That’s what makes me curious why David Plouffe would want to turn this year’s midterms into a choice election:

Ask David Plouffe how Democrats can recover from their electoral setbacks over the past few months and he has a simple answer: Republicans.

“Politics is a comparative exercise,” Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, told the Fix in his first extended interview since he took on a broadened political role for the White House in advance of the midterm elections. “This isn’t just a referendum on Democrats or our party. It’s a choice.”

That choice was made explicit far too late in last month’s special Senate election in Massachusetts between then-state Sen. Scott Brown (R) and state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), Plouffe noted. “Everyone would agree that the definition of Brown should have happened a lot sooner and a lot more clearly,” he said.

In my opinion, that’s a foolish strategy, especially in light of this polling:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of 10 key issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

But the latest national survey finds that the two major political parties are much closer this month on the top issue of the economy. Forty-six percent (46%) of voters trust the GOP more on economic issues, while 42% trust Democrats more. Another 12% are undecided. Last month, Republicans held an 11-point edge on the issue and had a 12-point lead in November.

On health care, Republicans are trusted more than Democrats by 49-37 percent, a 12 point margin. Republicans lead Democrats by a 50-34 percent on the issue of taxes, which will grow in importance as the expiration date of the Bush tax cuts draws near.

This statistic should scare Democrats the most: Likely voters trust Republicans by a 45-35 percent margin ON SOCIAL SECURITY!!!

What is clear, however, is that Plouffe has been assigned to apply his meticulous, detail-oriented approach to competitive races across the country, ensuring that the White House and the DNC do everything they can to sniff out problems and offer solutions, and not be surprised by another Scott Brown.

The DNC better raise alot of money quickly because Mr. Plouffe will need lots of staff this year. There’s gonna be alot of races needing Mr. Plouffe’s attention this summer.

Plouffe, aware of the challenges for Democrats, said that if people know both the “positive” Democratic story and the “comparative” message against Republicans, the predictions of political Armageddon will be far short of the reality this fall.

“The wisest thing to do is prepare for a very tough election,” Plouffe advised members of his party. “But in this kind of turbulent electoral environment, I don’t think any of us should presume an electoral outcome.”

Here’s what Dick Morris said on Hannity Monday night:

This weekend, I’m doing the final revisions on my new book “2010: Take Back America, a Battle Plan” and I finished writing the section on the House races last month. And now they sent me the galleys for me to correct. And I listed 35 possible tight races. I went through it again, looking at the modern polling and we’re up to 60 tight races. Like Kirk in Illinois was 6 points behind and now he’s 6 points ahead. It’s unbelievable the changes.

It’s important that we remember that GOP candidate recruitment is still a work in progress. As more polling shows that the Democrats are in trouble, the easier candidate recruitment gets for Kevin McCarthy and John Cornyn. If things keep improving for Republicans but at a slower pace, Plouffe will have 75 competitive races to deal with on a daily basis.

Recently, Michael Barone, the man who’s forgotten more demographic information in every House district in America than I can imagine accumulating, said this in the aftermath of Scott Brown’s improbable victory in Massachusetts:

Anyway, there’s a pattern here: Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.

Let’s extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103.

Right now, Democrats have north of 250 House members. Assuming that Barone’s pontifications are accurate, that means there are approximately 150 Democrat seats that are in play. While I’m skeptical of that high of a total, I’mcertain that there are far more seats in play than the Democrats are letting on. I’m partially basing my opinion on this information:

Some troubling news for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN? Maybe. A poll conducted for the National Republican Senatorial Committee shows that the two-term senator may be vulnerable to a challenge, presumably from former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.), largely because of voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic health-care legislation and the flight of independents from the Democratic Party.

The survey, which was conducted by GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, showed that six in 10 Indiana voters oppose the health-care plan and 32 percent support it. And the opposition to the legislation is passionate, 48 percent said they strongly opposed the measure passed by the Senate.

Independents, who voted heavily for Obama and helped him shock the political world by carrying the Hoosier State in 2008, have swung in the opposite direction in the Conway poll; 40 percent said they would vote for an unnamed Republican candidate for office and 19 percent chose an unnamed Democrat.

Sen. Bayh has always touted himself as a centrist. That isn’t possible anymore because after voting for President Obama’s failed stimulus bill and for Pelosicare. Saying that you’re a fiscal hawk after voting for a pork-filled stimulus bill that was about paying off the Democrats’ political allies and voting for a huge new entitlement program isn’t the way to maintain credibility as the taxpayers’ watchdog.

In normal years, Sen. Bayh’s seat wouldn’t be on the radar. Now, his seat is definitely in play. That’s the bad news. The worst news is that his isn’t the only seat where an established Democrat is in trouble. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray are in trouble, too, to varying degress.

Whatever happens this fall, Mr. Plouffe will work his behind off trying to stave off a disaster.

Technorati: Elections, David Plouffe, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Democrats, Polling, Health Care, Economy, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

During Monday’s livechat, Marty Seifert was asked this question:

I have heard some talk about your views on cap and trade, that you would not vote for that…but how come you voted for an energy bill while serving in the state legislature?

Here’s Mr. Seifert’s response:

Marty Seifert: The energy bill you are referring to was not a cap and trade bill. 39 of 49 House Republicans voted for the bill, including Rep. Emmer’s supporters Laura Brod and Matt Dean. I am not for cap and trade any more than those two solid Republicans are. Governor Pawlenty negotiated this bill which started out much worse than the final product. My energy plan is to lift the nuclear moratorium and expand affordable energy choices. I am absolutely opposed to any cap and trade scheme.

I wanted to gather some information on M-RETS before forming an opinion so I did some research into M-RETS, (which stands for Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System). Here’s one of the first tidbits of information I found out about M-RETS:

The Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (M-RETS) tracks renewable energy generation in participating States and Provinces and assists in verifying compliance with individual state/provincial or voluntary Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and objectives. M-RETS is an important tool to keep track of all relevant information about renewable energy produced and delivered in the region.

Currently, several States and Provinces participate in M-RETS: Illinois, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have policies in place requiring or strongly encouraging utility development of renewable resources. Additional States and Provinces in the region are expected to join M-RETS after launch. M-RETS uses verifiable production data for all participating generators and creates a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) in the form of a tradable digital certificate for each MWh.

In other words, the legislation authorizes the tracking of how much reneewable energy is being generated and the creation of something called a renewable energy credit. This sounded suspiciously similar to the carbon credits that will be traded if Cap and Trade is ever enacted so I contacted an expert in the energy field. This expert said that this type of infrastructure could turn out to be a preliminary step towards establishing a Cap and Trade program.

To be fair, this expert said that establishing a Cap and Trade program isn’t a guarantee. During this exchange, it was confirmed that this legislation isn’t about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just about increasing renewable energy production.

The next logical step, I was told, was enacting legislation mandating a certain level of renewable energy production. While that might sound good, the reality is that renewable energy is significantly more expensive than energy created by coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

According to this website, there are some benchmarks that they want to achieve. Here’s a couple of interesting tidbits of information that should be considered:

The standard for Xcel Energy requires that eligible renewable electricity account for 30% of total retail electricity sales (including sales to retail customers of a distribution utility to which Xcel Energy provides wholesale service) in Minnesota by 2020. Of the 30% renewables required of Xcel Energy in 2020, “at least” 25% must be generated by wind-energy or solar energy systems, with solar limited to no more than 1% of the requirement. The solar provision was added by S.B. 550 in May 2009. In effect, this means that the wind standard is at least 24%, solar may contribute up to 1%, and the “remaining” 5% may be generated using other eligible technologies.

In other words, if legislation passes that changes the goals to mandates, Minnesotans’ utility bills will significantly increase. It’s important to remember that this isn’t about controlling greenhouse gas emissions, though the activists that push Cap and Trade are the activists that pushed this legislation through.

Finally, Seifert’s mention that Matt Dean and Laura Brod voted for this legislation is irrelevant. First, this is about the voting decision Marty Seifert made as opposed to the voting decision Tom Emmer made. In this instance, Tom Emmer voted against more expensive energy bills for Minnesota’s taxpayers. Second, according to the House Journal’s recording of the final vote, Matt Dean voted against the final passage of the bill along with Bruce Anderson, Mark Buesgens, Chris DeLaForest, Mary Liz Holberg, Paul Kohls, Mark Olson, Ron Shimanski and Kurt Zellers.

The information in this paragraph can’t be ignored:

Utilities are required to file annual compliance reports with the PUC detailing their retail sales, REC retirements, and REC trading activities. If the PUC finds a utility is noncompliant, the commission may order the utility to construct facilities, purchase eligible renewable electricity, purchase RECs or engage in other activities to achieve compliance. If a utility fails to comply, the PUC may impose a financial penalty on the utility in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of achieving compliance. The penalty may not exceed the lesser of the cost of constructing facilities or purchasing credits and proceeds must be deposited into a special account reserved for energy and conservation improvements. The PUC is authorized to modify or delay the implementation of the standards if the commission determines it is in the public interest to do so.

I’d love hearing Mr. Seifert explain how this mandate is substantially different from a cap and trade system. Specifically, I’d like to know whether this isn’t just another way to wean us from fossil fuels.

Technorati: Energy, Cap And Trade, Renewable Energy, M-RETS, Renewable Energy Credits, Marty Seifert, Activists, Environmentalists, Tom Emmer, MNGOP

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).

First, it’s worth noting that, prior to this administration, Miranda only applied to criminals. Second, it’s worth noting that, since terrorists never have to be released, there isn’t a need to Mirandize a terrorist. That’s only important if the federal government thought it was important to prosecute terrorists in federal criminal court. Third, it’s important to note that the Obama administration is using a double standard.

When Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his bomb over Detroit on Christmas Day, Abdulmutallab thought that that airplane was his battlefield just like the mountains of Tora Bora were was for bin Laden. The American people wouldn’t accept this, or any other, administration Mirandizing bin Laden. Clearly, the American people have rejected as failed policy the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.

Marc Thiessen is right in pointing out that, even after a terrorist has been captured and he’s been stripped of his weapons, he’s still a threat to our national security because he still has knowledge of (a) future terrorist plots, (b) existing terrorist networks and (c) where terrorist training camps are hidden.

Until they’ve drained every bit of information about these things from a terrorist, neither the CIA nor the FBI should think about anything other than interrogating the terrorist. Even after that, in the interest of national security, no administration should consider Mirandizing a terrorist because we always want to keep open the option of interrogating him.

Let’s further stipulate that the Obama administration’s use of drones to kill terrorists is bad policy. Furthermore, President Obama says that it’s important that terrorists captured on battlefields above the United States should receive due process rights with a full set of constitutional rights. Why should terrorists captured on the battlefields of Yemen, Afghanistan or Pakistan be summarily executed? Why should someone monitoring UAV flights be given the authority to play judge, jury and executioner?

I’d further suggest that killing high value terrorists without interrogating them is stupid. By killing high value terrorists like a KSM or abu Zubaydah, you lose an opportunity to gain insights into terrorist networks, their financing and training, and potentially into upcoming terrorist attacks.

Isn’t that information significantly more important than bragging that we’re killing terrorists with high tech toys? In fact, shouldn’t this administration be asked why they aren’t putting a high priority on gathering intel? I wrote about President Obama’s alleged commitment to gathering as much intel as possible in this post:

In our ever-changing world, America’s first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively.

I questioned then President Obama’s commitment to that principle because this statement was made after Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and after the American people criticized his administration for its mishandling of that intel opportunity.

This administration’s tactics and strategies in gathering intel on the jihadists has been lackluster at best and foolish to downright dangerous at worst. This administration should put a higher priority on gathering intel than it’s putting on giving terrorists constitutional protections. Until that changes, we won’t be as safe as is possible.

Technorati: Intel, Interrogations, Miranda Rights, Due Process, Constitution, Terrorists, High Value Terorrists, CIA, FBI, Crimes, Acts Of War, President Obama

Cross-posted at California Conservative

State lawyers representing Pawlenty have a deadline for filing a brief to the high court over his so-called unallotments. Pawlenty is appealing a lower court ruling that said he went too far in balancing the budget on his own.

I quoted Minnesota’s unallotment in this post. Here’s the language of the statute:

If the commissioner [of finance] determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed, the commissioner shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, reduce the amount in the budget reserve account as needed to balance expenditures with revenue.

I said then that the legislature was told that, had the DFL’s budget become law, the budget surplus would’ve been a whopping $3,625 at the end of the biennium. In other words, the commissioner of finance’s best estimate couldn’t guarantee that the DFL’s budget would’ve balanced. In other words, there isn’t proof that the DFL legislature met its constitutional responsibility.

Based on the unallotment provision’s language, Gov. Pawlenty was obligated to unallot.

I’ve talked with numerous State Capitol insiders. Without exception, they think that, though the DFL publicly says that Judge Kathleen Gearin’s ruling was a great victory, privately, they’re scared to death that Minnesota’s Supreme Court will uphold Judge Gearin’s ruling. The people I’ve talked with say that the only thing coming out of this trial is additional scrutiny on the DFL’s budget.

Speaker Kelliher certainly doesn’t want this scrutinized because she couldn’t hold her caucus together, with Reps. Poppe and Pelowski abandoning her on overriding Gov. Pawlenty’s veto of the Tax Omnibus Bill.

Vulnerable DFL incumbents certainly don’t want the additional scrutiny. First, their vote for a major income tax increase won’t sit well with small businesses. Second, The fact that the tax increase didn’t even come close to closing the deficit won’t sit well with many voters. Third, this just gives their opponents ammunition to label DFL incumbents as disorganized and pawns of the DFL leadership. That isn’t where they want to be, especially heading into an election cycle with them running into a stiff wind.

This is a test of Minnesota’s Supreme Court, too. The unallotment provision’s language is unambiguous. If the Finance Commissioner determines that Minnesota’s biennial budget spends more than they’ll take in, the statute says he will, “the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission,” reduce state’s rainy day fund first, then, if necessary, start unalloting until the budget balances.

There was no money in Minnesota’s rainy day fund after the 2008 budget agreement.

If Minnesota’s Supreme Court rules according to the letter of the law, then Judge Gearin’s ruling will be overturned. That’s because, in past rulings, the Supreme Court has held that unallotment is constitutional because the legislature was ruled to have given the executive branch the authority to unallot.

Here’s the bottom line: Whether Minnesota’s Supreme Court rules in Judge Gearin’s favor or not, Gov. Pawlenty will unallot. Judge Gearin admitted in her TRO that current conditions would allow Gov. Pawlenty to unallot.

Finally, this puts a gun to the DFL leadership’s head. Either they pass legislation that meets with Gov. Pawlenty’s approval or he vetoes the bill, then unallots. If the DFL proposes anything remotely similar to the budget that they proposed last year, they’ll suffer more defections than they experienced last year. If that happened, Speaker Kelliher’s gubernatorial hopes would be essentially be extinguished.

Technorati: Deficits, Unallotment, Rainy Day Fund, Kathleen Gearin, Supreme Court, Speaker Kelliher, Gene Pelowski, Jeanne Poppe, DFL, Tim Pawlenty, Constitution, MNGOP, Election 2010

Let’s be candid about Minnesotans. We’re natural-born innovators. It’s part of our genetics. When the DFL proposes tax credits for green jobs, etc., what they’re really doing is they’re telling Minnesota’s innovators that they’ll benefit if Minnesota’s innovators do things that the DFL wants you to do.

The other side to the DFL’s tax credits is that Minnesota’s innovators will get hit by the same high taxes that we currently have. In other words, if Minnesota’s innovators have an idea that doesn’t fit into one of the DFL’s tax credits, they’ll actually get punished by Minnesota’s high individual income tax rates.

That isn’t the way to prove that Minnesota is business friendly.

To illustrate just how out of touch the DFL is on economic issues, I’ll simply point to Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher’s quote from her debate with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak on Almanac. Here’s what Speaker Kelliher said:

This is about the future. This is about jobs and I’m proud to have passed with bipartisan support the largest job-creating bill the state has seen, the comprehensive transportation bill.

I’ve said before and I’ll repeat it again that the DFL is the party that tries to fund a twentieth century government and that the GOP is the party that wants to create a twenty-first century economy. When construction is the heart of anyone’s economic plan, that isn’t about the future. That’s about doing the same thing year after year after year.

David Strom was right when he told KSTP’s Tom Hauser that tax credits was a new way for government to pick winners and losers. I’ve said before that government’s record at identifying the next Microsoft, the next Fedex or the next Dell has been terrible. Still, the DFL insists that it knows best. Follow this link to read the DFL’s plan. Naturally, the DFL’s plan includes the state paying for remodelling the MOA. That’s Twentieth Century thinking, especially compared with North Dakota.

The 3 biggest employers in Minnesota are the state government, the U of M and the federal government. Meanwhile, 13 of North Dakota’s 15 biggest employers are in health care-related industries:

NDSU employs 4,500 people, followed by Altru Clinics and Altru Health Systems, with 3,500 employees each, Children’s Hospital Mericare and Medcenter One Hearing Ctr. with 3,000 employees each, followed by the University of North Dakota with 2,600 employees, then Medcenter Health Systems and Medcenter One each employing 2,200 people. You get the picture.

Unfortunately, the DFL leadership doesn’t get it. It’s apparently stuck in the mindset that shovel-ready construction jobs remodelling megamalls is the pathway to creating high-paying jobs that will be around a generation or more.

The DFL’s plan last year was to rely on tons of stimulus dollars to save their bacon. Now that President Obama’s stimulus plan has failed, the DFL is looking for a new plan to trick Minnesota voters. They can’t afford to be painted as the party that couldn’t create jobs just like they can’t afford to be proven that they’re the part of annual tax increase attempts.

Unfortunately for the DFL, that image fits them as perfectly as the glass slipper fit on Cinderella’s foot.

This is just the DFL’s latest desperate attempt to not look the party of big government.

Technorati: Taxes, Tax Credits, Transportation Bill, R.T. Rybak, Speaker Kelliher, Tax Increases, Green Jobs, Construction, MOA, DFL, David Strom, Free Markets, Innovation, Conservatism, Economics

The Feb. 25 meeting’s prospects for success are far from clear. GOP leaders demanded Sunday that Democrats start from scratch, and White House aides said Obama had no plans to do so.

“If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio also threw some jabs while accepting Obama’s invitation. He said he was glad the White House “finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation,” adding that Americans have rejected “the job-killing, trillion-dollar government takeover of health care bills passed by the House and Senate.”

Considering the fact that the Democrats’ special interest groups fought for the public option in the Democrats’ bill, I don’t see how a bill passes if it has a number of provisions in it that the Republicans must insist on. The Democrats’ special interest allies will fight against lawsuit abuse reform, which the Republicans must insist on being part health care legislation.

Republicans must insist on that as proof that these negotiations are serious. In fact, the Republican negotiators should present President Obama and congressional Democrats with specific language for lawsuit abuse reform. Republicans should play hardball in insisting on this provision because the American people overwhelmingly support lawsuit abuse reform.

President Obama is already laying out a few pre-conditions for the negotiations:

Asked if he was willing to start from square one, the president said he wants “to look at the Republican ideas that are out there. And I want to be very specific. ‘How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance markets so people with preexisting conditions, for example, can get health care?’”

President Obama knows that greater competition and less governmental interference will lower costs. That isn’t opinion. It’s historical fact.

When Rush Limbaugh talked about his stay in a Hawaiian hospital after suffering chest pains, he told America that whenever a patient pays for the bill himself, hospitals offer a substantial discount to those patients because they don’t have to deal with insurance companies or government bureaucrats. That isn’t unique to that specific hospital either. That’s true at every hospital in America.

I’m more than a little skeptical of President Obama’s statements. When he visited the House Republicans’ retreat 2 weeks ago, President Obama said that he’d read Paul Ryan’s health care plan and knew what was in it. If President Obama was telling the truth that day, then he’d know that Ryan’s Patients’ Choice Act (PCA) legislation addresses insuring people with PECs:

SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS.
(4) LIMITATION ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS- The State Exchange shall ensure that health insurance coverage offered through the Exchange meets the requirements of section 9801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the same manner as if such coverage was a group health plan.

President Obama’s statements this weekend lead me to believe that his complimenting Paul Ryan were more for effect than they were sincere compliments.

The PCA is the result of Rep. Paul Ryan, Rep. Devin Nunes, Sen. Tom Coburn and Sen. Richard Burr investing their time and their intellect. It’s a good faith effort to reform health care. Having interveiwed Paul Ryan and knowing how serious a man Tom Coburn is, there’s no reason for me to think that this is anything but serious legislation whose goal is to fix what’s broken in the health care system while keeping what’s right with the system intact.

Another reason why I’m skeptical that President Obama isn’t serious about bipartisan health care reform is because he can’t afford to differ with his special interest allies:

White House officials said Sunday that Obama does not intend to restart the health care legislative process from scratch. Many liberal groups and lawmakers want congressional Democrats to use all the parliamentary muscle they have to enact the measure that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, employing rules that could bypass GOP filibusters to make changes demanded by House Democrats.

I’ve said many times that universal health care is the Democrats’ Holy Grail. Achieving that would put eternal smiles on their faces. This White House statement further adds to my skepticism:

A White House statement Sunday said Obama repeatedly has made it clear “that he’s adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate.”

“He hopes to have Republican support in doing so, but he is going to move forward on health reform,” the statement said.

In other words, his invitation is just another opportunity for him to talk bipartisanship while acting in a totally partisan way. There’s nothing in that quote that says bipartisanship. The only message emanating from that quote is ‘It’s all about hardball partisan politics.’

Finally, this post wouldn’t be complete without Harry Reid’s quote on bipartisanship:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, “we have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one.”

That’s hilarious. Obviously, Sen. Reid thinks of bipartisanship as locking Republicans out while Max Baucus, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel combined the Finance Committee’s bill with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bill. Sen. Reid might think that voting on a bill without letting any senator read the bill is an exercise in bipartisanship. (I’m betting that Nevada voters will tell Sen. Reid that that isn’t their picture of bipartisanship but that’s another story.)

This is a test of President Obama’s seriousness and sincerity. If these negotiations aren’t serious, he’ll pay a hefty price for it in terms of credibility. If people reach the conclusion that his words are meaningless, they won’t trust him. Once that’s gone, everything is an uphill fight.

Personally, I think this is a political ploy aimed at attracting independents. I don’t think it’s a serious attempt at bipartisanship because the Democrats’ special interest allies can’t afford for it to be a serious attempt at bipartisanship.

That’s why these negotiations will fail.

Technorati: Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Patients’ Choice Act, Health Care, Reforms, Access, Costs, Insurance, Republicans, President Obama, Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Rahm Emanuel, Special Interests, Photo Ops, Democrats

Cross-posted at California Conservative

For years, bloggers like Mitch Berg and John Hinderaker have ridiculed Nick Coleman with their dissections of his mentally incoherent columns. Many is the time I’ve enjoyed watching these talented bloggers turn Nick Coleman’s writings into examples of deranged liberal incompetence.

There comes a time, though, when a torch is passed. In this instance, it isn’t so much passed as it’s snatched from Coleman’s hands by someone who makes Nick Coleman almost look reasonable. ALMOST. The newest useful idiot on the deranged liberal scene is the CityPages’ Hart van Denburg. This morning, Hart’s column states that Gov. Tim Pawlenty mischaracterized something that President Obama:

So Gov. Tim Pawlenty is making a trip to Las Vegas to help defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. That part’s fine. Politicians do this stuff all the time. But in announcing his trip on Facebook, Pawlenty says he’s going to “defy President Obama’s orders” by making the trip.

Orders? Cute line. Probably aimed at, well, “misinformed” folks who think that a democratically elected president is actually a Marxist dictator.

I thought about saying something like “if the Marxist shoe fits…”, then thought better of it. Then our newest deranged liberal launches into a factcheck of what President Obama said:

What he’s alluding to, while leaving out the crucial, actual truth, are some impolitic remarks that Obama made just about a year ago in Indiana, when he was asked at a town hall meeting what he thought about the lavish bonuses enjoyed by corporate CEOs bailed out by taxpayers. Thanks to the Reality Based Community we know what Obama actually said:

“You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you pay taxpayers back. You can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime. There’s got to be some accountability and some responsibility.”

First, it’s time that Hart learned something that politicians occasionally use. It’s called a sense of humor. In this instance, Gov. Pawlenty used a very dry, sarcastic form of humor It’s worth noting that this isn’t uncommon with Gov. Pawlenty.

Second, I’m fairly certain that Gov. Pawlenty wasn’t referring to President Obama’s year-old comments. Rather, I’m betting that Gov. Pawlenty was referring to President Obama’s ill-advised comments last week:

“You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. It’s time your government did the same.”

Gov. Pawlenty simply highlighted President Obama’s ill-advised, boneheaded really, criticism of Las Vegas. Van Deburg needs to not get his undies in a bunch over something this trivial. More importantly, he needs to get a sense of humor.

Most importantly, van Deburg needs to get a life. Whining about a politician’s tongue-in-cheek comments isn’t likely to attract readers.

Technorati: Media Bias, Nick Coleman, Hart van Denburg, Liberalism, President Obama, Democrats, Tim Palwenty, Sarcastic Humor, MNGOP

One of her best lines was about Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts:

The White House blamed the candidate, their candidate, and Nancy Pelosi, she blamed Senate Democrats, and Rahm Emanuel, he criticized a pollster. And yet again, President Obama, he found a way to make this all about George Bush. When you’re 0-for-3, you’d better stop lecturing and start listening.

Gov. Palin spent a substantial amount of time during opening portion of her hour-long speech criticizing President Obama’s foreign policy, first saying this:

Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risk. To win that war, we need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.

After that, she leveled this shot on President Obama’s SOTU speech:

It’s no wonder that our president only spent about 9 percent of his State of the Union address discussing national security, foreign policy, because there aren’t a whole lot of victories he can talk about.

The best tweak she gave to President Obama, though, was this line:

Well, a special hello to the C-SPAN viewers. You may not be welcome in those health care negotiations but you have an invitation to the TEA Party.

NRO’s Robert Costa reminds us in this post of another Palin tweak of President Obama:

“The tea-party movement is about the people” and “it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.”

Here’s another great snippet from her speech:

I am a big supporter of this movement. I believe in this movement. I’ve got lots of friends and family in the lower 48 who attend these events and across this country knowing that this is a movement and America is ready for another revolution and you’re all a part of it.

Simply put, Sarah Palin is in touch with the American people. She knows how worried people are about the Democrats’ lack of spending discipline. She gets it that there are times when bipartisanship is overrated, that there’s times when fiercely defending the principles that our Founding Fathers and our great leaders since have espoused isn’t just the right thing to do but the only thing to do.

Most important in Gov. Palin’s speech was her exhorting those gathered in the hall and those watching on TV to make the movement about policies, not personalities. During her speech, she also talked about returning to free market principles and living within the limits of the Tenth Amendment. She staked out solid federalist ground.

During the speech, I couldn’t help but think that having Sarah Palin visit your district will yield more positive results than visits from President Obama or Speaker Pelosi.

A post on Gov. Palin’s speech simply wouldn’t be complete without mentioning her tweaking the Obama administration’s secretiveness. At one point, she criticized Vice President Biden’s transparency committee on tracking stimulus money, saying that she tried getting information on the meeting, only to find out that the transparency meeting “was held behind closed doors.”

Simply put, the GOP nomination is her’s barring something unforeseen happening. She’s a rock star. More importantly, she’s shown an ability to connect with people of all political stripes since entering the national stage 18 months ago. Her fiscal conservative credentials are solid. Her willingness to take on corruption wherever it’s found is well-documented. Her pro-life credentials are impeccable. Federalists, constitutionalists and libertarians won’t have any difficulty supporting her.

Whether she runs or not in 2012, there’s no denying the fact that she’d start with an incredible GOTV army and impressive base of support, not to mention the fact that she’d have incredible fundraising abilities.

In summation, there’s no question that Saturday night’s speech to the National TEA Party Convention will elevate her standing with middle class voters and people who’ve become frustrated with government’s desire to control people’s lives.

After last night, there’s no questioning where the pecking order starts with in the GOP.

Technorati: Activism, Conventions, TEA Parties, Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, Federalism, Tenth Amendment, Foreign Policy, National Security, Transparency, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Spending, Stimulus, Democrats

Cross-posted at California Conservative

The rule, known as “pay-as-you-go” or “Paygo,” was in place during the 1990s, the last time there was a federal budget surplus, and Democrats hope that it will spur a return in that direction.

“The passage of statutory Paygo today will help usher out an era of irresponsibility and begin putting the country back on a fiscally sustainable path,” President Barack Obama said, in a statement.

When Speaker Pelosi took over as Speaker, one of the first things they passed as a House rule was Paygo:

The House has voted to reinstate budget rules designed to curb the budget deficit.

The vote was 280-to-154 to reinstate the so-called “pay as you go” rule. It requires that any increase in entitlement spending or tax cut be somehow offset so as to not to increase the deficit. Budget hawks say the move is a good first step toward restoring fiscal discipline.

Here’s the date on that AP article:

updated 2:18 p.m. CT, Fri., Jan. 5, 2007

My question is simple: Is the Democratic leadership committed to Paygo? If they are, why do they need to keep passing Paygo? Currently, the House can suspend the rules so they can ignore Paygo. Simply put, this isn’t about fiscal discipline. It’s about providing the Jim Mathesons of the world political cover.

It’s another attempt by the Democrats’ leadership to con the American people. They’re pretending that We The People aren’t smart enough to see through their facade. They’re hoping that We The People will have forgotten their maneuvering when we enter the voting booths this November.

Let’s send the Democratic leadership a message this November. In fact, let’s change the Democrats’ leadership this November, streamlining it by eliminating from their leadership the titles of Speaker, Majority Leader and Majority Whip, replacing them with the titles of Minority Leader and Minority Whip.

That’s change I can believe in!!!

Technorati: Paygo, Debt Ceiling, Jim Matheson, Speaker Pelosi, Deficits, Political Cover, Con Game, Democrats, Fiscal Discipline, Conservatism, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Apparently I’m quite a burr under the governor’s saddle. My guess is it goes back to 2005, when then-Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson and I helped force him to raise a tobacco tax in spite of his ‘no new taxes’ pledge. We saved health care for hard-working families who can’t afford it and made sure our schools didn’t endure further gut-wrenching cuts. We felt a little bad for the governor, so we allowed him to call the increase a ‘fee,’ but whatever you call it, it was the right thing to do for Minnesota.

Political veterans have seen candidates say alot of stupid things during campaigns. It’s another thing to say that political veterans, like myself, have seen candidates commit unforced errors like Mr. Entenza did in that statement.

Admitting that you’ve teamed with Dean ‘Shave-The-Truth’ Johnson to force a highly regressive tax increase on taxpayers at a time when people think that it’s more important to cut spending than to raise taxes isn’t the brightest political strategy I’ve ever seen. Still, that’s precisely what Mr. Entenza did.

The move makes sense from the standpoint that Mr. Entenza did something to prevent himself from becoming the DFL’s forgotten man. Entenza has plenty of money to spend but he’s been hurt by his dismal showing in last Tuesday’s DFL Straw Poll:

Kelliher and Rybak have clearly emerged as favorites on the DFL side, but the field remains a bit more muddied. State Sen. John Marty led the second tier of candidates with support from 9.6 percent of caucus participants. State Reps. Tom Rukavina and Paul Thissen each registered support from 7.2 percent of straw poll participants. They were followed by former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza (6.7 percent), state Sen. Tom Bakk (6.3 percent), former state Sen. Steve Kelley (4.1 percent) and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner (2.1 percent).

In all honesty, finishing that far behind the DFL’s frontrunners puts Entenza towards the bottom of the DFL’s bottom tier. I suspect that the DFL powers-that-be will start exerting pressure on Entenza, Bakk and Gaertner to get out of the race. Sen. Kelley didn’t waste time before dropping out right after the precinct caucuses.

The good news for Matt Entenza doesn’t have a self-esteem deficit. The bad news for Mr. Entenza is that he’s got a drastic support deficit, one that he isn’t likely to recover from.

FINAL QUESTION: Is is likely that a popular governor would think of a soon-to-be has been gubernatorial candidate as “a burr under the governor’s saddle”? I’m betting otherwise.

Technorati: MPR, Minnesota 2020, Matt Entenza, Precinct Caucuses, Straw Poll, Speaker Kelliher, R.T. Rybak, John Marty, Dean Johnson, Tax Increases, DFL, Tim Pawlenty, GOP, Election 2010