Archive for the ‘Ryan Winkler’ Category

Minutes after Tim Walz withdrew from the endorsement fight, the DFL endorsed Erin Murphy to be their gubernatorial candidate.

This was an event-filled, tumultuous, convention. The first shock happened when unknown Matt Pelikan trailed DFL Attorney General Lori Swanson by just 5 points, with Swanson at 52.2% and Pelikan at 47.2% of the vote. Before they started the second ballot, Swanson pulled out, handing the endorsement to Pelikan. When Erin Murphy won the endorsement after Tim Walz withdrew from the endorsement race, rumors started swirling that Swanson might jump into the DFL gubernatorial primary instead of fighting through the DFL AG primary.

Meanwhile, another rumor has it that Ryan Winkler will run in the DFL AG primary if Swanson opts for the DFL gubernatorial primary. If AG Swanson runs in the AG’s primary, she’d probably win. If she runs in the gubernatorial primary, her chances of winning drop significantly. In both instances, though, her chances of winning the general election aren’t that great, though they’d be better if she ran for AG.

As for Murphy’s chances, they aren’t good. If she defeats Tim Walz, she’ll only do so by running far to Walz’s left. Single-payer health care isn’t popular in Minnesota. People didn’t trust MNsure. They definitely won’t trust single-payer. Further, it’s quite possible that she’ll lose to Tim Walz while pushing him farther left than Walz can afford to go to win the general election.

Murphy’s victory makes life difficult for Chairman Martin because it’s dragging the supposed frontrunner farther left than Martin wanted. Next, whoever wins will have gotten dragged so far left that it’ll be virtually impossible to win in November, mostly because Murphy is a hostile environmental activist. To win, she’ll have to alienate miners and union construction workers like pipefitters. Think heavy equipment operators, too.

This isn’t the script the DFL wanted written at convention-end. Most likely, they’ll have primaries in Tina Smith’s seat, the open Nolan seat, the possibly open State AG seat and the governor’s race. It’s the exact opposite of what Chairman Martin hoped for.

Finally, this situation virtually guarantees a Republican governor in November. Add to that the likelihood of Republicans winning the auditor’s race and the definite possibility of Republicans winning the AG race, coupled with the strong likelihood of maintaining their majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate and you’re looking at a pretty difficult year if you’re Chairman Martin. That’s before mentioning the likelihood of winning the First and Eighth U.S. Congressional districts.

This year, Minnesota has none of the makings of a blue wave.

Ryan Winkler has a reputation for saying controversial things. In June, 2013, Winkler took to Twitter to tweet about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act. That morning, Winkler tweeted “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.” Rather than quitting there, Winkler replied, saying “I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he said.

Winkler was then a rising star in the DFL. I think that label is pretty much gone after reading this article. Twin Cities blogger and conservative activist Chad the Elder got into an exchange with Winkler over Charlottesville. Winkler started by saying “Nazism only stood for one thing. Communism has meant different things in different place at different times, not just Stalin. Not the same.” Chad replied, saying “Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ceausescu, Honecker, North Korea…Stop me when I reach what you consider good communism.”

Had Winkler stopped there, he might’ve limited the damage. Unfortunately for him, he didn’t stop there. Instead, Winkler asked this question:

Do you disagree that the Soviets were the lesser of two evils for us from 1940-45?

Anders Koskinen of Alpha News wrote “In a series of tweets stemming from recent actions by white supremacists’, Minnesota attorney general candidate and former State Rep. Ryan Winkler appeared to defend communism late Monday night. In light of white supremacists and Nazis being fired for their views, Twitter user ChadTheElder questioned whether the same standard would be applied to Communists, since that ideology is also responsible for horrific atrocities on the scale of Nazism.”

It’s apparent that Winkler is a loose cannon who hasn’t learned the first rule of holes. Instead of getting into a hole, then stopping digging, Winkler keeps digging. Here’s hoping he’s the DFL-endorsed candidate for State Attorney General.

According to this KSTP article, the Republican Party of Minnesota is terminating a “social media manager” is being fired for referring to a “Negro problem” on Twitter. Predictably, DFL Party Chair Ken Martin called the comments “racist and bigoted”. Martin expressed outrage even though the person who published the tweet is getting terminated.

Rather than defending that offensive comment, I’ll simply highlight the fact that the DFL doesn’t have the right to take the moral high ground on this issue. I wrote this post after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act. It’s helpful to highlight the fact that the DFL has racists, too. That’s because Rep. Ryan Winkler was a rising star in the DFL up until that morning. Prior to the morning that the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Rep. Winkler was a leading candidate for Secretary of State. After that ruling, Winkler thought he’d get a little cute with his tweets. That’s why he published this tweet:

Winkler thought that it was clever to call Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Thomas.” When Winkler graduated from college, his degree was in history. That’s noteworthy because Winkler’s non-apology apology said that he didn’t “did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it.” Nobody with common sense believes that Winkler didn’t know that Uncle Tom was a pejorative.

Shortly after posting that tweet, Rep. Winkler issued a statement saying that he was withdrawing his name from consideration to be the DFL-endorsed candidate for Secretary of State. Since then, Rep. Winkler resigned from the legislature.

The point is that the DFL is just as capable of being a bigot as the Republicans are.

I’m jumping for joy over Ryan Winkler’s impending resignation from the House of Representatives:

Fifth-term Rep. Ryan Winkler of Golden Valley said he will resign this summer and move to Brussels. The Harvard-educated lawyer said his wife, Jenny, landed a new executive position with an international hotel chain that is owned by a Minnesota company.

I’d like to personally thank Rep. Winkler’s wife for removing that particular pain from my backside. I’m more than grateful.

In the Legislature, Winkler revels in jabbing Republicans with unrelenting, sharp-tongued rhetoric.

“I’m going to miss things like passing the minimum wage increase far more than I’m going to miss the back and forth in the Legislature,” Winkler told The Associated Press, adding that his wife’s opportunity was too big to pass up. “I’d rather have a great experience with my family than argue with Republicans all day.”

That’s understandable. In the legislature and committee, he frequently got his ass handed to him in debates. While Rep. Winkler was irreverent, he wasn’t particularly smart. The difference showed up in June, 2013:

His penchant for a good zinger sometimes got the best of him. Winkler apologized in 2013, for a tweet criticizing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as “Uncle Thomas” that drew national attention and cries of racism. He said it wasn’t intended to be racially derogatory.

I wrote this post to highlight Rep. Winkler’s disgusting action. Here’s what he initially tweeted:

Here’s Rep. Winkler’s ‘apology’:

“I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he said.

Here’s what I said then:

That’s BS. Rep. Winkler graduated with a B.A. in history from Harvard University in 1998. If Rep. Winkler thinks that we’ll buy the fact that he didn’t learn about Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s classic from 1852, he’d better think again.

Good riddance. Minnesota is getting rid of a first class jerk.

Rep. Ryan Winkler’s op-ed is his usual blast of BS. Check this out:

Minnesota Republicans are putting state government up for sale to the highest bidder, and Rep. Heintzeman is one of the auctioneers. Rep. Heintzeman recently voted to eliminate Minnesota’s anti-corruption campaign laws, including spending limits for all candidates in state elections. He also removed lobbyist contribution limits, enabling campaigns to be fully funded by lobbyists and special interest groups.

We should be increasing campaign finance disclosure and making it easier for the public to trust state government, but Rep. Heintzeman has instead put forward a corrupt payoff to his corporate backers who spent record amounts in the last election. Rep. Heintzeman’s first vote this session was to keep corporate campaign cash hidden, and since then he voted to defeat the same measure half a dozen times. In the same bill that allows corporate special interests to run away with our elections, Rep. Heintzeman is also giving himself an increase in his own housing allowance. This type of self-interest and service to corporate allies does not benefit Minnesotans.

That’s insulting. The DFL shoved the unconstitutional child care unionization bill down child care providers throats, ignoring the (mostly) women who run these in-home child care centers who lobbied at the Capitol during the last weekend of the 2013 session. The DFL, led on that issue by Mike Nelson, told the women lobbying against the bill that the unions’ wish list was a higher priority than listening to their constituents.

The DFL ignored the corruption happening at Community Action of Minneapolis, too:

The Star Tribune first reported Sunday that a state audit found that leaders of the organization misspent more than $800,000 in taxpayer money on travel, a celebrity cruise, spa visits and even a personal car loan for its chief executive.

Community Action later shut down without the DFL uttering a peep about their corruption. This isn’t hypothetical corruption, either. It’s documented corruption. Where was Rep. Winkler when this real corruption was happening?

The corruption that Rep. Winkler is talking about is perceived corruption. There’s no proof that legislators are engaging in quid pro quo deals. Until he has verifiable proof supporting his accusations, Rep. Winkler should keep his mouth shut or expect to get highlighted as a mean-spirited partisan who isn’t that interested in the truth.

Mary Lahammer interviewed Ryan Winkler for last night’s Almanac. During that brief interview, Rep. Winkler gave us the DFL’s mantra for the next 2 years:

REP. WINKLER: Divided government and gridlock and the type of divisiveness that we’re already starting to see is not the way we move ahead and they’re going to send Democrats back in to get things done.

That’s stunning. The new legislature hasn’t even been sworn in and Rep. Winkler thinks he’s Carnac. Before the first bill is submitted, Rep. Winkler thinks that Republicans are being divisive and sowing the seeds of gridlock. That’s world class chutzpah.

A couple themes are developing already. First, Paul Thissen is questioning whether Republicans will stand up to their big corporate special interests:

Will Republicans be willing to stand up to their big Twin Cities corporate donors and make sure to continue DFL investments in education that are closing the funding gap between rural and suburban school districts rather than handing out corporate tax breaks?

As I wrote here, that’s what chutzpah looks like. First, Republicans didn’t propose any tax breaks for corporations. Thissen knows that. Thissen doesn’t care because the DFL’s communications aren’t based in honesty. The DFL specializes in repeating outright lies. Second, Thissen and the DFL didn’t fight for Main Street.

When it was time to fight for miners on the Iron Range, the DFL didn’t.
When it was time to fight for women operating in-home child care businesses, Thissen & the DFL sided with AFSCME instead.
When it was time to fight for small businesses in outstate Minnesota, Thissen and the DFL raised their taxes instead.

Rep. Winkler, I’ve had enough of your dishonesty and chutzpah. I’m especially disgusted with your reckless assumptions. It’s reckless and dishonest to accuse Republicans of being divisive a month before the 2015 legislative session has even started. Further, it’s dishonest to say that Republicans having honest policy disagreements with the DFL is automatically considered gridlock.

That’s a clever Alinskyite tactic but it’s deceitful. Before the DFL started employing Alinskyite tactics, expressing honest policy disagreements on the House floor or in committee were what’s known as debates.

Further, it’s dishonest and deceitful to think that all DFL ideas are great solutions to Minnesota’s problems or that Republicans’ ideas are automatically doomed to failure. If Rep. Winkler honestly thinks that, then he’s a narcissist who thinks of himself as intellectually superior.

Considering the fact that he once called a black man an “Uncle Thomas”, then insisted that he didn’t know that that was a pejorative term, there’s reason to think that he’s just a lefty bomb thrower who’s prone to shooting his mouth off.

During the 2013 session, the DFL voted to hurt some small businesses with major tax increases and hurt other small businesses with forced unionization. Repeatedly, the DFL showed their hostility with small businesses. Many of the businesses hurt with the DFL’s tax increases were in outstate Minnesota.

Despite those indisputable facts, the DFL is insisting that disagreeing with them leads to gridlock that hurts Minnesotans. The DFL’s policies are what hurt Minnesotans. No catchy, dishonest mantra will change that truth.

The DFL must see the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, as utterly annoying. What other reason would the DFL have for pushing that’s already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? This language from HF1944 looks familiar:

Subdivision 1. Electioneering communication. (a) “Electioneering communication” means a communication distributed by television, radio, satellite, or cable broadcasting system; by means of printed material, signs, or billboards; or through the use of telephone communications that:
(1) refers to a clearly identified candidate;
(2) is made within:
(i) 30 days before a primary election or special primary election for the office sought by the candidate; or (ii) 60 days before a general election or special election for the office sought by the candidate; (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate; and (4) is made without the express or implied consent, authorization, or cooperation of, and not in concert with or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or a candidate’s principal campaign committee or agent.
(b) If an electioneering communication clearly directs recipients to another communication, including a Web site, on-demand or streaming video, or similar communications, the electioneering communication consists of both the original electioneering communication and the communication to which recipients are directed and the cost of both must be included when determining if disclosure is required under this section.

McCain-Feingold, aka the BCRA, prohibited certain types of speech 30 days before a primary election and/or 60 days before the general election. Here’s the relevant part of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling:

The statute is underinclusive; it only protects a dissenting shareholder’s interests in certain media for 30 or 60 days before an election when such interests would be implicated in any media at any time.

Here’s another important part of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. the FEC:

Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”

Despite that clear ruling, the DFL insists on pushing a bill that includes provisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional. It isn’t just that they’ve ruled these provisions unconstitutional, either. It’s that they said future legislation had to pass strict scrutiny, which is described like this:

subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”

The DFL knows that this is an extra-high hurdle that they likely can’t overcome. What’s disturbing is that the DFL isn’t hesitating in writing legislation that violates people’s rights to participate in the political process.

This is the definition of shameful, too:

Question: Why do Democrats hate certain types of political speech?

Technorati: SCOTUS, Citizens United, First Amendment, Constitution, Political Speech, Censorship, Al Franken, Katie Sieben, Jim Carlson, John Marty, Kent Eken, Steve Simon, Laurie Halverson, Ryan Winkler, Connie Bernardy, John Persell, Democrats, DFL, Elections, Election 2014

When it comes to highlighting liberals’ wrongheaded economic thinking, nobody’s been better at it than Milton Friedman. This video is a great example of Friedman’s wisdom:

Friedman’s wisdom on the subject of minority education is playing out in big cities daily. First, Friedman said that nothing traps young people in poverty more than underperforming “government schools.” That’s being verified by the fact that the DC Opportunity Scholarship program has far more minority applicants than scholarships. The documentary “Waiting for Superman” highlights parents as they attempt to rescue their children from government schools by getting them into charter schools. In St. Paul, a healthy portion of the families wanting their children in charter schools are minority parents.

Time after time, minorities are hurt by government schools. What’s worst is that the teacher unions and Democrat politicians protect bad schools. New York City is famous for its Rubber Room:

Educators accused of breaking rules, abusing kids, or simply failing to provide students with a decent education, will be paid a stunning $22 million by the city this year for doing absolutely nothing.

Charter schools aren’t restricted by union rules, which gives them more latitude to innovate. Charter schools can get rid of underperforming teachers quickly, something government schools can’t do.

Here in Minnesota, Republicans included a Basic Skills Test requirement in the Omnibus Education Bill that Gov. Dayton signed. This year, with the DFL running state government from A to Z, Democrats repealed the Basic Skills Test requirement. It wasn’t surprising that Gov. Dayton didn’t hesitate in signing the requirement’s repeal.

The message that sends to teachers is that competence isn’t required, that a union card is what’s important. That cheats students by telling parents, students and teachers alike that union membership is more important than high quality teachers.

Friedman also explains why increasing the minimum wage hurts minorities. Mitch Berg’s post highlights why increasing the minimum wage is actually keeping unemployment high:

The inevitable result of across-the-board minimum wage hikes? Fewer minimum wage jobs.

Case in point; as minimum wages around the country rose during the 2000s, McDonalds started pre-cooking its hamburger patties, so they’d only need to be reheated in the stores. This got rid of most of the traditional “burger-flipper” jobs, the ones that liberals sneered at but provided hundreds of thousands of opportunities for teens and others entering and re-entering the workforce to learn how to show up for work on time and do a good job at something.

Democrats will argue that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t affect hiring. They’re wrong. It’s accurate to say that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t always affect unemployment. Democrats think businesses owe it to society to hire people. That’s wrongheaded thinking. Entrepreneurs hire people if they think it’ll makes them money. Period.

If hiring a person at minimum wage will hurt profits, businesses won’t hire people. It’s that simple. The benefit must exceed the expense. If it doesn’t, unemployment is the result. It’s that simple regardless of what Rep. Winkler and other Democrats say.

The move is designed to boost efficiency and make ordering more convenient for customers. In an interview with the Financial Times, McDonald’s Europe President Steve Easterbrook notes that the new system will also open up a goldmine of data. McDonald’s could potentially track every Big Mac, McNugget, and large shake you order. A calorie account tally at the end of the year could be a real shocker.

The touch screens will only accept debit or credit cards, adding to the slow death knell of cash and coins. This all goes along with an overall revamp of McDonald’s restaurants worldwide aimed at projecting a modern image as opposed to the old-fashioned golden arches…

While it’d be pushing it to say that McDonalds is installing these touch-screen ordering kiosks because of the minimum wage, it isn’t a stretch to say that installing those kiosks will help McDonalds avoid dealing with minimum wage employees. Rep. Winkler isn’t interested in increasing the minimum wage to help the working poor. He’s interested in it because many union wages are based on the minimum wage.

Limiting government’s size and influence isn’t just an ideology. It’s a time-tested method for ushering in lengthy periods of prosperity. Capitalism is still the greatest weapon in fighting poverty and creating upward mobility.

Tags: Milton Friedman, Free Market Capitalism, Charter Schools, Upward Mobility, Prosperity, Conservatism, Minimum Wage, Ryan Winkler, Government Schools, Rubber Room, Union Protection, Waiting For Superman, DC Opportunity Scholarships, Liberalism

When MSNBC’s Chuck Todd mocked President Obama for his latest pivot to jobs, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent took umbrage via Twitter:

Genuinely sad to see supposedly neutral news orgs mocking the idea of a “pivot” to jobs.

First, was MSNBC ever a “neutral news org?” Apparently, it is in Greg Sargent’s opinion. That should tell us everything we need to know about Sargent’s opinions. Thankfully, others pounced on Sargent’s tweets. Here’s one from DCDude1776:

LOL! You haven’t noticed the pattern? Poll #s sink—> pivots to economy E-V-E-R-Y T-I-M-E

Here’s something more from Richard Grenell:

It’s just that he’s pivoted all the way around

Is it just me or does it seem like President Obama has pivoted to jobs more often Anthony Weiner holds press conferences admitting he’s been sexting again? The thing about pivoting is that it causes people to go in circles, which is what the economy is doing. Growing at 1% (roughly) per year isn’t how to build the middle class.

Let’s focus on some economic realities. First, it’s impossible to strengthen the middle class when we’re turning into a part-time nation. Last month’s job report said businesses created 195,000 job. Then it said that 240,000 full-time jobs were lost and that 360,000 part-time jobs were created.

Economists attributed this to President Obama’s ACA. Employers aren’t hiring full-time workers because of the PPACA. Increasingly, they’re hiring part-time employees instead. If the PPACA continues to be the law of the land, we’ll continue to turn into a part-time nation.

President Obama can’t point to an impressive growth spurt on his watch. That’s because his economic plan isn’t geared toward growth. It’s geared towards creating a European stagnation economy.

In the 1992 debates, Bill Clinton said, rightly, that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. With a stagnant economy, lackluster job growth and an obvious culprit to blame for all this, you’d think President Obama would quit insisting that his plan is working. Unfortunately, he’s so arrogant that he won’t accept reality.

The nation is a mess. His policies have failed repeatedly. Part-time employment is increasing. Full-time employment is either shrinking or stagnating. That isn’t the recipe for success. It’s the pathway to failure. For altogether too many Americans, Obamanomics has led to chronic failure.

I’ll summarize things by citing Sen. Ted Cruz’s tweet comparing Reaganomics with Obamanomics:

Reaganomics: Start a business in your parents’ garage.
Obamanomics: Move into your parents’ garage.

Republicans, it’s time to tell this president that his economic policies are a total disaster and that it’s time to start with new, pro-growth policies before it’s too late.

Tags: Barack Obama, Great Stagnation, Great Recession, Democrats, Chuck Todd, MSNBC, Greg Sargent, Washington Post, Media Bias, Twittersphere, Ted Cruz, Reaganomics, Jobs, Capitalism, Conservatism

While trying his best to put out the fire caused by his tweet calling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rep. Winkler’s attempt at damage control is pathetic at best. Based on his quote in this article, Rep. Ryan Winkler doesn’t think people should judge him by words he said were made in haste:

Asked if he believes his use of the term on social media will hurt his future political career, he said: “I don’t know. I hope people judge people on the merits of what they do in public office and not on the firestorm of a term that is used hastily but with no malintent.”

The thing is that most of Rep. Winkler’s statements are flippant, spur-of-the-moment comments. Few of his statements are thoroughly thought through. Few of his statements are taken seriously in terms of policy. That type of statement is part of his hit-and-run tactics of communicating. (Some might say he’s better at agitating than at communicating.)

Still, that isn’t the most cringe-worthy statement in the article. This is:

Winkler, who had been considering a bid for secretary of state, has called off his plans. He said it was a decision he made before “Uncle Thomas” started trending on Twitter and making headlines around the country, although not one he had voiced publicly.

I can smell the stench from that BS in St. Cloud, which is amazing considering it was made in St. Louis Park, more than 50 miles away.

The reality is that Rep. Winkler’s tweet ended Rep. Winkler’s bid for higher office in the future. I don’t think Rep. Winkler hates minorities, though I agree with much of what Michelle Malkin wrote in this article:

This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.

While I don’t think Rep. Winkler hates people of color, I think he’s been exposed as a less-than-serious politician who lives by the code ready — fire — aim.

Rep. Winkler can now join Tarryl Clark in living in anonymity after supposedly being the DFL’s rising star.