you like your health plan, you’ll be able to keep your health plan.” And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.
Mr. Fournier and other journalists shouldn’t have been that intellectually incurious. They should’ve questioned the ACA while it was being written. Furthermore, he shouldn’t still cling to the notion that it’ll work. Unfortunately, that’s what he’s doing for all the wrong reasons:
Put me in the frustrated category. I want the ACA to work because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits. I want the ACA to work because, as Charles Lane wrote for The Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken. I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.
Fournier’s anti-conservative blind spot still exists. Saying that “the GOP hasn’t offered a serious plan that can pass Congress” is giving Harry Reid a pass. The Patient CARE Act will do the things that the ACA was supposed to do without raising taxes. It isn’t the Republicans’ fault that Sen. Reid is so intransigent that he’ll do anything to sabotage plans that might help families. It isn’t the Republicans’ fault that Sen. Reid is willing to do anything to keep President Obama’s signature legislation from getting declared a total failure before he leaves office.
Why won’t Fournier take Sen. Reid to task for being intransigent? Why won’t he ask him tough questions about why he won’t consider legislation that’s a serious attempt to fix what’s broken in the ACA? When Mr. Fournier is willing to take off his ideological blinders, then I’ll pay attention to him.
At this point, he isn’t a serious man because he isn’t willing to take those blinders off.
Technorati: Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, President Obama, Ron Fournier, Agenda Media, Progressive Movement, Charles Krauthammer, Constitution, Patient CARE Act, Dr. Tom Coburn, Republicans, Election 2014
When I published this post by Silence Dogood, I did it because a) the St. Cloud Times hasn’t written about SCSU’s collapsing enrollment and b) President Potter is using every opportunity to spin St. Cloud State’s declining enrollment.
I wrote last week that President Potter insisted at the first Meet & Confer meeting that enrollment would be down 5% this year compared with last year’s Fall Semester 30-day enrollment report. I knew that wasn’t accurate because I’d written that the Sept. 4th report showed SCSU’s enrollment down by 12%.
If you aren’t Southwest State, which has lots of late enrollees each year, enrollment won’t drop 7 points in a week. It simply doesn’t happen.
A loyal reader of LFR called me last night to talk about enrollment. Specifically, this LFR reader said that he’d spoken with a member of the St. Cloud State University Foundation Board of Trustees. This trustee said that President Potter told him enrollment would be down 3% this year. That’s outright fiction.
It’s possible that the administration could just be off when it says enrollment will be down 5% from last year. If they made a calculation mistake, it’s possible to come up with 5% instead of 8%. It isn’t likely but it’s possible. It isn’t possible to make a calculation mistake and get to a 3% drop in enrollment.
Whether you call that myth or spin, the reality is that a 3% drop in SCSU’s enrollment from last year isn’t possible. To get to that figure, SCSU’s retention of students enrolled at the University would have to be nearly 100%. That’s because incoming freshmen are down 13% and incoming transfers are down 6.35%.
Last year’s enrollment dropped significantly so there weren’t as many students to retain. Subtract a large graduating class and it’s apparent that President Potter’s math is exceptionally fuzzy.
The reason few people beyond the SCSU campus know about SCSU’s plummeting enrollment is because a) they haven’t read this blog or b) the St. Cloud Times hasn’t run any articles about their enrollment. Considering the fact that this will be SCSU’s third straight sharp enrollment drop, shouldn’t the Times have paid attention to this? In this post, I quoted from John Bodette’s article about Gannett’s policy on social media. Among the things he cites are “Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way” and “serving the public interest.”
While that’s part of the Times’ policy on social media postings, it’s difficult to picture those things not being part of their code of conduct for reporters.
Back at the start of the year, Times readers were told that they’d read more investigative reporting. That hasn’t materialized. Time’s running out for them to stay faithful to that commitment. (Had they hired me to investigate SCSU, they would’ve already surpassed expectations but that’s another story.)
The truth is that the Times hasn’t been curious about St. Cloud State’s turmoils. They’ve accepted President Potter’s take on things on most issues. They haven’t challenged his statements. The Times’ indifference towards asking tough questions of the administration is the biggest reason why few people know that St. Cloud State’s budget is likely to get cut dramatically next year.
In short, it’s a mystery that needn’t be a mystery.
Technorati: St. Cloud State, Earl Potter, Enrollment Management, St. Cloud State University Foundation, Budget Cuts, St. Cloud Times, Social Media, John Bodette, Citizen Journalists, Investigative Reporting
A number of years back, I heard a joke, part of which I can’t remember. Still, I can remember enough of it to make a point. Historic military figures were looking at the Soviet Union’s military hardware. When the tanks rolled through Red Square, Alexander the Great replied, “If I had had these chariots, I would’ve ruled the entire world.” On his left stood Napoleon Bonaparte. After Napoleon read the current copy of Pravda, he replied “If I had this as the official newspaper, nobody would’ve heard of Waterloo.”
The point of the joke isn’t to get people laughing. It’s to make the point that there’s a more insidious type of Pravda operating inside the United States. For the last 5+ years, I’ve called that operation the Agenda Media. The Agenda Media doesn’t think it’s their responsibility to get people important facts. In their minds, their responsibility is to push their politicial agenda. If that means omitting important facts, that’s what they’re willing to do. This video is a perfect illustration of the Agenda Media’s selective editing:
Thankfully, citizen journalists with cell phones are recording things as they happened. Thankfully, citizen journalists with video cameras are informing people by filming protests like this, then posting the video to Youtube, then reposting the videos to their Facebook page, then posting the links to their videos to Twitter.
There’s a more important point to this. OFA isn’t just about protesting against constitutional conservatives. They’re identifying people in communities who might vote for progressives. Conservatives will show up to counterprotest against OFA. The big question is whether they’ll get into the neighborhoods and identify people that might appreciate the conservative/capitalist message.
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, Ron Johnson, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul should be the blueprint for Republicans for 2014. They’re picking fights with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, which is essential to winning elections. They’re framing debates. For instance, Sen. Coburn is highlighting tens of billions of dollars of duplicative spending that should be eliminated in this budget. Sen. Johnson is highlighting how government is used as a weapon against the citizenry. Paul Ryan is fighting for a pro-growth budget that will eventually balance within a decade.
It’s despicable that the Agenda Media would distort what happened at a protest. As despicable as that is, that’s only part of this story. OFA is already identifying potential Democrat voters. Republicans need to start this week at identifying potential conservative voters.
Tags: Organizing for Action, Gun Control, Protests, Agenda Media, Censorship, Voter ID, Democrats, Tom Coburn, Sequester This, Ron Johnson, Victims of Government Project, Mike Lee, Cut This, Not That, Ted Cruz, Second Amendment, Paul Ryan, Balanced Budget, Rand Paul, TEA Party Conservatives, Election 2014
What’s frightening about Chris Matthews’ latest declaration is the stunning stupidity displayed in it:
Chris Matthews: “It’s a down and dirty world when you decide chopping down the government and hurting the economy is the smart move. But bring it all down is now the hard right battle cry. Slash spending, short the pentagon, screw up traffic control, whatever raises the noise level, bashes Democrats and lowers hope. Is this the tea party dream? Is this John Boehner’s version of feeding time at the zoo, giving the crazies what they want so they will sit in their seats and behave? Is this final payment to insanity the last vestige of what calm Republicanism is ready to cough up? But how else can you explain the readiness of the GOP leadership to let this Frankenstein’s monster, this doomsday machine, this sequestration go all out berserk? How else can we understand the party of Lincoln doing such economic damage to the Republic, such damage and moral to the people?”
This is utter stupidity. Since when did lightly trimming $85,000,000,000 from a $3,600,000,000,000 budget constitute “chopping down government”? Since when did that constitute slashing spending?
There’s a reason why MSNBC is a laughingstock. Chris Matthews is a significant contributor to that reputation. Incoherent diatribes like this make Matthews and MSNBC look infantile.
As for Matthews’ question about sequestration being a “doomsday machine”, that’s the hysteria featured at MSNBC on a seemingly daily basis. People didn’t hear Matthews complain when spending jumped from $3,000,000,000,000 to $3,500,000,000,000 in a single year. That’s before factoring in the $850,000,000,000 stimulus bill.
Matthews can’t justify trillion dollar deficit after trillion dollar deficit. Perhaps MSNBC sent out the directive that, rather than defending President Obama’s history of trillion dollar deficits, which are indefensible, they’d mindlessly attack Republicans instead. By doing that, MSNBC and Matthews are cementing their reputation as buffoons.
Just like MSNBC isn’t a news organization, Chris Matthews isn’t a pundit. MSNBC is a media outlet, not a news organization. Chris Matthews is a court jester, not a serious news analyst.
During his interview with KSTP political director Tom Hauser, Gov. Dayton made an interesting statement that offers insight into how the DFL thinks of the tax system. Here’s what Gov. Dayton said that caught my attention:
GOV. DAYTON: Well, I campaigned on making our tax system fairer, raising taxes on the wealthiest who aren’t paying their fair share and the Republican-led legislature rejected that so we’re still back at square zero.
Hauser had questioned Gov. Dayton about his changing opinion on raising the cigarette tax, considering the fact that he’d criticized Tom Horner for proposing a change in the sales tax. Here’s what Candidate Dayton said about Horner’s proposed tax increases:
…you’re in favor of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, another regressive tax. So the difference between us is I want to raise taxes on the rich, and you want to raise taxes on sportsmen and women and and middle income working families.
That’s an accurate appraisal of what Horner’s tax would do. Whether it’s a sales tax or it’s a sin tax, it’s regressive, hitting “middle income working families.”
Apparently, Gov. Dayton thinks it’s ok to raise regressive taxes that hit “middle income working families” when he proposes it. He’s only critical of others raising regressive taxes.
That isn’t logic. That’s anti-logical, which fits with Gov. Dayton’s type of thinking.
Later, Gov. Dayton had this exchange with Tom Hauser:
HAUSER: The new income tax increase is for singles making more than $150,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000. Do you consider that rich?
GOV. DAYTON: Well, it would put those individuals and couples into the top 2% of wage earners in Minnesota. Whether that’s wealthy or not, it’s up to their individual circumstances. A family with 4 children and elderly parents to take care of, those dollars are real. Everyone’s money is real.
HIGHLIGHT: It’s interesting that Gov. Dayton immediately repeated the DFL/ABM/media praetorian guard’s (pardon the repetition) chanting point of the rich not paying their fair share.
Later, when Hauser questioned him if some families making $250,000 a year weren’t rich, Gov. Dayton admitted that “a family with 4 kids and elderly parents to take care of” might fit into the DFL’s definition of middle class.
The explanation for that is simple. DFL-think is conditioned on the notion that people doing well must’ve stiffed “working families.” Only when caught in these types of situations does the DFL admit that people who make 6-figure salaries are part of the middle class. That’s the only time they’ll admit that these aren’t greedy people who won’t “pay their fair share.” That’s just their reflexive spin.
It isn’t that there isn’t a fair amount of truth in this SC Times article. It’s that it didn’t talk about a truly disturbing pattern, namely ABM’s lies in their anti-GOP smear campaigns.
Jerry McCarter tried portraying himself as having tried to run a clean campaign on the issues. I wrote here why that’s BS. First, let’s look at what he said in the Times article:
“Part of what I was trying to do was show people you can do this without negative ads; you can do this without all the special-interest money,” he said. “I guess I showed them that you can’t.”
Now let’s look at something McCarter ran on:
McCarter, who’s running against Sen. John Pederson, R-St. Cloud, says the shutdown was part of what spurred him to run for Senate. “Like a lot of people, I found [it] unnecessary, politically motivated, and I think it damaged the state’s image long-term,” he said.
I’ve written repeatedly that Gov. Dayton shut the government down. It’s a matter of record that several GOP legislators submitted lights-on funding bills to prevent a state government shutdown. The one attracting most attention would’ve funded state government at its 2011-2012 levels through July 11. During that time, the goal was to negotiate a final settlement on the budget.
At 10:00 pm of June 30, 2011, Mark Dayton stepped to a microphone and announced that negotiations had failed and that state government was shutting down. Rather than calling a special session to pass a lights-on bill, Gov. Dayton put 23,000 state government employees on furlough.
For all of his I’m-running-a-clean-campaign rhetoric, the truth is that Mr. McCarter built much of his campaign on a verifiable lie.
That isn’t the only lie ABM peddled during the campaign. With their willing accomplices in the Twin Cities media, they put together this lie-filled ad:
One announcer said that “It was another day of deep budget cuts at the Capital.” Pat Kessler said “Cuts are so deep, it threatens public safety.” Dayton said “There are real consequences to every dollar cut.” It’s time to highlight the truth with the DFL’s own words:
SEN. COHEN: We’re going to be passing a budget that it billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars and at a level that we’ve never done before in the history of the state. The 12-13 budget will be $34.33 billions of dollars in general fund dollars taxed to the citizens of Minnesota. The 10-11 budget two years ago was $30.171 billion, I believe.
So the difference is over $4 billion, I believe. The largest state general fund budget ever, ever, ever, in the history of the state of Minnesota.
What this means is that Gov. Dayton’s words, Pat Kessler’s words and other biased media’s words didn’t have a hint of truth to them. It’s worth noting that ABM didn’t hesitate in using them in their statewide smear campaign against GOP candidates.
It’s time for Mr. Sommerhauser and other reporters to blister Alida Messinger, Gov. Dayton and the Twin Cities media for telling the whoppers that they told. If he won’t, citizen journalists like Mitch Berg and myself will expose the DFL for the corrupt political party it is.
Jeff Anderson, a DFL candidate against Chip Cravaack, submitted a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to essentially overturn the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling.
In so doing, Anderson proved, as did the Duluth City Council, that they a) don’t understand the U.S. Constitution and b) are pro-censorship.
First, progressives argue that the First Amendment only applies to individuals. That’s incredibly naive. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t just protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that corporations and individuals alike “shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” and that said trial shall be by a jury of their peers.
Why would the First Amendment protect the free speech rights of individuals but not the free speech rights of corporations? Don’t corporations have a right to speak out on behalf of their interests? How is it different that PACs can speak on behalf of their clients’ interests but corporations can’t?
The progressives’ past response has been that they don’t want corporations having undue influence in elections. That’s a flimsy argument. I don’t recall progressives criticizing the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, when they spent millions of dollars on the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history.
I vividly recall DFL activists and DFL media organizations like the UpTake working together to intimidate Target and other corporations from contributing to pro-capitalist independent expenditure organizations.
Might that be because they’re defenders of the First Amendment until it’s their ox that’s getting gored? Selective defending of the First Amendment isn’t truly defending the First Amendment.
It isn’t difficult to make the argument that progressives aren’t true defenders of the First Amendment. It isn’t difficult to make the argument that progressives are pro-censorship if that fits their political agenda.
The bigger question that needs to be asked is why progressives need to silence differing opinions. They’ve done that on college campuses for years. They’ve tried silencing critics by employing mean-spirited blowhards like Paul Begala.
In Minnesota, they’ve tried drowning out the Republicans’ pro-growth, pro-reform agenda through ABM’s smear campaigns and attempting to intimidate corporations that don’t conform to their agenda.
Rondy Raiton’s staged protest (what else explains UpTake’s cameras being at the exact Target store where she protested against Target at exactly the right time to capture the ‘event’?) fueled an astroturfed protest because Target contributed to a pro-capitalist organization run by Brian McClung.
Whether it’s Jeff Anderson and the Duluth City Council pro-censorship resolution, Rondy Reitan’s astroturfed protest or ABM’s smear campaigns, one thing’s clear: the DFL doesn’t like confrontation. The DFL doesn’t like policy-based arguments because they consistently lose those fights.
That’s why they specialize in censorship, smear campaigns and intimidation.
Thanks to the Right Scoop’s tape of last night’s Levin show, Ann Coulter got put in her place. Thanks to their tape, America got a history lesson and a lesson in constitutional law. If there was any doubt about whether Mark Levin was a patriot before last night, and there wasn’t for me, this 10:30 long tape of Levin settles that discussion.
Of all the things that Levin brought up, his mentioning that the district courts and the appellate courts were created by acts of Congress, not by the Constitution, was the most informative and important of his anti-Coulter diatribe.
Mr. Levin challenged his listeners, and by extension those watching the tape, to pull out their copies of the Constitution and find where the creation of the lower courts is discussed. Then he saved them the trouble, saying that they were created through acts of Congress.
Another direct hit on the Sinking Ship Coulter was Levin’s criticizing her for saying that Newt’s too bombastic. Levin’s first shot at the Sinking Ship Coulter was that she supported the cool-as-a-cucumber governor of New Jersey. Levin’s next shot at Coulter was calling her bombastic, something that I suspect she’d accept as a compliment.
Here’s yet another hit on Coulter:
She won’t even give the man credit for what he has achieved! Taking back the House from 44 years of Democrat monopoly was never thought possible and in doing so he had to defeat the Republican establishment! You can’t even give him that? No they can’t, because they have a hate-on. They have a hate-on.
I wrote here that Newt has a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments. I said that Mitt doesn’t have a list of conservative accomplishments because he isn’t a conservative:
Newt’s list of conservative accomplishments is lengthy, too. Newt helped push the Reagan tax cuts through Tip O’Neill’s House. He pushed through the reforms that ended welfare as we know it in 1996. His policies, John Kasich’s negotiations and Bill Clinton’s signature produced 4 straight surpluses, including the biggest surplus in U.S. history.
Yes, Newt’s said some stupid things but he’s enacted tons of conservative-friendly legislation. At the end of the day, I’m infinitely more worried what’s signed into law than what people say.
By comparison, Mitt hired John Holdren to be his environment czar. Holdren is the far left radical that advised Paul Ehrlich when Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb, which was an early missive in the global warming/global cooling hoax. Then Mitt took Holdren’s advice and proudly implemented the most stringent CO2 emission standards in the northeast. Mitt raised taxes and he signed Romneycare into law.
Despite these facts, Ms. Coulter insists that Mitt is the most conservative candidate in the race.
Apparently, the bombastic Ms. Coulter will say anything to keep the headlines coming.
I’ll take the words of real conservatives like Thomas Sowell over the bombastic diatribes of Ms. Coulter. I wrote that Sowell got it right:
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Sowell later said this in Newt’s favor:
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
If we want to put this nation on the right path, we’ll need a fighter and a visionary. Ann Coulter is peddling the nonsense that Mitt’s that guy.
Mark Levin and Thomas Sowell, 2 real conservatives, disagree. I’ll side with Mssrs. Sowell and Levin over Ms. Coulter every time. In fact, that isn’t a difficult decision.
Technorati: Constitution, History Lesson, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Conservatism, Ann Coulter, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Convenient Conservatives, Newt Gingrich, Welfare Reform, Reagan Tax Cuts, GOP, Election 2012