Archive for August, 2012

Monday afternoon, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Ritchie overstepped his authority in changing the titles of the marriage amendment and the Photo ID amendment.

It’s interesting that Ritchie didn’t feel the need to change the title the legislature gave to the Legacy Amendment ballot question. It’s interesting that Ritchie wasn’t interested in the titles of proposed constitutional amendments until he personally opposed this year’s proposed constitutional amendments.

The title given to S.F.1308, aka the Marriage Amendment was pretty straightforward:

Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.

Ritchie said that he needed to change the title of the Photo ID amendment because it was misleading. I don’t believe that for a split second but let’s stipulate, for the sake of this discussion, that Ritchie’s right. What’s the need to change the title of the Marriage Amendment?

Here’s what Ritchie changed the title to:

Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.

The title Ritchie tried applying to the marriage amendment has a thoroughly negative tone, which Ritchie intended. That stinks of political kibitzing, something that’s forbidden of constitutional officers.

It also stinks of political mischief, another thing that’s forbidden of constitutional officers. Fortunately, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Ritchie went too far with his political mischief.

It’s clear that Secretary Ritchie isn’t interested in upholding Minnesota’s election laws, which is his responsibility. It’s impossible to invest this much time campaigning against the Photo ID laws, then enforce it when it’s approved by the voters.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Earlier this afternoon, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Secretary of State Mark Ritchie doesn’t have the authority to change the title of the proposed constitutional amendments. They also ruled against “liberal-leaning groups” who sought to keep the proposed Photo ID ballot question off the ballot:

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The Minnesota Supreme Court has thrown out ballot title changes submitted by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie for two constitutional amendments voters will address this fall.

The high court on Monday rejected the titles written by Ritchie for the photo ID amendment and another amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state.

Republicans had argued that Ritchie overstepped his authority and was trying to influence voters to reject both amendments.

In a separate decision, justices also shot down a lawsuit from liberal-leaning groups who argued that lawmakers had failed to give voters the full scope of the changes that would result from the photo ID amendment.

These are stinging defeats to Secretary Ritchie, Common Cause, the ACLU-MN and the League of Women Voters-MN. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the remedy sought by the ACLU-MN and the LWV-MN wasn’t warranted:

The court majority wrote that the photo ID ballot question “is not so unreasonable and misleading” that it should be taken off the ballot. The justices said striking the question from the ballot would have been “unprecedented relief” and that the voters will be “the sole judge of the wisdom of such matters.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling diplomatically says that the ACLU-MN, the LWV-MN and Common Cause tried to use the courts because they couldn’t win at the ballot box. The Supreme Court essentially said that the legislature has the authority to pass ballot questions and that citizens have the right to vote yes or no on the proposed constitutional amendments.

Ritchie changed the title for the marriage ban from “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman” to “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.”

He rewrote the photo ID title from “Photo Identification Required for Voting” to “Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots.”

Citing its own precedent, the court found that when the Legislature includes its own title for ballot questions, then it goes beyond the authority of the secretary of state to replace it. The majority opinion said the secretary of state has “no constitutional authority over the form and manner of proposed constitutional amendments,” and directly ordered Ritchie to restore the original wording as set by the Legislature.

Secretary Ritchie intended to influence the outcome of a constitutional amendment based on his political preferences. That’s unacceptable because he’s a constitutional officer, not an elected politician.

That’s why Secretary Ritchie should be impeached.

Secretary Ritchie’s disdain for upholding the Constitution is showing. His attempt to confuse voters is a political act that the Constitution doesn’t allow and that Minnesota voters can’t tolerate. He’s a political hack who’s attempting to give himself extraconstitutional responsibilities.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I enjoyed reading Bill Kristol’s latest column, aptly titled What If Everyone’s Wrong? Mr. Kristol starts the article with this question:

Everyone knows vice presidential candidates don’t matter. Except that on August 11, the day Paul Ryan was announced, Mitt Romney trailed by almost 5 percentage points in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Two weeks later Romney had pulled to within 1 point?—?his strongest rally of the general election season.

Everyone knows that when a president is running for reelection, the race is a judgment on the incumbent?—?and that if the country isn’t in great shape, it’s very much in the challenger’s interest to keep the focus on the incumbent. Make it a referendum on the president. Don’t let the incumbent make it a choice.

This is that rare instance where a Paul Ryan turns a choice election into a referendum on President Obama’s record.

President Obama, David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Bill Burton wanted a choice election based on the image of Mitt they created with their smear campaign. They didn’t want a choice campaign based on substantive issues.

I’d argue that they weren’t prepared to fight on Paul Ryan’s turf.

Paul Ryan’s presence brings a seriousness to the race that wasn’t there previously. Instead of this being the personality choice campaign that Mssrs. Obama, Axelrod, Burton and Plouffe wanted, Paul Ryan’s presence has turned this into a referendum of which economic plan voters prefered.

It’s now a choice between letting the oil companies, the coal mining companies and the natural gas companies using fracking lower gas prices and electric bills vs. letting the EPA run roughshod over the coal, the natural gas and the oil industries.

It’s now a choice between free market capitalism vs. crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is based, at least in this instance, on who President Obama’s most prolific fundraising bundlers are. Free market capitalism is based on whose ideas consumers find most appealing.

It’s now a choice between government-mandated health insurance vs. telling the American people they should be better health care consumers, then giving them the tools to be better health care shoppers.

There’s a time-tested axiom that you can’t beat something with nothing. That’s especially true in presidential elections. I knew that it would be important to make the case against President Obama’s policies. Still, I knew that it would be important to give voters a reason to vote for the GOP nominee, too.

President Obama has an uphill fight in this type of choice election because it’s also a referendum on his economic record.

That’s the worst of all possible worlds for President Obama.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There hasn’t been a shortage of proof that President Obama’s campaign team is willing to lie through their teeth if they think that’ll help them win. While that’s been happening, though, President Obama didn’t distance himself from Bill Burton’s disgusting ‘Mitt killed my wife’ ad for Priorities USA PAC.

He argued that Obama campaign Deputy Communications Director Stephanie Cutter hadn’t accused Mitt Romney of being a felon. This was refuted within minutes on Drudge with video of Stephanie Cutter accusing Mitt Romney of either being a felon or a liar.

Apparently, President Obama understands that this election might slip away from him if something dramatic doesn’t positively impact his campaign. That’s a possible explanation for his going negative in his interview with the AP:

“I can’t speak to Gov. Romney’s motivations,” Obama said. “What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he’s talked about.”

The vast majority of people would argue that protecting babies that were born after an attempted abortion isn’t extreme. In fact, the vast majority of people would say that a physician who didn’t protect that human life would be guilty of infanticide.

Based on his votes as a state senator, President Obama thinks requiring a doctor to care for a child born after an attempted abortion is unacceptable:

Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn’t bat an eyelash. In fact, he did.

In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic Convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation.

But he couldn’t bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.

President Obama is an extremist on abortion. His views on abortion fit better with China’s one child policy than with mainstream American beliefs.

Abortion isn’t the only issue where he’s an extremist. When President Obama rejected the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, he said that militant environmentalists were his allies through thick and thin.

His administration’s EPA’s hostility towards the coal and natural gas industries certainly aren’t centrist policy positions. If he admitted that he’s opposed to fossil fuels, cheap gas prices and inexpensive energy bills to Midwestern families, he’d lose those battleground states by 12 points on average. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Virginia and possibly Pennsylvania would flip into the red column.

Finally, President Obama’s spending is unprecedented. It’s a significant part of why President Obama is the only president in history to run a $1,000,000,000,000 deficit. That means he’s the only president who’s had 4 trillion dollar deficits. In fact, he’s the only president who’s had 4 consecutive trillion dollar deficits.

President Obama’s positions on abortion, the environment and spending are extremist positions. The media should laugh him off the stage the next time he says Mitt’s an extremist.

Finally, it’s a joke for President Obama to admit that he doesn’t know Mitt but that he has “no doubt that he would carry forward” extremist policies. Is President Obama’s statement based on knowledge or is he just making things up?

I suspect it’s the latter.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Charlie Crist used to be known as a rising star in the GOP. When he endorsed Sen. McCain right before the Florida Primary, it essentially doomed the GOP to Sen. McCain being their nominee. Just 9 months later, the United States was shackled with President-Elect Obama’s disastrous economic policies.

Crist’s stock has fallen mightily since then. The minute he announced his intention to run for the open Florida Senate seat, John Cornyn and the NRSC endorsed him, expecting him to be the presumptive next senator from Florida.

Instead, Crist ran into a genuine rising star in the GOP in Marco Rubio. Despite his massive advantages in fundraising capabilities and statewide name recognition, Sen. Rubio crushed Crist.

Pretending to still be a national leader, Crist penned this op-ed to endorse President Obama:

We often remind ourselves to learn the lessons of the past, lest we risk repeating its mistakes. Yet nearly as often, our short-term memory fails us. Many have already forgotten how deep and daunting our shared crisis was in the winter of 2009, as President Obama was inaugurated. It was no ordinary challenge, and the president served as the nation’s calm through a historically turbulent storm.

The president’s response was swift, smart and farsighted. He kept his compass pointed due north and relentlessly focused on saving jobs, creating more and helping the many who felt trapped beneath the house of cards that had collapsed upon them.

He knew we had to get people back to work as quickly as possible — but he also knew that the value of a recovery lies in its durability. Short-term healing had to be paired with an economy that would stay healthy over the long run. And he knew that happens best by investing in the right places.

President Obama’s stimulus was directed at his biggest political allies, his campaign’s most prolific bundlers. The result was the worst economic recovery since FDR’s, the biggest annual deficits in our nation’s history and the worst economic future since the Great Depression.

President Obama owns the worst economic trifecta in US history: the biggest deficits, the worst regulatory overload and the bleakest economic outlook.

Economic growth in a second Obama term will be as dismal as they are now. Businesses won’t invest their capital because of this administration’s hostility towards capitalists. The ACA will continue to depress job creation. President Obama’s EPA will continue their attempt to kill the coal and natural gas industries.

The PEU bailouts included in the stimulus didn’t create jobs. The loans to President Obama’s most prolific bundlers didn’t create jobs at Solyndra. They just created the environment for the greatest electoral rebellion in recent history.

On Nov. 2, 2010, the American people booted the people out because they’d had enough of politics as usual.

Thanks to President Obama’s deficits, we can’t afford ‘cronyism as usual.’ Charlie Crist’s always been an unprincipled politician. Thanks to Sen. Rubio’s victory, he’ll be remembered as an unprincipled politician.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I just wrote about President Obama’s scorched earth campaign. Minutes later, I found this MoveOn.org video:

Here’s a partial transcript of the video:

MAN: Sabotage our economy, then blame Obama for it.
WOMAN: The GOP are doing things like starving states of funding, which are forcing massive layoffs, then criticizing Obama for those job losses.
MAN: Under Obama, Republicans are opposing things they used to be in favor of.

To the uninformed, these claims make Republicans sound like the most despicable people known to mankind. What’s sad is that there isn’t an ounce of truth in these claims.

First, Republicans didn’t sabotage the economy. President Obama’s agenda took a bad situation and made it worse for longterm economic growth. It’s indisputable that having his EPA run roughshod on the coal and natural gas industries hurts the US economy.

President Obama’s economic plan hasn’t varied from Day One of his administration. He’s advocated massive spending increases that the US can’t afford, harassing levels of regulations from the EPA, the NLRB and the Interior Department, followed by his belief in the ACA.

In fact, had the Supreme Court not ruled that the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional, states would’ve been hit with huge, federally mandated spending increases against their will.

Third, President Obama’s failures to put in place pro-growth economic policies are what’s starving states of money. Rather than change policies, President Obama tried hiding his failure with massive infusions of taxpayer money.

Fourth, Republicans are opposing things they supported in the past that We The People didn’t support or things that we simply can’t afford thanks to each trillion dollar Obama deficit.

Finally, MoveOn.org thinks it’s nefarious for a Republican senator to want to defeat the most liberal and most unqualified president in US history. It’s more than possible to work across the aisle. It hasn’t been possible with President Obama because he’s been totally obstinant.

He set the tone early in his administration when Republicans offered their suggestions for the stimulus. They didn’t expect to all of their things through. Rather than taking things from their suggestions, President Obama shut the conversation down, saying “I won.”

It’s impossible to work with a person that won’t waver even slightly from his ideological positions.

There’s only one option left for this election: Defeat President Obama and his Democrat enablers in Congress. Compromise isn’t in Harry Reid’s, Nancy Pelosi’s or President Obama’s vocabularies.

We’ve seen the results of President Obama’s policies. They’re holding the US economy back by attacking entire industries while taking control of the health insurance industry.

That’s why it’s time to fire this administration this November.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s apparent that President Obama will say anything to get re-elected. This time, it’s manifested by what he said in this interview:

In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama said Romney lacks serious ideas, refuses to “own up” to the responsibilities of what it takes to be president, and deals in factually dishonest arguments that could soon haunt him in face-to-face debates.

This morning, I wrote this article about Arne Duncan agreeing with Mitt Romney that class size isn’t as important as high quality teachers. That undercut President Obama’s claim that Mitt doesn’t understand education.

During his presentation to the House Republican retreat, President Obama called Paul Ryan’s budget proposal “a serious proposal”:

Now he’s attempting to say that his reckless spending, his terrible job creation history and his annual trillion dollar deficits are proof that he’s a serious man. That’s laughable.

Meanwhile, Mitt’s plan for energy independence is a serious, thoughtful plan. Mitt’s plan to rein in the EPA is exactly what’s needed to provide families with the inexpensive energy they need.

Mitt’s proposing tax reform to replace the antiquated tax system we currently have. President Obama wants to keep the current system in place with the exception of taxing the job creators for creating jobs. Apparently, President Obama doesn’t mind continuing ‘the best tax system lobbyists could buy’.

People are questioning President Obama’s economic policies. Since he can’t argue that his policies are serious, President Obama’s only option is to say that Mitt shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Simply put, that will fail because people see that the economy is terrible. More people went on disability in June than got jobs. Over 46,000,000 people are on food stamps. Over 23,500,000 people are unemployed, underemployed or have simply quit looking for work. That’s 15% of the workforce.

Each week, we’re lied to by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Stephanie Cutter about how President Obama’s policies are working. When that isn’t happening, Vice President Biden is accusing Republicans of being the racists that Democrats were in the 1950s and early 60s.

President Obama’s disgusting statements in Roanoke, VA on Friday, July 13 show how little he appreciates the risks people take.

With a history devoid of accomplishments, it isn’t surprising why President Obama is running a scorched earth campaign. It isn’t surprising that he’s running the most dishonest presidential campaign in recent campaign history.

That’s what corrupt politicians do when a) they’re abject failures and b) they’re trained in the corruption that’s known as the Chicago Way.

Here’s the checklist of questions people should answer before voting:

1) Do you want 4 more years of stagnant economic growth?
2) Do you think 4 more years of destructive regulations will help economic growth?
3) Should we have 4 more years of the NLRB telling companies like Boeing that they can’t build new production facilities where they want to build new production facilities?
4) Do you want expensive electric bills and higher gas and grocery prices?
5) Is the ACA the type of health care reform you want?
6) Do you want to pay the tax increases included in the ACA?

Simply put, President Obama’s policies are killing economic growth. We can’t afford 4 more years of his failed policies.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There’s no doubt but that Devin Henry’s post has all the makings of a much-ado-about-nothing post. Henry’s post (surprise, surprise) talks about how the DFL and several superPACs are trying to tie Todd Akin to the GOP:

Before this week, abortion, the hottest of America’s hot-button social issues, has been on the back-burner ahead of this fall’s elections. That changed on Sunday when Todd Akin, the Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri, told a journalist that “legitimate” rapes rarely result in pregnancy. The comment ignited a firestorm around Akin, whose own party now insists he drop out of the race, and it led politicos on both sides of the issue to dust off their talking points for the first meaningful time this year.

The DFL will attempt to tie Michele Bachmann, John Kline, Erik Paulsen and Chip Cravaack to Todd Akin. I invite them to waste time on the subject. It’ll show people how out of touch they are.

First, the only people that will tie Akin to anyone are already committed to voting for DFL candidates. Once the conventions start, America’s focus will be on President Obama’s disastrous economic policies.

Second, Todd Akin’s statements are Todd Akin’s statements. They aren’t John Kline’s or Erik Paulsen’s.

The DFL is attempting to tie Republicans’ votes to Rep. Akin:

Those who are talking about it, though, are Democrats running for the House, including those in Minnesota, who quickly note that most of the chamber’s Republicans sided with the now-toxic Akin on a string of abortion votes taken this session.

The DFL is treating GOP legislators’ votes on pro-life issues like it’s breaking news. It isn’t breaking news. In terms of news, in fact, it doesn’t register even a blip on the political radar screen.

That isn’t preventing some superPACs from acting foolishly:

CREDO is also targeting Cravaack, and the same things for which MCCL praises him, voting to defund Planned Parenthood, etc., are among the group’s biggest complaints about him. Spokeswoman Malinda Frevert called him “the Todd Akin of the Minnesota 8th District.”

That’s the type of overheated statement that people tune out. They’ve gotten to know Chip Cravaack as a reasonable person. Only fringers will buy into CREDO’s comments.

This shows how little CREDO knows about the Eighth District. The Eighth District has a significant pro-life population. CREDO telling Eighth District voters that Chip is pro-life is doing him a favor.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Something that would dramatically improve in a Romney administration is U.S. energy independence. President Obama has done his utmost to shut down fossil fuel exploration and production in the United States.

He’s begged the Saudis to increase oil production. He’s told Brazil that he wants the U.S. to be Brazil’s best customer:

A Romney administration wouldn’t be like the Obama administration. A Romney administration would tap America’s energy resources rather than begging other countries to increase their energy production.

When Mitt Romney laid out his vision for energy independence, he touched on something that few Americans have thought about:

President Obama has intentionally sought to shut down oil, gas, and coal production in pursuit of his own alternative energy agenda. Federal land open for exploration has declined nearly 20 percent on his watch, and the rate of permitting is down 37 percent. It now takes a shocking 307 days to receive the permits to drill a new well.

Compare that record to what states have achieved on the land under their supervision. States have crafted highly efficient and effective permitting and regulatory programs that address statespecific needs. The state of North Dakota can permit a project in ten days. Colorado does it in twenty-seven. Nor do these processes pose any greater environmental risks. To the contrary, from oil and gas and coal to wind and solar and biofuels, states are far better able to develop, adopt, and enforce regulations based on their unique resources, geology, and local concerns.

It takes the federal government 30 times longer to grant a permit than it takes North Dakota. That says everything about the militant environmentalists’ influence in DC.

It’s worth noting that people living DC don’t have skin in the game when it comes to protecting the environment in North Dakota. People living in North Dakota have to take environmental decisions seriously because their decisions affect their families immediately and directly.

It’s imperative that this paragraph from Gov. Romney’s executive summary gets highlighted:

The lease payments, royalties, and taxes paid to the American people in return for the development of the nation’s resources can yield literally trillions of dollars in new government revenue. Lower energy prices can ease the burdens on household budgets.

It isn’t just that cheaper energy prices benefit families directly. It’s that there’s a ripple effect. Cheaper electricity rates mean less stress on school districts’ budgets.

The truth is that cheap electric bills and gas prices have a proven multiplier effect throughout the economy.

For instance, taconite miners turned against Rep. Oberstar when he voted for Cap and Trade. They rightly saw it as killing the mining industry through expensive electricity rates. Without cheap electricity, these mines can’t compete.

There’s no arguing that inexpensive, plentiful energy drives prospering economies. That means lower unemployment and less expensive bills for families.

There aren’t more than a handful of politicians who’d be stupid enough to argue against inexpensive, plentiful energy. Unfortunately, the man who sits in the Oval Office is one who has argued for more expensive energy.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This morning, USA Today published Nancy Pelosi’s op-ed of incessant whining from the Queen of “We won” about Republicans saying no to President Obama’s agenda. Here’s an example of Pelosi’s whining:

With the economy weakening and two wars underway, there were significant policy differences between Democrats and the Bush White House. But from Day One, Democrats focused on moving our nation forward. Rather than set up roadblocks, we worked across the aisle with President Bush and many Republican colleagues.

The Democrats ignored the American people to the extent that they threw Democrats out after 4 years in the majority. It wasn’t a gentle nudge that sent the Democrats packing, either. The Democrats lost 63 seats in the 2010 midterms, the biggest loss for a political party in three quarters of a century.

One of the things that Ms. Pelosi thinks of as a major accomplishment is passing the ACA. People flocked to townhall meetings to express their disgust with the ACA in August, 2009. Ms. Pelosi’s puppets ignored the will of the people, especially women who hadn’t been interested in politics.

That’s what started the Momma Grizzly movement.

A majority of people, especially entrepreneurs, think it’s an albatross around their necks. That’s why they’re poised to throw President Obama from office.

Saying no to spending money on failed policies that reward President Obama’s political allies isn’t failure. It’s an accomplishment that they’ll be rewarded for this November.

To promote the industries of the future and safeguard national security, we enacted the comprehensive Energy Independence and Security Act, raising fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years, investing in renewables and biofuels while creating clean energy jobs. We followed up with the COMPETES Act to support high-tech jobs, extend math and science education and boost research.

Passing these green energy bills hasn’t lowered gas prices or electric bills. Many companies that got federally guaranteed loans through the stimulus went bankrupt.

Again, Republicans saying no to the failed policies of the past 4 years is a virtue. It isn’t failure.

The accomplishments of the Democratic Congress of 2007-09 demonstrate how Democrats worked with a Republican president to address serious issues despite partisan differences. It is a lesson not learned by the current Republican House leadership.

Ms. Pelosi is implying that House Republicans haven’t passed any bills. She’s implying through her teeth. Harry Reid is the do-nothing ‘leader’ who’s done nothing.

House Republicans have passed over 30 bills that would get our economy growing, starting with repealing the ACA. Until that bill is repealed, jobs won’t get created and the doctor shortage will continue.

Democrats, from this White House to Harry Reid’s Senate to Ms. Pelosi’s puppets, have shown a willingness to keep proposing more spending that won’t get the economy going.

President Obama’s policies have led to month after month of feeble job growth and shrinking GDP figures.

Saying no to failure is success. To retrofit Nancy Reagan’s phrase from the war on drugs to fit the Obama economy, just say no to President Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s failed policies.

With 23,500,000 people who are unemployed or underemployed or who’ve just quit looking for work, it’s indisputable that President Obama’s policies failed. With 46,000,000 people on food stamps, there’s no questioning that President Obama’s policies have failed.

Saying no to repeating this president’s failed policies is the patriotic thing to do.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,