Archive for October, 2011

Politico offers a sneak peak at George Will’s Sunday column. Suffice it to say that he isn’t a fan of Mitt’s:

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.

Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’…Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?

With the nation at a crossroads, what this nation needs is a visionary, someone to inspire them with great ideas. We need a real leader.

This week, when Gov. Romney initially refused to support Gov. Kasich’s SB5 law, it was proof that Gov. Romney didn’t have a spine. When he apologized “if I caused any confusion”, he finally said he supported Gov. Kasich “110%”. That isn’t leadership. That’s shapeshifting at its finest.

We don’t need someone who’s constantly revising his core beliefs. That’s assuming he has core beliefs. Based on this op-ed by Doug MacKinnon, Club for Growth doesn’t think Romney has a spine either:

“The big problem many conservatives have with Mitt Romney is that he’s taken both sides of nearly every issue important to us. He’s against a flat tax, now he’s for it. He says he’s against ObamaCare, but was for the individual mandate and subsidies that are central to ObamaCare. He thinks that collective bargaining issues should be left for states to decide if he’s in Ohio, but he took the opposite position when he was in New Hampshire. This is just another statement in a long line of statements that will raise more doubts about what kind of President Mitt Romney would be in the minds of many Republican primary voters.”

Gov. Perry perhaps said it best during his interview with Bill O’Reilly Tuesday night. That’s when Gov. Perry questioned how a man in his 50’s or 60’s could change his mind on so many fundamental issues that late in life.

It suggests that these changing positions weren’t part of major epiphany but rather are the determination made by a man who knew he wouldn’t stay viable if he kept espousing his real positions.

The TEA Party was the reason for last year’s historic defeat of the Democrats. Having a technocrat like Mitt Romney, who is, at best, disinterested in the TEA Party would throw cold water on the TEA Party movement. Most importantly, TEA Party activists demand sincerity from politicians. If a politician says they’re going to do X, they’d better get X done or at least say that they worked hard to get it accomplished.

If Republicans want to keep the momentum going that started with the TEA Party movement, they can’t nominate the anti-TEA Party candidate.

Mr. Will is right that conservatism isn’t informed by “data.” The TEA Party’s principles aren’t determined by data either. Conservatism’s principles are rooted in documents like the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. That’s why they believe passionately about concepts like federalism and limited government.

Mitt Romney doesn’t have deep-rooted principles. That’s the message of Mr. Will’s column. With respect to Mr. Will’s question, no, it shouldn’t come to this.

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

For some time, Instapundit Glenn Reynolds has talked about the Higher Education bubble and it inevitably popping. This SC Times article might be proof that that bubble is about to pop:

Central Minnesotans focused on this area’s quality of life shouldn’t hit the panic button, but they should be concerned about the latest enrollment numbers from St. Cloud State University and the St. Cloud Technical & Community College.

As reported last week, St. Cloud State’s annual 30-day enrollment number fell almost 6 percent to 17,231, down about 1,100 students. St. Cloud Technical & Community College saw a 3.1 percent decrease, from 4,810 to 4,660 students.

While both universities anticipated declines, the size of St. Cloud State’s deserves particular attention, which is why it’s good to know university officials are looking for more details about trends in specific programs.

Declining enrollments don’t automatically prove that tuition costs are too high. Still, that can’t be ruled out as an explanation for declining enrollments. It’s quite possible that other factors contribute to the decline. Things like expensive books don’t help cash-strapped students.

Perhaps, potential students are staying away to avoid going into debt. They’re already staring at the possibility of higher taxes to pay for this generation’s indulgent lifestyle and the Democrats’ reckless spending.

There’s alot wrong with America’s Higher Education system. Anytime that a system is top-heavy with administrators, tuition is likely to take a hit.

Newt Gingrich exposes the administrators’ bubble in this video. Starting just before the 32:00 minute mark, here’s what Speaker Gingrich said:

Why do colleges have so many bureaucrats? There’s a study that shows, by 2014, we will have virtually the same number of administrators and clerks that we have teachers in higher education. Now one-to-one might be an interesting model if it’s student-teacher but one-to-one as bureaucrat to teacher strikes me as an absurdity.

Go and look through why these schools are expensive. And what we’ve done with student aid is…with student loans is we’ve made it possible for students to live beyond their means for longer than they should, selling off their future and then, suddenly, when they get out of school, they realize “Oh, I borrowed that much”?

If you think about it, this is not a very smart model for a country because it sells short the future, maximizes the present and doesn’t teach students true cost. And what the president did yesterday is very destructive. It just expands the bubble. Higher Education last year, I think this is correct, the public universities for the fifth straight year, rose in expense faster than private universities.

It seems to me that, before ‘investing in higher education’, an auditing firm should go through every state’s university system, then produce a report outlining the inordinate amount of abuses they find.

It isn’t even a matter of asking whether they’d find an outlandish number of abuses. It’s a matter of finding out the extent and scope of the abuses and mismanagement in the current higher education system.

Why shouldn’t a question be posed to every administrator, asking them to explain what they’re doing that improves educational excellence? If they can’t give a solid, quantifiable answer justifying their salary, shouldn’t that money be saved by eliminating that position immediately?

The next question I’d ask is quite simple. If we started banking the savings by eliminating positions filled by administrators’ cronies, wouldn’t student tuitions drop significantly? If they didn’t, would that, at minimum, save the states’ taxpayers money spend on ‘higher education’?

The current system is a mess that’s needed a major overhaul for a quarter century. If you don’t think that’s true, think of this: in the 1990’s, Newt Gingrich was talking about kids having learning tools that resemble today’s Kindles and IPads.

Back then, he was advocating for their use as a 24/7 lifelong learning device to keep pace with the rapidly expanding knowledge base. Back then, people looked at him like he was nuts.

Fast forward to today and the bureaucrats and unions still resist changing to that type of learning, at least in a formal setting, because it’d mean teachers and administrators would lose their six-figure salaried jobs.

As a society, we should demand that the expansive and expensive labyrinth of administrators, agencies and do-nothing bureaucrats be dismantled. We should demand that universities’ tuitions drop, the bureaucracies trimmed significantly and that students only have the option of graduating with a degree that actually helps students be a productive part of the private sector.

Anything short of that is unacceptable.

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

Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann are old pros in Washington, DC. They’re often perceived as left-of-center moderates. Now that they’ve written this op-ed telling President Obama not to move to the center, it’s important to update their profiles. It’s important to drop the moderates from their profile.

Obama should likewise know by now that working with a supercommittee whose Republican members are under orders from their House and Senate leaders to oppose all revenue increases is a fool’s errand. And imagining that a substantial center in the American public will respond positively to such an approach is pure fantasy. What sense does it make for Obama embrace an agenda without any support on the other side of the aisle, and make nice to a party whose sole objective is to deny him reelection? One should note the reaction, documented by Politico, of a key Republican Senate leadership staffer to Obama’s endorsement of the Gang of Six deficit-reduction framework in July—if Obama is for it, we have to be against it.

Mann and Ornstein are right about one thing. Republicans shouldn’t oppose something President Obama supports out of spite. They should oppose the things President Obama supports because they’re bad policies.

Republicans should make the case for why President Obama’s and the Democrats’ policies should be ignored. All it takes is a brief short-term history lesson. Has the stimulus worked? Has the stimulus created any green jobs? Have the loan guarantees to the Solyndras and the SunPowers of the world now been dumped into taxpayers’ laps? Based on sky-high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits and the mountain of debt, aren’t people far worse off now than the day President Obama was sworn in?

Ornstein and Mann argue that President Obama would be foolish to agree with Republicans in ruling out tax increases. Their advice is foolish. The American people know the federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. That’s why the American people oppose new taxes to paper over Washington’s spending addiction.

This paragraph is totally delusional:

Obama, at the center of today’s political spectrum, should therefore be explicit and forceful in communicating the stark differences between the parties and the source of inaction and gridlock in Washington. To do anything less would be a disservice to the public, his party, and his hopes for a constructive and consequential presidency.

People that think President Obama is “at the center of today’s political spectrum” simply weren’t paying attention to the American people last November, 2010.

The American people spoke with a booming, unmistakable voice. They were tired of the bailouts, the stimulus, Obamacare and the Democrats’ spending.

Furthermore, the inaction has been epitomized by Senate Democrats. House Republicans have put together and passed 15 bills they think will lift this administration’s counterproductive regulatory regime, cut the Democrats’ reckless spending, promote robust domestic energy production while reforming entitlements.

Other than that, House Republicans haven’t done much since installing John Boehner as Speaker.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority leader Reid has bottled up “the Forgotten Fifteen” because admitting that Republicans have actually gotten things done would be akin to telling the nation that Senate Democrats are lazy and disinterested in doing the people’s business.

Harry Reid’s and President Obama’s Democrats haven’t even passed a budget in over two-and-a-half years. The “source of inaction and gridlock in Washington” is found on the left side of the aisle. This year, it’s specifically located in the Senate.

Republicans have said no to foolish, counterproductive proposals like they should. They’ve said yes to things that they believe in, things that’ve worked in the past. If Republicans stick with their message of growing the economy, shrinking the size of government and reforming how Washington operates, the American people will side with them the vast majority of the time.

If President Obama and the Democrats continue endorsing the policies they’re currently endorsing, they’ll get thrashed again in 2012.

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

Thursday evening, Dick Morris tried selling Greta on the Herman Cain surge that Morris says is ongoing. According to Karl Rove’s reporting, Cain’s surge peaked in mid-October, then started falling, albeit slowly. The other thing Morris is peddling is the notion that 9-9-9 is a worthwhile plan that should be taken seriously.

It’s a terrible plan, despite what Art Laffer says. When questioned about the federal government collecting both a national sales tax and a federal income tax, Laffer said that Democrats can do that the next time they control the House, Senate and White House.

That’s true enough but it’s missing the point. If they want to pass that in those circumstances, let them. Then let them take the political beating the next election cycle. Americans won’t stand for both a federal income tax and a national sales tax. PERIOD.

Why 9-9-9 is stupid is because it’s being proposed by a Republican. If Democrats want to propose it, then they own that proposal. If a Republican proposes and passes it, then Democrats raise that rate, Democrats can rationalize it by saying they’re just raising a tax created by Republicans. In essence, they’d be saying ‘it must not be bad because Republicans proposed it’.

Republicans couldn’t argue that point. They would’ve essentially picked up a baseball bat, handed it to the Democrats, then said ‘Here, hit me with the bat I just gave you.’

Frankly, a pretty impressive case can be made that 9-9-9 is capable of doing alot more damage than the current tax code. A fairly easy case can be made that Rick Perry’s flat tax and Newt Gingrich’s tax overhaul are significantly better tax reforms than 9-9-9.

For instance, Speaker Gingrich’s plan calls for a corporate tax rate of 12.5%. That’s only 3.5 points higher than Cain’s plan with the added bonus of not featuring a national sales tax.

That’s a big deal because it doesn’t create a new revenue stream that progressives will use to grow government.

It’s time for more people to tell Mr. Cain why his plan is foolish from a political perspective.

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

Thursday, Sen. Klobuchar released this statement about the Obama administration’s troop withdrawals from Iraq:

“I have long supported a military policy in Iraq that focuses on the responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops and the transfer of authority to the Iraqi government. Our troops have shown tremendous courage to get us to this point. The mission of our Minnesota National Guard troops in Kuwait and Iraq to bring our soldiers and equipment home from Iraq is the right one.”

The first thing worth noting is that Sen. Klobuchar, like most Democrats, didn’t say she’s “long supported a military policy in Iraq” that focuses on defeating the radical jihadists. That’s never been a consideration for Sen. Klobuchar. In fact, she’s often gotten her facts wrong. Here’s what she said:

Last week, officials in Baghdad released figures suggesting the surge of American forces has rapidly reduced violence. Klobuchar said that’s not clear. “Some of the violence has been pushed out to other areas, but I think it’s too early to tell,” she said. “It’ll be best evaluated in the middle or late summer.”

Here’s what she got wrong:

The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force-Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.

Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.

When it comes to national security, Sen. Klobuchar is either poorly informed or totally disinterested. That’s disturbing. Regardless of whether you agreed with the Iraq war or not, it’s a senator’s job to get the facts right.

These weren’t classified items that required a security clearance. These were statistics included in Centcom’s monthly reports.

If Sen. Klobuchar wouldn’t have spent her time finding and attending photo ops in Minnesota, she could’ve spnt the time studying Centcom’s reports. That would’ve helped her be informed on this important subject.

It’s disgraceful that a US senator could get that information that badly wrong, especially when the information was so readily available.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Allahpundit’s post about the Democrats’ latest talking point has got me thinking. First, here’s what Allahpundit wrote about in his post:

“I’m the first one to acknowledge that the relations between myself and the Republican Congress have not been good over the last several months, but it’s not for lack of effort,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos earlier this month…

“I’m sure the president would like it to be creating jobs more quickly. And if the members of the do-nothing Republican Congress would actually put a couple of oars in the water and help us, [we could] do these things like [Mississippi] Gov. [Haley] Barbour mentioned that make so much sense,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” earlier this month…

Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said, “Democrats are trying to give ownership of Congress to Republicans because the institution is dysfunctional and not addressing the jobs problem, and this is a way to tie blame to the GOP.”…

I could write a detailed post exposing the Democrats’ dishonesty. In fact, I might do that next week. Still, I think the best way to illustrate the Democrats’ dishonesty is by illustrating the Democrats’ dishonesty in cartoons and animated videos.

Let’s face it. We’re a visual society. We learn faster through visuals than through manuals.

Here’s my challenge to the Army of Davids out there: Hit me with your best videos and cartoons. Post them in the comments section for this post. Post them on your website, then send a link to your entry. Get creative. Be irreverant. Most importantly, highlight the fact that Democrats don’t have ideas, solutions or integrity. Make the most compelling case possible.

The upshot of this project is simple: If this Army of Davids does what they’re capable of, the reward will be alot fewer Democrats in the Senate in 2013.

Have at it. Let’s have some fun at the Democrats’ expense with this.

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

In an incredible interrogation, Rep. Jason Chaffetz utterly demolishes DHS Secretary Napolitano. Here’s the video of Rep. Chaffetz’ interrogation of Secretary Napolitano:

What’s stunning is the long list of “I don’t know” replies from Secretary Napolitano. The other thing that’s stunning, though predictable, is Napolitano’s response to Rep. Chaffetz’ question on what percentage of the border is secure:

NAPOLITANO: Oh, I think that having lived near…
CHAFFETZ: I have to go pretty quick here. I’m just looking for a number.
NAPOLITANO: Having lived and worked on that border most of my life, I’d say that it’s as safe as it’s ever been…
CHAFFETZ: But you don’t have a percentage?
NAPOLITANO: It’s an ongoing project.

She then admits that she’s never spoken to Eric Holder about Operation Fast and Furious. What follows from there borders on the surreal. Finally, towards the end of the interrogation, Rep. Chaffetz demolishes Secretary Napolitano:

CHAFFETZ: How is it that you can make the claim that the border is more secure now than it’s ever been and yes, the Obama administration purposely allows 2,000 guns to be released knowing that they’re going to go to Mexico with hundreds of people getting killed by those weapons? Two dead US agents and yet you don’t even know if we’ve even detected 1 of those guns.

In fact, on Jan. 14, in fact, you did detect someone in New Mexico. There were 8 guns found. They didn’t even run a trace on them and you let those guns go into Mexico. I find that absolutely stunning and for you to have two dead agents and to have never had a conversation with Eric Holder about Fast and Furious and about this is totally unacceptable.

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Napolitano is that stupid and that incompetent. It’s infinitely easier to believe that Napolitano was covering for the administration, being the faithful trooper who took one for the team.

Napolitano didn’t know how many agents had been killed along the border. Napolitano didn’t talk with Holder about Operation Fast and Furious. Napolitano wouldn’t admit that she knew about the flood of weapons pouring into Mexico, a claim I can’t believe. For Napolitano to then say that the border is more secure than it’s ever been is close to perjury.

We didn’t have a dozen border patrol agents killed during the Reagan administration, the Bush 41 administration, the Clinton administration and the most recent Bush administration. COMBINED.

We certainly didn’t have weapons pouring into Mexico at the stunning rates that they’re pouring into Mexico now. By every imaginable metric or statistic, the border has never been this dangerous. The cartels never posed this threat to Americans. The drug trafficking has never been worse than it is today.

I appreciate the fact that Rep. Chaffetz didn’t try keeping his cool in this situation. A dozen people dying as a result of this administration’s incompetence is something worth getting hot under the collar about. The DHS secretary not knowing anything on a wide range of issues is, likewise, something worth getting hot under the collar about.

For Secretary Napolitano to repeatedly state that the border is secure, everything is fine, etc., when American guns are flowing into Mexico and when Mexican drug cartels are killing Americans is infuriating.

That this administration hasn’t fired both Napolitano and Holder speaks, nay screams, to this administration’s incompetence and corruption. They’ve got to go. Next November can’t come soon enough.

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

Last night, Greta interviewed Paul Ryan. She focused initially on the speech Chairman Ryan gave earlier in the day at the Heritage Foundation. Here’s the video of the interview:

Of special interest to me is Chairman Ryan’s description and analysis of President Obama’s habit of strawman arguments:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, are you for dirtier water or dirtier air?

RYAN: No, I’m not, actually.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So is that a lie?

RYAN: Well, it’s not accurate. I think what it is…

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, but — (INAUDIBLE)

RYAN: It’s a strawman argument. It’s basically trying to affix to your opponent positions they don’t have, to then knock them down and win the debate by default. This is why I call it an intellectually lazy argument because it’s not a sincere debate on the facts. It’s not a sincere debate on the people who disagree with you on their actual positions.

I can’t agree with Greta that President Obama’s habit of making strawman arguments is a lie. That said, I wouldn’t hesitate in calling the tactic cowardly and deceitful. President Obama doesn’t have the cajones or intellectual firepower to take Chairman Ryan on in an honest debate. Chairman Ryan, like Speaker Gingrich, would mop the floor with his backside.

Imagine a debate with an objective fact-checker doing instant analysis of the people’s debates. Imagine telling Chairman Ryan and President Obama that a referee will blow the whistle if either politician used a strawman argument. President Obama would be demolished before the debate even started.

If he had to make peer-reviewed arguments for his policies, he’d be intimidated from the outset.

This is a statistic worth highlighting:

VAN SUSTEREN: But if you’re, but if you’re saying you’re for dirty water and dirty air, that’s not a different ideology, if you tell me, if you tell me that’s, quote, not accurate.

RYAN: The point I’m saying is focusing on class warfare, that I think flows from a philosophy that government ought to equalize the results of people lives instead of equalizing outcomes. Equal opportunity versus equal outcomes, very different political philosophy. And I think the policies that he’s been pushing are more in this political philosophy area. And the result of it is more wealth redistribution, higher punitive taxes on job creators, less prosperity.

And so instead of focusing on the kinds of ideas that actually create jobs and economic growth, instead of working with us on these ideas, we’re preying on people’s (INAUDIBLE) anxieties.

Let me say it this way. Eighty percent of all businesses in America, they file their taxes as individuals, as people, as subchapter S corporations. He wants to bring their top tax rate to 50 percent! You and I come from Wisconsin. Over the shore of Lake Superior, the Canadians next year, they’re taxing their businesses at 15 percent. And President Obama is saying the top tax rate that most of our jobs come from, those successful small businesses in America, should go to 50 percent. And he’s using this class warfare rhetoric, envy, resentment, fear to sell this really job-killing agenda. And that’s…

People who say that tax rates don’t matter will argue that businesses aren’t paying their fair share. People that run businesses might not move from Wisconsin to Canada but they won’t hesitate moving to another country doesn’t have socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks a 50% marginal tax rate on job creators will grow the economy are kidding themselves.

Democrats on the Supercommittee proposed a huge new spending increase and the biggest tax increase in US history. The economy is struggling and we’re drowning in debt. The last thing we should be doing is raising taxes in the name of fairness while spending recklessly.

Chairman Ryan is exactly right in saying that we don’t need a Divider-in-Chief, which is exactly what President Obama has turned out to be.

It’s time to end our long national economic nightmare. It’s time, using President Obama’s own words, to vote him off the island. Next November can’t come soon enough.

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

I’ve often thought that Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I still think that, especially after reading this article. It’s apparent that they’re suicidal and not too bright, too:

Democrats have proposed more than $1 trillion of tax increases in a $3 trillion deficit-reduction plan that they dropped with a thud onto the negotiating table of Congress’s supercommittee.

The plan proposed Tuesday by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and backed by a majority of Democrats on the panel was presented as a grand bargain that cuts entitlements, stimulates the economy and goes much further than the $1.2 trillion deficit cut required under the August debt-ceiling deal.

More than 50 percent of the deficit reduction in the plan would come from tax increases, one source said.

Let’s get this straight. Democrats are insisting that the deficits be brought under control by feeding the federal beast at a time when its appetite is out of control? I wrote here that “Sen. Baucus and the Democrats can take a hike. Increasing taxes to pay for more pork isn’t responsible.”

The federal government has a spending problem, one that Democrats refuse to admit exists. Instead, Democrats continually insist that we need to ‘invest’ in pork projects like choo-choos. Democrats continually insist that we need to bail cities and school districts out rather than forcing them to actually make smart decisions so that they don’t have to actually reform themselves.

What’s the worst way to cure an addict of their addiction? Isn’t it to give the addict more of what they’re addicted to? For instance, wouldn’t it be wise to not give an alcoholic a bunch of money and a ride to the licquor store? Wouldn’t it be foolish to give a drug addict a bunch of drugs?

The federal government has a nasty addiction to spending way too much, especially during this administration’s time in office. The last thing we can afford is to give Democrats more money to spend on things we don’t need and can’t afford.

If there’s anything that’s certain, it’s that the American people are tired of the reckless spending. They’re tired of the bailouts. They’re tired of the Solyndra/SunPower scams that they’re going to have to pay for. They’re tired of the crony capitalism, which, by the way, isn’t a picture of capitalism done right.

Democratic aides said the GOP is once again walking away from a grand bargain that would put the U.S. on a solid fiscal ground, noting that Medicare cuts unpopular with the liberal base, reportedly totaling around $500 billion, were included in the deal.

First, I’m skeptical that the Medicare cuts are real. I’m betting that they’re illusions, not real. Second, the Medicare cuts could stop the minute the next congress is sworn in. There’s no way to guarantee the cuts in out years.

This is nothing more blah, blah, blah spin from the Democrats.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) pushed back on the calls for stimulus during the hearing, getting Elmendorf to acknowledge it is impossible to prove that the stimulus law passed in 2009 worked.

Thanks to Sen. Toomey, these Democrats can’t keep pretending like their reckless spending can continue. If they want to keep proposing reckless spending initiatives, they’d better prepare for the consequences next November.

Having Democrats on the supercommittee pushing another stimulus bill plus the biggest tax increase in US history is a recipe for electoral disaster. That type of behavior will position them for a bigger loss than 2010.

People know that our fiscal house isn’t in order. They know that we’re spending way too much. They’re tired of the bailouts. This has to stop before we’re Greece.

If Democrats insist on being worthless stewards of the taxpayers’ money, they’ll pay a steep price next November. And yes, that’s a certified prediction.

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

This article in The Street is a shoddily-written article, missing a number of key points. Simply put, they didn’t do their research. Here’s the prime example of their shoddy journalism:

There are plenty of representatives who could face heavy reelection opposition: Look no further than Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.), who has spent a significant amount of time on a sputtering presidential campaign.

The Minnesota congresswoman was reelected by nine percentage points in 2010, but challenger Tarryl Clark is expected to return for a second run at the district. The more time Bachmann spends in Iowa, the more time Clark, assistant majority leader of the Minnesota Senate, can use to stage a serious challenge in District 6.

If The Street had paid attention, or if they’d just googled Travellin’ Tarryl, they would’ve known that she’s now attempting a run as a carpetbagger in MN-8. That’s if the Minnesota Supreme Court doesn’t redraw the map passed by the legislature. If the court essentially agreeing with the legislature’s map, Tarryl will wind up going who knows where.

If the state Supreme Court keeps the legislature’s map intact, Tarryl would face Collin Peterson in a DFL primary. That’s unless Collin Peterson decides he’s had enough of being part of the minority and retires.

If the Supreme Court changes the legislative map, she might jump into another race. If that happens, Tarryl is history. She’d get thumped by in MN-6 or MN-7.

Another part of The Street’s article that’s wrong is that Michele didn’t defeat Tarryl by 9 points in 2010. Michele won by 13 points, Michele’s biggest margin of victory at the congressional level. That’s a point higher than I’d predicted but I was still mighty close. (Then again, I’m the only journalist who predicted Chip Cravaack’s victory.)

Tarryl is a legend in her own mind. She couldn’t win a congressional race if it wasn’t in MN-4 or MN-5. She was a semi-impressive candidate in 2006. Then the worst thing possible happened to Tarryl. She had to start casting votes. Those votes revealed that she isn’t the moderate she’s tried casting herslf as.

The minute that image of moderation disappeared, so did Tarryl’s chance of winning a congressional race.

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